Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law   Denmark through Greece

DENMARK

DENMARK-NEW ZEALAND: (1996) (Return ordered) A v A. The mother took the child to New Zealand. Lower Court order that the child not be return due to grave risk from charges of sexual abuse. The high Court overturned that decision and ordered the child returned to Denmark. The mother now appeals that decision to the Court of appeals. The mother's appeal is dismissed. Child ordered returned.

EGYPT

EGYPT-USA: (1994) (Motion failed) MEZO v ELMERGAWI and the SECRETARY of STATE. Ms. Mezo is the mother of two children taken to Egypt/Libya (Non Hague countries) by Elmergawi, the father. Ms. Mezo commenced this action to obtain an injunction ordering the Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, to perform his duties under the Hague Convention. Previous attempts had been denied. Motions to dismiss this motion are granted. (Mezo had no recourse because Egypt and Libya are not signatories of the Convention) EGYPT-USA: (1997) (Conviction upheld) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v AHMED AMERICA. This is an appeal by defendant of a convection for International Parental kidnapping. The father's appeal is denied. The appeals Court affirms the District Court's decision.

FINLAND

FINLAND-USA: (1996) (Return denied based on habitual residence, wrongful removal) HARSACKY v HARSACKY. Family moves to USA from Finland. The trial Court determined that the intent of the mother and father was to move to the USA. If so, there can not be a wrongful removal because the USA was the habitual residence. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision not to send the children to Finland.

FRANCE

FRANCE-AUSTRALIA: (1992) GAZI v GAZI FRANCE-CANADA: (1985) (Return denied) CHARMASSON v CHARMASSON, Mother takes child to Canada. Father applies for return to France under the convention provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act. Court refused return because Canada was not a party to the Convention when the original custody determination was made. FRANCE-HUNGARY: (1988) (Return ordered) Mother took child to Hungary. Father offered undertakings to the court. Court ordered child returned to France. Mother appealed. Appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision. FRANCE-ISRAEL: (1992) (Return ordered) TOURNAL v MECHOULAM. Mother takes child to Israel. Court orders the child returned to France, but places a stay for 7 days to allow the mother to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court up held the District courts order and dismissed the mother's application for a further stay. FRANCE-PUERTO RICO (USA): (1995) (Return denied) ("The concept of 'wavier' is not a recognized exception to the Convention") JOURNE v JOURNE. The mother took the children to Puerto Rico. Court ruled that they did not have to return the children to France because the father's dismissal of the French custody order was in effect a waiver of his rights under the Convention. (See Mr. Hiltons extensive footnotes) FRANCE-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) (Return denied) (Age of maturity) Mother takes child to England. Trial court declines to return the child. The court relied on the child's wishes, having reached an age of maturity. The father appealed the decision. The appeals court denied the appeal, referring to the "exceptional circumstances of the case" FRANCE-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) this case is the same as one above, FRANCE-ENGLAND: Re_S_(Age_&_Maturity).txt FRANCE-USA: (1991) d'ASSIGNIES v ESCALANTE. Father abducts the children within France. Mother abducts the children to US. Father abducts children back to France while hearing is going on. The court asks the Central Authorities of both countries to make every effort to bring about the immediate and prompt return of the children to California. The court asks the French authorities to return the children to the US so that the court can fulfill its obligations under the treaty. (See next case) FRANCE-USA: (1991) (Return ordered) TYSZKA v TYSZKA. Father takes the children to USA. The court orders the children returned to France. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) (See below) FRANCE-USA: (1992) (return ordered) ESCALANTE v D'ASSIGNIES. The French court ruled that the American courts did have jurisdiction over the children. They ordered the mothers appeal be granted and ordered the children returned to their mother. FRANCE-USA: (1993) (Return ordered on appeal) TYSZKA v TYSZKA. This is a further clarification of the above case, Tyszka v Tyszka. FRANCE-USA: (1993) (Return denied) (13b) SHAMEE v SHAMEE, The court said it could not order the return of the child even though there was a wrongful removal due to grave risk. They ordered a mental examination. Child is not returned and will remain with the mother. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) FRANCE-USA: (1993) (Return denied, 13b, Grave risk) WRIGHT v GUERIEL. The father's request for return to New York, USA were denied. FRANCE-USA: (1995) (Return ordered) HEMARD v HEMARD. Mother takes child to Texas in the USA. Court orders the child returned to France. FRANCE-USA: (1995) (Return ordered) SHAFFER v SHAFFER, Mother takes child to USA. Father filed for return to France under the Hague Treaty. Court ordered the return of the child to France. Mother appeals. Return of the child is upheld, appeal denied. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) FRANCE-USA: (1995) PREVOT v PREVOT. The Mother took the children from France to Tennessee, USA. This is on appeal from the District Court. The District Court ordered the children to returned to France. The father is a fleeing felon, which the District Court found irrelevant. The Court of Appeals issued a stay of the District Courts order, pending appeal. The Court stated that the District Court should have invoked the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine". The Court reversed the district courts order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. FRANCE-USA: (1996) (Lower courts decision was affirmed) (Are decisions of the US courts binding in foreign courts?) QUINN v SETTEL. Parents were sharing the child. Father was the first not to return the child to USA. The mother got the child back and then refused to return the child to France . Father filed in US court. The trial judge set up a visitation schedule which the mother appealed. The Appeals Court upheld the Trial Court's decision. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) FRANCE-USA: (1996) (Return ordered on appeal) BRENNAN v CIBAULT. Mother and father were sharing custody and had agreed share the child jointly, with each parent getting six months with the child. However, the father applied for custody in the US. The mother applied for return to France under the Hague Treaty. The family court ruled that France was not the habitual residence and denied return. On appeal, the child was ordered returned to France. FRANCE-USA: (1997) (Return denied) (settled in) WOJCIK v WOJCIK. Mother took the children to the United States. The father applies for the return under the Hague Treaty. The court denies return, claming that the mother has "shown by a preponderance of evidence that the children were settled in their new environment". (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) FRANCE-USA: (1998) (Return denied, 13b) BLONDIN v DUBOIS. Mother brings the children to the USA from France. Father applies for their return under the Hague Convention and ICARA. The Court found "by clear and convincing evidence that there is a 'grave risk' that return of the children to France would 'expose' them to 'physical or psychological harm'". The court declines to order the children returned to France. (See Mr. Hilton's footnotes) (See next case) FRANCE-USA: (1999) (Case sent back to the District Court for further consideration) BLONDIN v DUBOIS, This is an appeal of the District Courts decision not to return the children to France. The Judgment of the District Court is vacated and remanded back to the Trial Court for further consideration of remedies that would protect the children and still allow their return. FRANCE-USA: (2000) BLONDIN v DEBOIS. BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUPPORTING PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND SUPPORTING REVERSAL. FRANCE-USA: (2000) (Return ordered, affirmed on appeal) (Undertakings) MOTTS v FURLANIS. Mother takes the child to France against the order of the California court not to remove the child from California. Father files for return under the Hague Convention. Lower court orders the return, mother appeals. The appeals court orders the return, but undertakes that the father promises to take the daughter to France four times a year to visit with the mother. FRANCE-USA: (2001) SAICH v TAZI. (Return ordered after six years) (Tolling of Time) The father removes the children from France and hid them from 1994 until found. The court found the respondent's active concealment of the children's whereabouts is the reason for the passage of time between removal and discovery and that the one year under the Convention's Article 12 is Tolled (Also see Lops v Lops for tolling of time) FRANCE-USA (2001) (Return denied) (Grave Risk) (Age of Maturity) BLONDIN v DEBOIS. This case is on appeal form a decision of the U.S. District Court. The father contends that the children should be returned to France. The District Court found that "repatriation under any circumstances would subject the children to post- traumatic stress disorder and, therefore, would create a "grave risk of psychological harm" under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention". The decision of the District Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

GERMANY

GERMANY-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) (Return denied) H v H. Mother took children to Germany. British courts ordered the children returned to Germany in 1991. The father files in Germany for the return of the children to England. The German courts deny the petition for return. They cite a report from the Welfare Officer, Children were interviewed, and the court requested a psychological report. This decision seems to be contra to the vast majority of decisions in most other Hague countries. GERMANY-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) (return denied on appeal) (Acquiescence) Child is taken to England. Child is ordered returned by the lower court. Mother appeals, appeal allowed. The case was sent to the "High Court for consideration whether the child should or should not be returned to the jurisdiction of the German courts". The appeals court decision runs contra to the Convention. (see Mr. Hilton's footnotes) GERMANY-UNITED KINGDOM: (1992) (Return denied on appeal) This is the decision of the appeals court for the above case, Intra3_uk.txt. GERMANY- UNITED KINGDOM-USA: (1997) (Diplomatic Immunity) The Father is a US national, The Mother is a German national. The father is a senior diplomat in the service of the United States. The mother fears that the father will remove the children to the US. The mother, however, wishes to take the children to Germany. The judge rules the father has diplomatic immunity and that the mother is debarred from arguing her case in the English courts. GERMANY-UNITED KINGDOM-USA: (1998) (Appeal dismissed) (declarations) Same case as above. Mother has petitioned the court in Virginia for an order of return of the children under the Convention. The mother has sought a declaration from the English courts that the removal of the children from England had been wrongful. The Court had determined that the father had State based immunity which meant that the request for a declaration was dismissed. It is that decision that the mother now appeals. The appeal is dismissed. GERMANY-USA: (1991) (Return denied) FRIEDRICH v FRIEDRICH. Mother removes child from Germany. Father applies for return under the Hague Treaty and ICARA. The return is denied. (See next case) GERMANY-USA: (1992) (court ruled it did not have jurisdiction) (Child abuse, jurisdiction) L.H. v Youth Welfare Office of Wiesbaden, R.B. and A.B. The child, which is the focus of this case is in Germany in the protection of the Youth Welfare Office. The mother seeks an order of this court awarding her sole custody of her infant daughter. The court finds that they do not have jurisdiction and that all matters should be before the German courts. GERMANY-USA: (1992) (Return denied based on report from The Social Welfare Office) B v B. Mother takes child to Germany, Father requests the return under the Hague Convention. Return is denied based on views of Social Welfare Officer. This decision runs contra to the intent of the Convention. (See Mr. Hilton's footnote for contrasting decision for a child of the same age) GERMANY-USA: (1993) (Lower court reversed, remanded back) FRIEDRICH v FRIEDRICH. This is an appeal of the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The appeals reversed the district courts ruling and "remand the case for a determination of weather, under German law, Mr. Friedrich was exercising or would have exercised but for the removal, and for any consideration of any affirmative defenses that Mrs. Friedrich might raise". GERMANY-USA: (1993) (Return denied) (Habitual residence) PONATH v PONATH. The mother returned to the US with the child. The father filed for the child's return under the Hague Treaty. The court ruled that the US was the place of habitual residence, not Germany. The court found that the mother had only agreed to go to Germany for a visit. The child was born in the US and the only connection to Germany was the visit. GERMANY-USA: (1993) (Return ordered) LEVESQUE v LEVESQUE. The father takes the child to US. Mother applies for the return under the Hague Treaty and ICARA. The court ordered the return to Germany. Germany is the habitual residence. The court also found that the mother did not acquiesce to the removal. GERMANY-USA: (1993) ( Return denied) (Habitual residence) SLAGENWEIT v SLAGENWEIT. The father brought the child with him when he returned from Germany with mothers consent . The child was returned to live with the mother. The mother requested help from the father, she wanted him to come to Germany and get the child because she was having trouble raising three children. Father did not come to Germany. The mother brought the child to live with the father. Mother files for return under the Hague Convention. Court denies the petition for return. The court ruled the habitual residence was Iowa. There was no wrongful removal. GERMANY-USA: (1994) (Return denied) (Custody rights in Germany) (Mother had a right to take child) LOOS v MANUEL. This case does not involve the parents of the child. The child in question, Thomas, is currently residing with his maternal grandmother in Union, NJ.The petitioners are Ute and Klaus Loos. Ute is the sister of another man, Bernd Karkoseh, the mother had a child with. The second child, Kjhara, is not a subject of this hearing. The petitioners want the court to order the child be returned to Germany. The court ordered that the child not be ordered back at this time. The court favored maintaining the present status. GERMANY-USA: (1994) (Return ordered, stayed for one week) CURRIER v CURRIER. Father takes children to USA. Mother requests return under the Hague Convention. Court orders the return of the children to Germany. Order was stayed one week to allow for appeal. GERMANY-USA: (1994) (Return denied) (No wrongful removal) FALLS v DOWNIE. Court found that the habitual residence of the child was not Germany and stated that "given this, neither the Convention nor ICARA applies and this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction" GERMANY-USA: (1994) (Return ordered, Order was stayed pending the following appeal) FRIEDRICH v FRIEDRICH. The court finds that the father did in fact have custodial rights to the child under German law. The court further found that the mother did not present clear and convincing evidence that returning the child would cause grave risk of psychological harm. (See extensive footnotes by Mr. Hilton) GERMANY-USA: (1994) (Return ordered) WANNINGER v WANNINGER. The mother brought the three children to the US for a visit that was to last six weeks. The mother, through a neighbor, informed the father she was not returning to Germany. After getting a ruling in the German courts that the mother did wrongfully retain the child in the US, the father applied in the US District court for the return of the children under the Hague Convention and ICARA. The Court ordered the return of the children to Germany. GERMANY-USA: (1995) (Child died, return moot) SLAGENWEIT v SLAGENWEIT. This is an appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, the child died unexpectedly. Because of the child's death, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for the child's return as moot and vacated the district Court's order for costs to the father. They remanded the case back to the District court with instructions to dismiss as moot. The District did this, but determined that the father was still the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding costs. The appeals Court affirmed the District courts decision. GERMANY-USA: (1996) (return ordered) FRIEDRICH v FRIEDRICH. This is the second time before the Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the decision of the District Court and order that the child was wrongfully removed from Germany and should be returned. The court also vacated the stay issued by the District Court. SIZE="-1" Note by DCT: the above case, Friedrich v Friedrich is often used as a guide to how the Hague Convention should work. Many courts refer to the decisions made in Friedrich v Friedrich. GERMANY-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) ROSENLEHNER v ROSENLEHNER. The mother brought the child to US to visit father. Father refused to allow the mother to return to Germany with the child. Mother files for return under the Hague Convention and ICARA. The court orders the child returned to Germany and to the mother. GERMANY-USA: (1996) (Return ordered) JOLIFF v JOLIFF. Court ordered the children returned to their father for return to the US. The court issued an order that force may be used if necessary to achieve compliance. The court further stated that if there was non-compliance, a fine might be issued by the court. GERMANY-USA: (1997) (Return ordered) LOPS v LOPS. This is the finding of facts, Conclusions of law of the District Court. The court ordered the return of the children to Germany. The decision was appealed. GERMANY-USA: (1997) (Return ordered) NICHOLSON v NICHOLSON. Father took child to US (Kansas). Mother applies for return under the Hague Convention and ICARA. Court orders the child returned to Germany and the mother. GERMANY-USA: (1997) (Motion of father granted) (Child was returned from Germany) MORTON v MORTON. Mother takes child to Germany from Utah. The father prevails in the Utah courts. Mother refuses to return child. Father applies for return under the Hague Treaty. Germany refuses first Hague application. Father obtains a determination under article 15 that the child's removal was wrongful under the Convention. Germany orders the return of the child. Mother appeals, appeal denied. This court granted the father's motion for summery judgement. The mother's motion for same is denied. GERMANY-USA: (1997) (Return denied) (13b) STEFFEN F. v SEVERINA P. Mother takes children to US. The father applies for the return under the Hague Convention. The Court found that there was proof of 'Bonding" with the mother and not with the father. They concluded that the mother has proven by "clear and convincing evidence that a grave risk of harm exists if the child is returned to Germany. The petition for return is denied at this time. GERMANY-USA-UNITED KINGDOM:(1997) (Diplomatic Immunity) The Father is a US national, The Mother is a German national. The father is a senior diplomat in the service of the United States. The mother fears that the father will remove the children to the US. The mother, however, wishes to take the children to Germany. The judge rules the father has diplomatic immunity and that the mother is debarred from arguing her case in the English courts. GERMANY-USA-UNITED KINGDOM: (1998) (Appeal dismissed) (declarations) Same case as above. Mother has petitioned the court in Virginia for an order of return of the children under the Convention. The mother has sought a declaration from the English courts that the removal of the children from England had been wrongful. The Court had determined that the father had State based immunity which meant that the request for a declaration was dismissed. It is that decision that the mother now appeals. The appeal is dismissed. GERMANY-USA: (1998) ( Return ordered on appeal) HARKNESS v HARKNESS. The mother applied for return of the children from Michigan, USA to Germany. The Circuit Court ordered their return. The case is on appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The appeals court affirmed the lower courts order to return the children to Germany. GERMANY-USA: (1998) (Return ordered on appeal, District courts decision upheld) LOPS v LOPS. Father and his mother take the children to US. Children are hidden for two and a half years. The mother applied for their return under ICARA and the Hague Convention. District court orders the children returned to Germany. Father and his mother appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court, the Circuit Court issues a stay pending a hearing. The Circuit Court affirmed the District courts order. The children returned to Germany. (See above case for district courts decision.) GERMANY-USA: (1999) (Age of consent) (Abstention) GERBATSCH v GERBATSCH the children went to Germany to visit with their father. Apparently the children did not want to return to the US. The mother applies to the German courts for their return. The court agreed that the children were detained in Germany in violation of a joint custody order issued in California and that under article 12 of the Convention the court must order the return. However the court found that the 10 year old had reached the age of maturity and denied the return. They held that since the parents had indicated that the children were not to be separated, they denied the return of the 7 year old as well. The denial was upheld on appeal. The father agreed to let the mother come for a visit with the children. The mother takes the children to Austria. The older child balked at being taken to the US so she was left in Austria and returned to the father. The mother takes the younger child to California. The father applies for her return under the convention. The court rules that the State court "is better able to adjudicate the matter" the father's petition was denied. GERMANY-USA: (1999) FRIEDRICH v THOMPSON (FRIEDRICH): The mother had kept the child here in the USA after a visit. The mother files a civil custody action in the State District court. The court gives the mother temporary custody and prohibits the removal of the child to Germany. GERMANY-USA: (1999) FRIEDRICH v THOMPSON (FRIEDRICH): Request for attorneys fees. Same case as above.

GREECE

GREECE-UNITED KINGDOM: (1995) (Return denied) GREEK FATHER v ENGLISH MOTHER. The father and mother both shared two residences, one in London, England and the other in Corfu, Greece. Both parents went to London for the winter and Corfu in the tourist season. The father went back to Corfu and the mother, unknown to the father did not follow, but rather stayed in London and started divorce proceedings. The father filed for return. The court ruled that the parents had in fact two habitual residences, London and Corfu. The court ruled that "concurrent habitual residence was a concept that could not fit in with the aims of the Convention". The court ruled that at the time of the alleged retention, the children were habitual residences of England. GREECE-USA: (1992) (This is not a Hague Case, extensive reference to UCCJA) IERONIMAKIS v IERONIMAKIS. The mother took the children to the US. The US court, after communication with the Greek court, ruled that the matter of custody was best heard in the Greek court. The Greek court ruled in the mother's favor and said the father would not get the children and the children would remain in the US. The US courts then gave custody to the mother with supervised visits to the father. The father files this appeal. The court affirmed the decree of dissolution, but reverse the custody decree. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction to implement the Greek custody decrees and to transfer custody if ordered by the Greek courts. (See footnotes by Mr. Hilton) GREECE-USA: (1996) (Return denied) (Exception for return under article 12) MEREDITH v BASDARAS. Father removes the children from Alaska, USA to Greece. This was involution of a court order not to remove the children from Alaska. The mother applies for their return. (After two years) The Greek court, when looking at settled in, ruled that to remove them from their father will create "bitterness and psychological wounds" the children were not returned. GREECE-USA: (1997) PANAZATOU v PANAZATOU. The court found that the habitual residence of the child was Greece. They also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to suggest a grave risk of psychological harm to the child if he was returned without the mother. The court attempted to arrange a conference call with a Greek judge to see if undertakings agreed to by the parties involved would be honored in Greece. GREECE-USA: (1999) (Return ordered on appeal) JANAKAKIS-KOSTUN v JANAKAKIS. This is an appeal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The lower court ordered the child returned to Greece. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's order to return the child to Greece. The mother took her appeals to the US Supreme Court. Justice Stevens denied mothers request for a stay pending appeal. The mother turned the child over to the father.