Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law   Argentina- through Austria Bahrain through Cyprus Denmark through Greece Hong Kong through Libya Malaysia- through Poland Scotland through Switzerland United Kingdom through Zimbabwe Index of all cases listed in Hiltonhouse.com   Listed in this section are case histories dealing with child abduction. William M. Hilton collected most of these case histories. I have supplied you with a direct link to each case history so that you may download a copy of any case that may assist you in the return of a child. Mr. Hilton is an expert on matters dealing with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Mr. Hilton has successfully litigated the return of many children under the Convention. If you have any additional questions for Mr. Hilton you may reach him at:   William M. Hilton,CFLS Attorney at Law Box 269 Santa Clara, CA 95052-0269 Phone: 408-246-8511 Fax: 408-246-0114 hilton34@hiltonhouse.com http://www.hiltonhouse.com   Many of the following cases have additional comments by Mr. Hilton that are relevant. The Committee for Missing Children is adding this section to our website as a means of consolidating the cases Mr. Hilton has collected by country. While we will add cases from other sources, this work is, for the most part, the result of Mr. Hilton's efforts, which are considerable. We hope this consolidation by country will make it easier to find the case law you require. If after reviewing this section you have further questions, please contact Mr. Hilton at the above listings.   If any one finds any errors please contact me at findthekids@compuserve.com or call 678-376-6265.   Decisions From The Courts Of Other Countries: Click on Search for Judicial Decisions. If you know the information about the case you want to access, fill in the information. If you want to search for a case, but do not have information, just click on search. Once you find a case you want to read or print out you must register. Click on the case you want to register. You may also enter a phrase such as "habitual residence" and it will retrieve all cases that use that phrase. You will have to play with this, but it has over 430 cases.   If you need to know the laws that implemented the Hague Convention in each country check out the report below   Hague Convention On International Child Abduction Applicable Law and Institutional Framework Within Certain Convention Countries, October 2000 Report for Congress June 2004, Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, An Analasys of the Applicable Law and Institutional Framework of 51 Jurisdictions and the European Law. "At the request of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Directorate of Legal Research of the Law Library of Congress is preparing a series of reports concerning the implementation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The purpose of these reports is to identify the applicable law and institutional framework within each of the Convention countries as an aid in understanding how the Convention is implemented by the nations that are party to this treaty".   Notes of interest:   HABITUAL RESIDENCE: WMH Comment: The issue of "Domicile" and "Habitual Residence" are frequent topics of discussions in cases involving The Hague Convention.Nearly all of the cases cite In Re Bates, No.CA 122.89, High Court of Justice, Family Div'n Ct. Royal Court of Justice, United Kingdom (1989). In Bates, the court held the following: "It is greatly to be hoped that the courts will resist the temptation to develop detailed and restrictive rules as to habitual residence, which might make it as technical a term of art as common law domicile. The facts and circumstances of each case should continue to be assessed without resort topresumptions or pre-suppositions". See also Friedrich v. Friedrich (6th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 1396   GRAVE RISK: Found in Friedrich v Friedrich (6th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 1060 at 1069: "[W]e believe that a grave risk of harm for the purposes of the Convention can exist in only two situations. First, there is a grave risk of harm when return of the child puts the child in imminent danger prior to the resolution of the custody dispute-- e.g. returning the child to a zone of war, famine, or disease. Second, there is a grave risk of harm in cases of serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional dependence, when the court in the country of habitual residence, for whatever reason, may be incapable or unwilling to give the child adequate protection."   Intolerable: "The word "intolerable" is so strong that by its very meaning and connotation it sets the hurdle high". ("S" (A Child) [UK 2002] Case No: B1/2002/0795 & 0801) ONE YEAR FILING DEADLINE: WMH Comment: It is to be noted that the mere making of the request for return to the Central Authority is not sufficient. An action must be commenced by the filing of a petition in the country where the child has been taken within one year of its removal from the child's habitual residence. Query: Is it possible to have this period stayed where the abducting parent had concealed the child for a period longer than a year? See Curtis v Curtis (Miss. 1990) 574 So.2d 24, 29-30   UCCJA: WMH Comment: The UCCJA is not a reciprocal law. See the Prefatory Note to the Master Addition of the UCCJA: "The Act is not a reciprocal law. It can be put into full operation by each individual state regardless of enactment of other states."   RIGHTS OF CUSTODY: Where wrongful retention was alleged, it needed to be established for the purpose of Art 3 of the Convention firstly, that at the time when the application was before the court, the retention must then be in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person under the law of the place where the child was habitually resident immediately before the retention.   ACCESS: WMH Comment: The plain language of The Convention states that steps shall be taken to ". . . make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access . . ." and that the Central Authority shall " . . . take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights [and] either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organizing or protecting these rights." The authority therefore exists in both The Convention and ICARA to implement access arrangements.   CONCEALMENT: WMH Comment: The ruling in MEREDITH v MEREDITH "appears to be the first case that holds that concealing a child does not cause the place of concealment to become the habitual residence of the child. (see a UCCJA case, CURTIS v CURTIS (Miss.1990) 574 So.2d 24 for a discussion of this point".