|KG v CB & others (748/11)  ZASCA 17 (22 March 2012)
The application was an appeal against a judgement of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg for the immediate return of T (presently five years and ten months old) to the United Kingdom. T is the child born on 12 May 2006 in England to KG and CB who was never married to each other, and who after about one year and four months separated. T thereafter resides with CB although KG, who was then living with certain DC in the same building as CB, continued to care for T. On 5 November 2007, CB moved address KB without telling KG and T then lived with KB from that date. KB then refused contact between T and CB. CB lodged an application to the Harlow County Court in November 2007 claiming residence and defined contact orders in respect of T, as well as an order prohibiting KG from removing T from the jurisdiction of the court. On 12 December 2007, KG filed a counter-application for a residence order in respect of T...read more
|Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and another v B (2011/21074) South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, 07/12/2011
The mother (J) seeks the immediate return to Australia of her son (K), who is now thirteen years old and presently residing with his father (B) in Johannesburg. K objects (through his legal representative) to being returned to his mother in Australia. The father has dual Australian and South African citizenship. The settlement agreement between J and B wherein it was agreed the K would reside with J and that B would have reasonable rights of contact with him, was made an order of the Family Court in Australia in 1999. B SETTLED IN South Africa around May 2004. He regularly visited K and K also travelled to South Africa to Visit his father in 2006 and 2008. The mother again permitted K to travel to South Africa on 29 November 2010. He was due to return to Australia on 24 January 2011...read more
|Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and another v M, A (11/39798; 2012/1096) South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, 20/03/2012
The application was brought by the Central Authority of South Africa and the father of the child seeking mandatory return of the child (A) currently four (4) years old to the jurisdiction of Australia. The respondent contended that the child is now settled in her new environment and that the removal to Australia would expose the child to harm or an intolerable situation...read more
|Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and another v LG (32652/2009) North Gauteng High Court, 22/04/2010
The application related to the return of a boy born on 15 October 2007 to the jurisdiction of the Central Authority of England and Wales. The second applicant is the father of the child concerned in this matter and is resident in the United Kingdom. The respondent is the mother of the child and wife to the second applicant. The applicants contend that the child was wrongfully removed from his habitual residence and is being retained in South Africa by his mother. This is denied by the mother. From the facts it was clear that the parents had frequent heated arguments, and that the mother had frequently travelled with the child to South Africa for extended periods. They agreed that divorce proceedings would be instituted in South Africa. This application was initiated only a day after the father has spoken to the respondent’s attorney confirming the terms of the divorce...read more
|NF v MC (17845/2012) Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, 27/11/2012
The application is brought by the father of the child M, currently six (6) months old, for the return to Atlanta, United States of America. The basis of this is that he claims that he did not consent to M RESIDING IN South Africa beyond 29 December 2012and that she has been, or will be wrongfully retained in South Africa if she is not returned to the USA by that date. The applicant also seeks an order that he be granted leave in the event that the respondent elects not to return to the USA, to remove M from the mother’s care and to return her to the USA...read more
|THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY
(THE REPUBLIC CF SOUTH AFRICA)
MR. B and ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
The first applicant is the mother and the respondent the father of a minor child who was born on 12 May 2006 in the United Kingdom and who Satchwell J, on 16 July 2010, held to have been wrongfully removed by the respondent from the jurisdiction of the Chelmsford County Court in the United Kingdom on or about 14 February 2009 when she was brought to this country. Satchwell J granted an order for the immediate return of the child to the United Kingdom under Article 12 of the Hague Convention.
|THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY
(THE REPUBLIC CF SOUTH AFRICA)
MARGI REYNDERS (born JONES)
This is an application brought by the South African Central Authority, represented by the office of the Family Advocate, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Act 72 of 1996 (the Act) (the Hague Convention). An order is sought that the particular minor child, LS ("l") be returned forthwith to the jurisdiction of Los Angeles, in the United States of America, and into the care of 'her father, Mr GG Speeckaert ("the father).
|THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA v
ODIONYE CHARLES IGUWA (10/15111) 27 Aug 2010
This is an application in terms of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) (“the Convention”), as incorporated into South African law by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996 (“the Act”), for an order directing the immediate return of the minor child, CI, to the jurisdiction of the Central Authority in Ireland...
|Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa v Bronowicki (2008/16120)  ZAGPHC 261; 2009 (1) SA 624 (W) (20 August 2008)
Application for return of four year old child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction(1980)incorporated into South African law by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996. Application brought after expiry of one year period provided for in art 12 – delays in bringing the application - whether relevant to calculation of the one year period...
|FAMILY ADVOCATE, CAPE TOWN, AND ANOTHER v EM 2009 (5) SA 420 (C)
Minor - Abduction - International abduction - Application for return of unlawfully removed or retained child - Defences - Acquiescence - Delay in launching process - Process for return of child launched four months after C removal, after taking legal advice - Delay not inordinate and not amounting to acquiescence - Court obliged to order return of child - Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) as incorporated into South African law in terms of Schedule to Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996, art 13 (a).
|CENTRAL AUTHORITY v B 2009 (1) SA 624 (W)
|-||CENTRAL AUTHORITY (SOUTH AFRICA) v A 2007 (5) SA 501 WLD
Minor - Abduction of – International abduction – Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) as incorporated into South African law. The applicant sought an order directing the return of the respondent’s minor child, aged
17 months, to Australia, from whence she had removed him to South Africa. The child’s father was an Australian citizen and habitually resident in Australia. The respondent’s residence in Australia had not been continuous as she had been in the country on a tourist visa and her visa requirements were such that she had to leave Australia periodically, which she did, with the child, with the consent of the child’s father.
Held, that in the circumstances such as those in the present matter where the child’s
parents had differing intention and differing habitual residences and he was too young
to know anything about any State, culturally, socially or linguistically, his habitual
Held, accordingly, that the minor child be returned forthwith to Australia on the
Conditions prescribed by the Court.
| Central Authority v
Houwert  SCA 88 (RSA)
Minor – wrongful retention of – Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) – defences – article 13(a) – consent to retention – onus on parent raising the defence – no real or genuine dispute of fact raised on consent issue – expeditiousness essential at all stages of the Convention process, including appeals
|Family Advocate Port Elizabeth v Hide  3 All SA 248 (SE)
Children – International child abduction – Application for return of child – In terms of – Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction – Article 13(a) –The court may in the exercise of its discretion, order the return of the child unless the person who opposes its return establishes that the person who seeks the return was not actually exercising custody rights at the time of the removal or retention or had consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention.
|Family Advocate v B  2006
Children - Abduction - Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects if International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996 - Application by Family Advocate for retun of child to habitual place of residence from whence the child had been unlaufully removed - Court refusing application on ground that there was a grave risk that the child's return would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation.
|Senior Family Advocate, Cape Town & another v Houtman
 JOL 16644 (C)
A married couple, who were South African citizens, had gone to live in the Netherlands. When the couple became estranged the mother returned to South Africa with their child of three who had been born there but who they had registered as a South African citizen. In this application a Family Advocate, who was joined by the father as the second applicant, sought an order for the return of the child to the Netherlands in terms of the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction 1980, which received statutory recognition in the Hague Convention on the International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996...
|Family Advocate Cape Town and Another v Chirume (6090/05)  ZAWCHC 94 (9 December 2005)
The family advocate brought an application against the respondent in terms of the powers and authority conferred upon it in terms of sections 3 and 4 of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996, for the return of a minor child to the United Kingdom in terms of article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. The child was that of the second applicant and the respondent. It was common cause that the respondent did not have the second applicant's consent to remove the child from the United Kingdom where the second applicant had temporary residency status...
|J Brown v MC Stone 489/05
Jurisdiction – interim custody order inextricably linked to order that child be returned to South Africa – court not able to enforce return order - no jurisdiction to grant such order
|Pennello v Pennello and Another (238/2003)  ZASCA 147;  1 All SA 32 (SCA) (1 December 2003)
Minor - abduction of - Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) - defences - provision in art 13(b) that requested State not bound to order return of child if existence of grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or that child would otherwise be placed in an intolerable situation.
|Chief Family Advocate and another v G 2003 (2) SA 599 (W)
|Sonderup v Tondelli and Another (CCT53/00)  ZACC 26; 2001 (2) BCLR 152; 2001 (1) SA 1171 (4 December 2000)
This appeal concerns a child, Sofia, who was brought to South Africa from Canada by her mother and kept here in violation of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and against the wishes of her father. In the High Court, the Family Advocate brought an urgent application seeking an order for the return of Sofia to British Columbia in terms of Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention)...
|LS v AT and Another 2001 (2) BCLR 152 (CC)
The South Eastern Cape High Court had ordered that ST, a child, be returned to British Columbia, Canada. The order was made pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996, which gives statutory recognition to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
An appeal to the Constitutional Court raised the issues...
|Smith v Smith 2001  SA 845 (SCA)
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 - acquiescence by wronged parent
|WS v LS 2000 (4) SA 104 (C)
Husband and wife - Divorce - Custody of children - Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) - Application of - Application for return of unlawfully removed or retained child in terms of art 13 of Convention as incorporated into South African law in terms of Schedule to Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996 - Article 13 providing that requested State not bound to return child if opposing party establishing that 'grave risk' existed that return of child would expose it 'to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation'...
|K v K 1999 (4) SA 691 (C)
The parties had been divorced in the United States and custody of the parties' minor son had been awarded to the respondent, the mother, with liberal visitation (access) provisions in favour of the applicant, B the father. Following an incident of alleged abuse during one of the access periods, the respondent had suspended the applicant's visitation with his son. The applicant had approached the York County Family Court for relief but the respondent had not attended the hearing, having left the state and then the country with the minor child. The applicant finally traced the respondent and the minor child to Cape Town and instituted proceedings for the return of C the child to the United States and into the applicant's care....
|-||Smith v Smith 1999 JOL 5397 (C)
In this case the father of two very young boys born in the UK brought an application in terms of the Act for the handing over by his estranged wife, the respondent, of the children for the purpose of their returning with him to the UK.
The parties, both South African citizens, travelled to the UK in 1997, ostensibly to settle there and to acquire British citizenship. Two children were born to the respondent in England. Domestic difficulties resulted in the respondent leaving England for South Africa in January 1999, the arrangement being that the respondent and the children would return to the UK after a two month holiday.
Once in South Africa the respondent reneged on the arrangement and, after informing the applicant of her intention not to return to the UK, instituted an action for divorce. The result was the aforementioned application before the court, which was opposed on the grounds, inter alia, that there was a grave risk of harm to the children if they were returned.
Foxcroft J considered the very narrow issue of the applicability or otherwise of Article 13 of The Hague Convention, relating to a child being subjected to grave risk or exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise being placed in an intolerable position if returned to the state of his “habitual residence”.
It was accepted by the court that the parties as well as their children were habitually resident in England, the rationale being that the word “habitual” suggested the passage of a reasonable period of time spent at a particular place and acclimatising, thereto.
The court was concerned about the trauma associated with the relocation of the children, especially if the respondent refused to accompany them. The court held that it was clearly intolerable for a child under the age of one year to be parted from his mother and that, notwithstanding undertakings from the applicant to alleviate the concerns expressed by the court and the respondent in connection therewith, it was unthinkable to separate them from their mother. The application was accordingly dismissed.