Ineta latvian dating second life dating
Aucune preuve ne laissait penser qu'un retour en Australie menacerait la sécurité de l'enfant, car la législation australienne assurait la protection des enfants contre des mauvais traitements exercés par un membre de la famille. De plus, dans la mesure où la question portée à la connaissance du tribunal concernait le retour de l'enfant en vertu de la Convention de la Haye de 1980 relative à l'enlèvement d'enfants et non le droit de garde, il n'était pas nécessaire d'établir le risque de danger psychique. Elle a expliqué qu'en fait et en droit, elle était l'unique détentrice de la garde avant son départ d'Australie et a déclaré que le père lui avait infligé de mauvais traitements, ainsi qu'à son enfant. En appel, la mère s'est appuyée sur le rapport d'un psychologue affirmant que l'enfant pourrait être victime d'un traumatisme psychologique s'il était séparé de sa mère. In this context reference may also be made to the decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in  UKSC 10,  2 A. 257 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1147], in which it was accepted that the anxieties of a respondent mother about return, which were not based upon objective risk to her but nevertheless were of such intensity as to be likely, in the event of a return, to destabilise her parenting of the child to the point at which the child's situation would become intolerable, could in principle meet the threshold of the Article 13(1)(b) exception. In the context of a primary-carer taking parent refusing to return to the child's State of habitual residence see: Director General, Department of Families v. For examples of the initial approach, see: [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 700] The Supreme Court noted that it would not be in the child's best interests if she were deprived of her mother's care, were the latter to choose to remain in Poland. It may be noted, however, that a return order was nevertheless still made. Following the judgment of the High Court of Australia (the highest court in the Australian judicial system) in the joint appeals  HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 346, 347], greater attention has been focused on the post-return situation facing abducted children. France In French case law, a permissive approach to Article 13(1)(b) has been replaced with a much more restrictive interpretation. La 26 janvier 2009, la (Cour régionale de Riga) a rejeté le recours formé par la mère, estimant qu'aucune preuve ne venait étayer ses allégations relatives aux mauvais traitements et aux poursuites pénales en instance.
There had been a genuine threat to the mother, which had put her quite obviously and rightfully in fear for her safety if she returned to Israel. The two dissenting judges noted, however, that the danger referred to in Article 13 should not consist only of the separation of the child from the taking parent.(Author: Peter Mc Eleavy, April 2013) La demande concernait un enfant né en février 2005 en Australie de mère lettone et de père australien. The decision-making process of the Belgian Appellate Court as regards Article 13(1)(b) was held not to have met the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 of the ECHR. The ECrt HR stated that whilst very young age was a criterion to be taken into account to determine the child's interest in an abduction case, it could not be considered by itself a sufficient ground, in relation to the requirements of the Hague Convention, to justify dismissal of a return application. Some of these cases have considered arguments relevant to the issue of grave risk of harm, including where an abductor has indicated an unwillingness to accompany the returning child, see: [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1169] In this case, the ECrt HR upheld a challenge by the left-behind father that the refusal of the Turkish courts to return his child led to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.