The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed a father's application under the Hague Convention to return his five-year-old daughter to Israel, citing the child's well-being and evidence of prior parental consent for relocation to South Africa.
The court's decision centred on the child's welfare and the circumstances under which she was brought to South Africa, underscoring the complexities involved in Hague Convention proceedings. Presided over by Judge LR Adams, the case concluded on 10 February 2025, following a virtual hearing held on 27 September 2024. The court examined submission details regarding a child born on 29 April 2019, who was alleged to have been unlawfully removed from her habitual residence in Eilat, Israel, by her mother in March 2021.
With the assistance of the Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa, the father applied in the opposed proceedings in terms of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), for an order directing the mother of the child, to return her to Israel.
He argued that the minor child should be returned to her country of 'habitual residence' in Eilat, Israel, from where she was on 31 March 2021 unlawfully removed to South Africa and wrongfully retained by her mother. The mother opposed the application on the basis that the removal of the minor child from Israel was not wrongful as the father had consented in writing to such removal.
Moreover, so she contended, the minor child would be exposed to a grave risk of physical and psychological harm or be placed in an intolerable situation, as envisaged by article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, if this court were to order her return to Israel. In that regard, the mother relied heavily on the report of the duly appointed curator as litem for and on behalf of the minor child.
At the heart of the matter was whether the father had consented to the child's removal, a critical point determined by reviewing the evidence presented. The mother contended that the father had given explicit written consent for them to relocate to South Africa. The court noted that the father had signed the requisite parental consent form prior to their move, which was crucial in establishing that the removal was, in fact, not wrongful.
The court also had to weigh the potential emotional and psychological ramifications for the child should she be returned to Israel. The child has been living in South Africa for almost four years and has become well-adjusted, attending nursery school and forming friendships. The findings of the appointed curator were instrumental in the court's determination, as the curator highlighted the child's adaptation to her current environment and her inability to recall life in Israel.
In his ruling, Judge Adams emphasised the high threshold of evidence required under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, which allows courts to deny the return of a child if it would expose them to grave risk of harm. The court found compelling evidence that returning the child to her father in Israel would subject her to significant psychological distress, as she would face separation from her primary attachment figure and be thrust into an unfamiliar linguistic and cultural environment.
The ruling underscored the mother's precarious financial situation in Israel, which added another layer of concern regarding the child's well-being. The court deemed it imperative to consider the complete context of the family dynamics and the potential instability the father's position could bring to the minor child. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the mother, dismissing the father's application, and mandated that each party would bear their own legal costs.
#Conviction
