The mother took good care of the child.

Since then the applicant has not had any contacts with the child.

with the child.

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

and the child were staying in Slovakia.

The applicant refused to return her youngest child, D, to her former husband. 23.

référés : 1°) de suspendre l'exécution de l'arrêté n°2024-PREF-DCSIPC-BSIOP-035 du préfet de l'Essonne du 19 janvier 2024 décidant la fermeture de l'établissement l'Empire sis 3 route de Longjumeau à Chilly-Mazarin

As the child refused to stay with her mother, the applicant’s visiting rights were provisionally suspended (to be, however, subsequently restored).

At the material time both parents had been exercising joint custody over the child and had presumably been living together.

Although the couple did not cohabit, the applicant visited the mother and child on a regular basis.

    Upon a request made by the Bucharest Directorate General for Social Welfare and Child Protection (“the child‑protection authority”), based on the bailiff’s report (see paragraph 3 above),

    In 2021 the child welfare services received an additional notification of concern from the school.

It described the applicant’s conduct as cruel treatment of her child.

On 16 January 2015 the court determined that the child should live with V., his mother. The applicant instituted civil proceedings, claiming that V. prevented him from having access to the child.

He then alerted the child-protection services.

Pursuant to section 1632 (1), custody includes the right to demand that a child be returned from anyone who unlawfully withholds this child.

Further, the obligation of the natural parents and their relatives to maintain the child in case the adoptive parents were unable to do so, appeared reasonable as they were closer to the child than the

child was well cared for.

provide a possibility for recognition of a legal parent-child relationship in respect of the intended parents (regardless of gender) and the child (see Advisory Opinion No.