Tokens: In
reality
,
it
is
obvious
that
the
facts
of
the
case
at
hand
do
not
amount
to
a
child
abduction
,
since
T.
had
no
parental
rights
whatsoever
,
let
alone
custodial
rights
,
“
immediately
before
the
removal
”
of
the
child
from
Australia
,
as
Article
3
a
)
of
the
Hague
Convention
requires
.
Officially
the
applicant
was
a
single
mother
and
the
child
had
no
registered
father
when
they
both
left
Australia
on
17
July
2008
.
From
the
very
day
of
the
child
’s
birth
until
the
day
she
left
Australia
,
T.
not
only
failed
to
officially
recognise
his
fatherhood
,
but
even
denied
his
paternity
before
the
Australian
public
authorities
.
T.
only
applied
for
,
and
gained
,
“
custodial
rights
”
after
the
removal
of
the
child
,
which
means
that
at
the
time
of
the
removal
the
mother
was
de
jure
the
sole
person
with
parental
responsibility
,
including
custodial
rights
,
over
the
child
.
The
Australian
court
’s
decision
of
6
November
2008
could
not
be
construed
in
such
a
way
as
to
circumvent
the
time
requirement
of
Article
3
a
)
of
the
Hague
Convention
and
to
substantiate
ex
post
facto
an
otherwise
unfounded
return
claim[44
]
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O