Would a parent facing Hague Convention child abduction proceedings in Israel have a defence if s/he reacted in response to the other parent previously “abducting” the child in their home country ?


Not unless a “grave risk” defence was proved in its own right. The fact that the other parent may have acted wrongly , in the country of habitual residence, does  not in itself constitute a defence or justification for unilateral action by the 'removing'  parent , amounting to an act of abduction, unless one of the ‘grave risk’ defences under the Hague Convention can be proved.

This point was stressed by Ashdod family court in September 2018 in a case where a young child was wrongfully removed to Israel, from Russia, where he had been habitually resident since birth, by his mother, after the father had taken him from her and prevented contact between them for a long period. A return order was granted.