Tokens: 5
.
The
Federal
Court
failed
to
provide
reasonable
grounds
for
its
dismissal
of
Dr
B.
’s
expert
opinion
,
which
had
been
ordered
and
accepted
by
the
Vaud
Cantonal
Court
.
According
to
that
opinion
the
child
’s
return
to
Israel
with
his
mother
would
expose
him
to
a
risk
of
psychological
harm
whose
intensity
could
not
be
assessed
without
ascertaining
the
conditions
of
that
return
,
in
particular
the
conditions
awaiting
the
mother
and
their
potential
repercussions
for
the
child
(
see
paragraph
37
)
.
The
Federal
Court
also
failed
to
consider
the
impact
of
the
father
’s
limited
rights
of
access
and
the
potential
financial
hardship
.
These
are
paramount
considerations
to
be
addressed
in
applying
Article
8
,
even
if
the
specific
decision
concerns
the
return
of
a
child
wrongfully
removed
.
Of
course
,
given
the
specific
nature
of
the
situation
,
the
weight
of
the
different
factors
(
for
example
,
the
weight
of
public
order
in
relation
to
dissuasion
of
abduction
)
differs
from
what
is
applicable
in
“
ordinary
”
child
placement
cases
.
National
courts
,
having
the
benefit
of
direct
contact
with
the
persons
involved
,
are
better
placed
to
make
such
assessments
and
must
be
accorded
a
reasonable
margin
of
appreciation
.
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
O
O