New Zealand : Mark Henaghan and Christian Poland How New Zealand courts approach difficult Hague Convention cases
By: Henaghan, Mark
.
Contributor(s): Poland, Christian.
Material type: 
ArticlePublisher: Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press, 2021ISBN: 9781839702020.Subject(s): CHILD EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE | CHILDREN'S RIGHTS | Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | FAMILY LAW | INTERNATIONAL LAW | INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE | SEPARATION | VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WOMEN | NEW ZEALANDOnline resources: DOI: 10.1017/9781839702020.019 | View Table of contents for book | Access full text
In:
International survey of family law 2021 (pp. 357-380) / edited by Margaret BrinigSummary: Two major cases in New Zealand have taken novel approaches when applying the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In Simpson v. Hamilton, although the Court of Appeal accepted that none of the grounds for not returning a child were made out, the Court still decided that the child should remain in New Zealand. In LRR v. COL, the Court of Appeal refused to order that the child be returned, after examining how the return would impact on the mother and, thereby, create an intolerable situation for the child. In both cases, the courts were determined to do what they thought was in the particular child's best interests. (Authors' introduction). Record #8326
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Access online
|
Family Violence library | Online | Available | ON23080028 |
In: International survey of family law 2021 (pp. 357-380) / edited by Margaret Brinig
Two major cases in New Zealand have taken novel approaches when applying the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In Simpson v. Hamilton, although the Court of Appeal accepted that none of the grounds for not returning a child were made out, the Court still decided that the child should remain in New Zealand. In LRR v. COL, the Court of Appeal refused to order that the child be returned, after examining how the return would impact on the mother and, thereby, create an intolerable situation for the child. In both cases, the courts were determined to do what they thought was in the particular child's best interests. (Authors' introduction). Record #8326
