The Hague
Convention you identify is generally enforced in the
domestic courts of the country where the child is physically located that has child custody jurisdiction or via a «Central Authority» as defined
by a signatory to the
Convention, although it is a bit more complex than that because the Hague
Convention has one set of rules for «emergencies» and another for ordinary cases.
By default you may be left resorting to Article 29 in these cases, i.e. non-
Convention remedies in
domestic courts of the country where the child's «home» is located, rather than the Hague
Convention process where there is not a wrongful removal, there is not a wrongful retention, and there is not a physical visitation issue.
The
court considered that even if the applicants» Art 8 complaint was before the secretary of state and the Court of Appeal, the policy set the threshold so high against them from the outset that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test by the secretary of state or by the domestic courts in their case, as required by the Conven
court considered that even if the applicants» Art 8 complaint was before the secretary of state and the
Court of Appeal, the policy set the threshold so high against them from the outset that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test by the secretary of state or by the domestic courts in their case, as required by the Conven
Court of Appeal, the policy set the threshold so high against them from the outset that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test
by the secretary of state or
by the
domestic courts in their case, as required
by the
Convention.