Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/case/922
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:03:19+00:00

Document:
Civil Appeal G. v G. 52(2) P.D. 241; Mozes v. Mozes 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir, 2001); Family Appeal 121/07 P. v A.; Family Appeal 70/97 D. v D.; Family Appeal 575/04 Y.M. v A.M.; Family Appeal 1026/05 A. v A.; Gitter v. Gitter 450 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2006); Robert v. Tesson (6th Cir 2007); Feder v. Evens-Feder 63 . 3d; Re J.  2 AC 562; Whiting v. Krassner 391 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2004).
The English father and Israeli mother married in Israel and their son was born in 2003. The father was finding it difficult to make a living in Israel. He found work in England and so the parties decided to move to England for a trial period of two years. They arrived in England on 27 April 2007. They rented an apartment and bought a car and registered the child for a local Jewish school.
On 19 September 2007 the family returned to Israel for the Jewish holidays and stayed at the maternal grandparents' home. During the visit, the maternal grandmother died and so the mother and child extended their stay until 1 November 2007 (after the 30 day mourning period). They then returned to England. On 26 February 2008 the mother brought the child back to Israel without the father's knowledge or agreement.
Application dismissed; the child's habitual residence was in Israel at the date of the removal and so the Convention did not apply.
Deputy President Hendel, delivering the judgment of the court, reviewed in detail the two approaches to habitual residence found in Hague case law both in Israel and in other countries: the 'factual approach' and the 'parental intention' based approach.
He came to the conclusion that the appropriate approach was a combined one, which focused on the current life of the child, from the child's point of view. The examination was essentially factual (comprehensive and in depth), but would include reference to parental intention which was relevant as a fact.
This approach was consistent with the Supreme Court's statement in the case of C.A. 7206/03, G. v. G., P.D. 51(2)241 that habitual residence reflects the continuing reality of life from the point of view of the child.
In this case, looking at the story of the child's life, the father had not succeeded in proving that the attempt to change the child's habitual residence had materialized. In particular, the two month stay in Israel in the autumn of 2007 had interrupted the continuity of the child's life in England.
This decision adopts a "via media" between the two alternative theories of habitual residence. For earlier academic support for such an approach see: R. Schuz "Habitual Residence of Children Under the Hague Child Abduction Convention - Theory and Practice" (2001) Child and Family Law Quarterly Vol. 13, 1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.