In those circumstances, at ¶ 58 of Hage v. Bryntwick, Mazza J. found that the father’s actions made it “not possible for the prompt return of the child as required by Article 12”. At ¶ 61, he held that the father’s act of destroying the application, combined with his knowledge that he knew that the mother would not be allowed to return to the United States, was an act of active acquiescence.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.