Parental Abduction of Children- Israeli Case Law Pages: 1,2, 3 -2- C.A. 6056/93; Bagat'z 6860/93 Eden v. Eden
The children's mother took the children to "Gush Katif", an area that was at the time part of what was considered the "occupied territories", an area at that time under de facto Israeli political and military control, but about whose the legal status there was extremely heated dispute as Israel had taken control of it after the Six Day War in 1967. The court concluded that areas which are under the de facto political and military control of Israel are subject to the terms of the Hague convention. Of course, with the political changes that have taken place since this decision was given, a question exists as to the applicability of the Convention in those areas which are no longer under the political or military control of Israel, and are known today to make up the "Palestinian Authority". The case is notable also for the complications created by a social worker who had voluntarily expanded her opinion to include an analysis of which parent she felt would be a better custodian of the children, instead of limiting her analysis, as she was charged to do, to a determination of whether a return to New York would place the children at grave risk or not. The court also emphasized its position that the children should be interviewed, which characterizes a widespread approach of the Israeli courts to these issues. The case is also notable for the extreme lengthiness of the proceedings. The abduction took place in 1992, but the Supreme Court decision was not given until 1997.
Jerusalem District Court C.A. 592/04 R.K. v. C.K.
A couple with Jordanian citizenship was living in California with their 3 children, 2 girls and a boy, when married life turned bitter. Divorce proceedings were initiated in California and the parties were ordered not to travel with the children outside of the US. Despite the prohibition, the mother travelled to Israel with the children and announced her intention to remain there. The father submitted a petition for the return of the children under the Hague Convention in the Family Court in Israel, which granted his request and ordered the return of the children to California.Before the morther had a chance to appeal the father immediately returned to California with the son, but left the two girls in Israel. At that point the mother appealed. Time passed andf the father made no effort whatsoever to have the order requiring the return of his daughters to California enforced. Moreover, the father made no effort to remain in communication with either the daughters or their mother and even cut off communication withhis attorney. Based on these post judgment developments, the appeals court interpreted the father's behavior to have constituted post judgment acquiescence and reversed the Family Court decision insofar as the daughters were concerned, leaving it in effect concerning the son. This is an interestiong decision given in unique circumstances. The reversal of a trial court decision based on post-judgment developments, as well as the concept of post judgment acquiescence, and the fact that different results were reached for different children, are interesting aspects of this decision.
C.A. 4392/96 Adam Paul Roe v. Dafna Roe
A guest worker from England met a 17 year old Israeli girl while working on a kibbutz in Israel. The pair eventually moved to England where they married and had a child. When the child was 7 months old the mother and the child left England unannounced and returned to Israel, where the father submitted a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. A well documented history of the father behaving abusively toward the mother and abusing drugs was introduced into evidence and the father's petition was denied on the basis of Article 13(b) of the convention, asserting that a return of the child would place him in a position of grave risk. The father appealed. Because of the court's attempts to broker a mediation, its request for an opinion by the attorney general, and its request for an expert opinion describing the child's prospective fate were it to be returned to England, the appeal took a long time. The court rejected the 13(b) defense and granted the appeal after finding that the risk contemplated by the lower court and the experts who had voiced their opinion on the matter related to the mother rather than to the child. The suggestion that the abducting parent would suffer harm if forced to return to the child's country of habitual residence could be raised in every case and, according to the court, that is not the risk contemplated by the Convention. At the same time, the court imposed certain conditions as prerequisites for the return of the child, including a requirement that the father giver the mother enough money tolive separate and apart from him with the child pending any other decision that might be given on the matter by the British courts. _____________________
More Pages: 1,2, 3
|