The Juvenile Court of Catanzaro, with the order issued on 17 January 2025, accepted a father’s application and ordered the return to Canada of a three-year-old child, who had been unlawfully retained in Italy by the mother.
No financial means
The mother, an Italian citizen who has been living in Ontario for more than 20 years, had taken the child to Italy with the father’s consent for what was supposed to be a one-month holiday. However, at the end of the agreed period, she refused to return to Canada, claiming that she lacked the financial means to live there.
As a result, the father filed a request for return under Article 8 of the Hague Convention of 25.10.1980 with the Italian Central Authority.
Relocated within Italy
The Central Authority proceeded to locate the child, who, unbeknown to the father, had been taken by the mother from a northern region of Italy to Calabria.
After locating the child and noting the mother’s refusal to return voluntarily to Canada, a child abduction case was initiated before the Juvenile Court of Catanzaro.
Habitually resident in Canada
The Juvenile Court of Catanzaro, having heard both parents, upheld the father’s request, recognising that the child was habitually resident in Canada and had been unlawfully retained in Italy by the mother.
Immediate return
The Court therefore ordered the immediate return of the child to Canada, arranging for the child to be placed in the care of the father via the Child Social Services to ensure their return to their habitual residence.
Entrusted to the father
Immediately after the ruling, the child was entrusted to the father, and two days later, both returned to Canada.
Two other minors
During the proceedings, it also emerged that the mother had brought two other minor children to Italy, born from a previous relationship, also without the consent of their father, who remained in Canada.
Following the ruling issued by the Juvenile Court of Catanzaro, the mother also returned to Canada, bringing the other two children with her, for whom the father had just initiated a separate return procedure.
As a result, the successful outcome of the child’s return case effectively also resolved a second, simultaneous unlawful abduction of two other minors.
All blogs from The Author:
- The use of Foreign Experts in 1980 Hague Convention Cases
- Cross-Border Child Relocation Dispute: Strategic Legal Intervention Between Egypt and Vietnam
- Child Placement and Co-Parenting in Italy
- Getting a child from the jungle
- Dealing with international child abduction
- No return order due to ratified parental agreement
- Father’s Rights in International Law
- Care arrangement from Dubai
- Return order to Israel
- Permission not required
- Supporting families and colleagues through the CALA
- International Law in Domestic Courts: A Note on Child Litigation in the UK
- The wishes of a child in a Hague Convention procedure in Hungary
- The voice of the child in Hungarian abduction procedure
- Towards a Comprehensive Approach to International Child Abduction Situations
- Act of Fraudulent Commission of Reality
- Article 13b defence
- My child has been abducted to Brazil
- Return order not required
- Brazil’s new era in child abduction cases
- ASIME congress november 2023
- International Child Abduction and The Hague Convention
- International child abduction case leads to indirect recognition of LBGTQ+ families in Greece (?)
- What is the law with parental child abduction in the UK?
- Return to Russia?