X... et Y..., employés par la société United Parcel Service France comme conducteurs de nuit sur la ligne Reims-Chilly-Mazarin et retour, soutenant que les temps passés sur le site de transit de Chilly-Mazarin

[child] as a family there.

It held inter alia that although the child had refused to have contact with the applicant, it was in the best interest of the child to have contact with him given that the applicant did not endanger his

He acknowledged paternity of the child and lived with the child’s mother until their separation in 1986, after which the mother prohibited any contact with the child.

The child protection committee shall retain guardianship of the child until otherwise decided.

The district court granted the adoption order and declared that the child obtained the legal position of a child of both applicants.

The child was taken outside into the courtyard and the mother invited the applicant to enter the courtyard and take the child.

A representative of the Child Welfare Board was also present.

return of the child.”

their role in the development and the life of their child, the child protection services have to do so ...

    A court cannot refuse to return a child unless the person who requested the return of the child has been given an opportunity to be heard. 6.

On 24 June 2004 she returned the child to the father after a Gdansk Court had decided that the child had to be returned to his place of habitual residence.

On 14   December 1998 they had a child together. 12.

In refusing the applicant permission to adopt the child the French courts had applied Article 370-3 paragraph   2 of the Civil Code, which prohibits the adoption of a foreign child if the law of his

On an unspecified date, the child was taken to Armenia, where she was allegedly unlawfully retained by Y.H. In October 2024 Y.H. left the child in the care of her parents, M.M.

Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act.

final decision, to benefit from the child-raising allowance.

However, this was not carried through because the child refused to go with his mother.

“would be enough” and would be in the best interests of the child.