Child Abduction

You can avoid risking facing child abduction proceedings if you have a written agreement drawn up between you and your husband ,in Israel, which gives you the express ,legal right to return to Israel with the children,should you wish to do so. The agreement should be drafted by a lawyer specialising in international child custody disputes ,and would ,of course, use appropriate language to safeguard your interests. It should, preferably, be authorised at a family court in Israel before you leave Israel for Canada,to give it maximum legal force.

Such a carefully worded court authorised agreement would provide a clear defence if , for instance, you returned to Israel with the children,as you were entitled to, but,despite everything, your husband did try to bring child abduction proceedings in Israel ,to return the children to Canada. Israel and Canada are bound by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, and the agreement would be regarded as clear 'consent' on the part of your husband to the children returning to Israel and living here. Once clear consent is given,it cannot be taken back,and,as such, your husband's attempt to get a return order would be rejected.

Additionally, if the wording of the agreement were sufficiently professional, it would state that Israel was to remain the family's/children's country of habitual residence,despite the temporary move to Canada,and as such, your husband's plea would fail.

Accordingly, your husband would be prevented by the agreement from proving that you had wrongly removed the children from their country of habitual residence, as required ,in order to get a 'return order',as Israel,and not Canada,would be the children's country of habitual residence,and his prior consent had been given to the move -  in the court authorised agreement.

As  Israel and France are bound by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, you can apply for an order to return the children ,from France,where they are being wrongfully retained by their mother,against your will, to Israel,the country of their habitual residence. Wrongful retention of minors in a country where they are not habitually resident is recognised as an act of child abduction under the Convention . You are entitled to bring Hague Convention child abduction proceedings for their return.

The case will be heard in France,but much of the preparation of the file will need to be carried out in Israel. Although under the convention you are entitled to free legal representation by a lawyer overseas,in the proceedings in the appropriate French court, you would be advised to engage an Israeli lawyer,too,who specialises in child abduction. The latter should be able to assist in the preparation of affidavits and in obtaining vital evidence, from Israel, to build and strengthen your case . He/she would help prove your claims, and help disprove any defences claimed by your wife, and would work in conjunction with your lawyer overseas.

By invoking the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction which applies to alleged acts of international child abduction between Israel and Thailand since 1/11/03. You can start off the process in Israel but the proceedings will take place in Thailand and you will be appointed a lawyer by the Central Authority in Thailand ,created  under the convention, to represent you there.

Since 1/2/07 the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of child abduction applies to alleged international child abduction between Israel and the Ukraine. You can bring Hague Convention proceedings for the return of your son,who appears to have been 'wrongfully retained' in Israel by his mother, and ask the family court in Israel,which will hear the proceedings, for a return order.

No! You are not entitled to remain abroad with your children,against your husband's wishes. If you do so, you risk him bringing legal proceedings against you in the U.K., for their return to Israel, following their 'wrongful retention',an 'act of abduction' under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction,which binds both Israel and the U.K. Marital breakdown is no defence or excuse to child abduction,under this convention.

No! The management of a 'Hague Convention' child abduction case does not,in itself, give the Israeli family court dealing with it jurisdiction over proceedings such as child custody or maitnenance,where the family's place of habitual residence and centre of life is abroad. In practice, though, a parent who abducts a child to Israel may be inclined to start legal proceedings concerning the minor e.g. child custody and maintenance, in Israel.

However, according to section 16 of the Hague Convention (Return of Abducted Children) Act of 1991,where the left-behind parent brings Hague Convention proceedings in an Israeli family court, the latter must deal first of all with the abduction proceedings, and cannot deal with any other matters meantime. If the left-behind parent wins and a return order is granted, the court will not have jurisdiction to hear other files concerning the minor as in the Hague case it will have been established that the child's place of habitual residence was overseas,and not Israel.If, however, the left-behind parent fails to get a return order, and the minor is not returned abroad, then jurisdiction for other proceedings concerning him will lie in Israel.

No! While Israeli is a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction,Russia is not. You will have to bring proceedings directly n the Russian court proceedings, and cannot use the legal apparatus in Israel that applies to Hague Convention cases.

An urgent ex-parte court order can be applied for and obtained from the family court to prevent the baby being taken out of Israel,because of the threats and real risk that the father will attempt to abduct him, and travel abroad with him,without the mother's consent. As the minor has dual nationality and bears the father's surname, the father may attempt and even be able to get foreign travel documents for him,depending on the particular rules of the consulate involved. Once obtained, the court order can be registered with the Israeli Border Police.

Furthermore, as a further precautionary measure, your daughter should contact the relevant foreign embassy as the child is probably entitled to foreign citizenship through her father.Accordingly, there is the possibility of foreign travel documents being issued covering your grandchild,that might be used in an abduction attempt. You should update the foreign embassy and,in the circumstances, state your clear objection to any foreign passport or temporary travel document being issued for the child, at the father's request, and given to him.

No, not at all. Do not be confused by terminology. You have to prove that under Israeli law you have what is termed 'rights of custody' in terms of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. Visitation rights in Israel count as 'rights of custody' in Hague Convention child abduction proceedings. Thus you are able to initiate Hague proceedings for the return of your abducted children to Israel, even though  you are not the custodian.  Failure to give non-custodial parents this right to get their abducted minors back would make a mockery of the convention as a custodial parent would have the green light to abduct from Israel , under cover of a custody order !

No! Under Israeli law a biological father is a child's natural guardian even if unmarried or separated from the mother, and has clear rights. If you relocate abroad without the father's knowledge and consent, this amounts to an act of chid abduction,and you are liable to face Hague Convention proceedings.

Yes ! A non-custodial parent with visitation rights can certainly bring Hague Convention child abduction proceedings.

While technically speaking the Hague Convention gives a 'left-behind' parent up to 12 months to act from the time of abduction until starting legal proceedings, the reality is that he/she is strongly advised to act almost immediately, to increase the chances of securing the child's 'prompt' return. The sooner a 'left-behind'  parent acts the greater the chance of securing a return, and vice versa. A 'left-behind' parent who acts within days or a few weeks of an abduction will increase the chances of his/her abducted child being returned quickly.

In many 'Hague' countries, courts have held that a child can establish habitual residence in the new country very quickly, for example, after a few months, and in some cases, even sooner. If it is proved that a child has become habitually resident in the new country, this means that a request for a return order would be rejected on the grounds of  failure to prove 'habitual residence' i.e. that the child was no longer habitually resident in the 'old country' even if he had been wrongly removed.

Yes, if the children have been living in Israel for more than a year, and were abducted from another 'Hague' country, then , according to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, the court has discretion not to order a return them, if it has been proved that they are now 'settled' into their new environment.

In practice, however, children who have been abducted to Israel, from another country which is bound by the Hague Convention, may not be subject to a return order, on the grounds that Israel, and not the country where they were allegedly abducted from, is the country of habitual residence . A child can establish habitual residence in Israel relatively quickly, and a Hague return order can be refused , because Israel has now become his/her country of habitual residence. Accordingly, it is important to act very quickly to ensure a quick and prompt return of abducted minors.

Also, the  longer a 'left-behind' parent  waits without acting the greater the chances of acquiesence being successfully claimed by the abducting parent.  

The classic defences are that a return order would put the child at  a 'grave risk' of physical or psychological danger, or place him/her in an otherwise 'intolerable situation'.

In addition, there are defences of consent and acquiescence. Where the child is older, his/her own genuine refusal may prevent a return order.

A parent defending a Hague case can also dispute key elements that need  to be proved e.g. habitual residence - he/she can challenge the alleged claim that the children were removed from a country where they were habitually resident.

Acquiesence (agreeing after something has happened) is one of the defences in Hague Convention child abduction proceedings. You will have to prove it.

Apply for an ex-parte order from the family court preventing the minors from being taken out of Israel, to prevent them being abducted. If granted, and registered with the border police, then if your wife attempts to leave Israel with the children, then they should be stopped ,on the basis of I.D. and passport numbers you provide.

That issues of custody should be decided in the country where the children normally live (or are 'habitually resident' in Hague language) by the appropriate court. Parents cannot take the law into their own hands , move children around unlawfully and cause them trauma.

States that are bound by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction are supposed to engage in " first-aid" legal proceedings to secure a fast return of wrongly removed or retained minors, to their 'country of habitual residence'). Defences are limited, and a high standard of proof is expected.

Bring Hague Convention child abduction proceedings for their return from France to Israel.Both states are bound by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, through which a return order can be requested ordering the minors back to the country of habitual residence. Your wife's removal of the children from Israel ,without your consent, was wrong, and an act of child abduction.

Yes - it is 'wrongful retention' , one of two possible acts of child abduction, under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, which binds both Israel and the U.S.A. Once your wife refuses to return the children beyond the time scale you consented to, then your consent ends, their continued stay is illegal, and an act of child abduction.

Russia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, although Israel is, and thefore you cannot use the mechanism created in it to get your abducted son back. You will have to use other child abduction proceedings to secure his return, and apply for a "Habeas Corpus" order in Israel.