The OCL's factum advocates for the adoption of a purely child - centered approach to the question of
habitual residence of a child within the context of the Hague Convention mechanism (Factum of the Appellant OCL at para 4).
Not exact matches
The recent decision
of the Supreme Court
of Japan, in the Hague Abduction Convention case between James Cook and Hitomi Arimitsu — which upheld the Osaka High Court's revocation
of its prior order that four
children wrongfully retained in Japan should be returned to their
habitual residence in the United States — vividly highlights the loopholes and fundamental weaknesses in the Implementing Act under which the Convention was brought into Japanese law and the resistance
within Japan to acceptance
of the principles underlying the Convention.
Article 14 In ascertaining whether there has been a wrongful removal or retention
within the meaning
of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities
of the requested State may take notice directly
of the law
of, and
of judicial or administrative decisions, formally recognised or not in the State
of the
habitual residence of the
child, without recourse to the specific procedures for the proof
of that law or for the recognition
of foreign decisions which would otherwise be applicable.
Article 15 The judicial or administrative authorities
of a Contracting State may, prior to the making
of an order for the return
of the
child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities
of the State
of the
habitual residence of the
child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful
within the meaning
of Article 3
of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State.