That act, referred to in this article as the «Implementing Act» states that, «A person whose rights of custody with respect to a child are breached due to removal to or retention in Japan may file a petition against the person who takes care of the child with a Family Court to seek an order to return the child to the state of
habitual residence pursuant to the provisions of this Act.»
Not exact matches
An essential element of any case under the Convention is that, «
pursuant to the laws or regulations of the state of
habitual residence, said removal or retention breaches the rights of custody with respect to the child attributed to the petitioner.»
Pursuant to the Convention, she sought to return J.C. to Korea for custody proceedings in the «country of [J.C.'s]
habitual residence.»
Where a child moves lawfully from one Member State to another and acquires a new
habitual residence there, the courts of the Member State of the child's former
habitual residence shall, by way of exception to Article 8, retain jurisdiction during a three - month period following the move for the purpose of modifying a judgment on access rights issued in that Member State before the child moved, where the holder of access rights
pursuant to the judgment on access rights continues to have his or her
habitual residence in the Member State of the child's former
habitual residence.
This means that jurisdiction should lie in the first place with the Member State of the child's
habitual residence, except for certain cases of a change in the child's
residence or
pursuant to an agreement between the holders of parental responsibility.