A legal battle has erupted between a father from Israel and the mother of their 5-year-old child, who now lives in South Africa. The father, claiming the child was unlawfully abducted, has asked the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to order the child’s immediate return to Israel. His case, brought through the Central Authority of South Africa under the Hague Convention, argues that the child’s removal from Israel in March 2021 was wrongful, and she should be returned to her habitual residence in Eilat.
However, the mother has strongly opposed the father’s application. She maintains that the child’s relocation was not wrongful, as the father had given written consent for her to bring the child to South Africa. The mother presented evidence that in November 2020, both she and the father had applied for a passport for the child in Israel. The father signed a consent form granting her permission to travel to South Africa with their daughter. He even provided a photocopy of his identity document, which the mother included in the parental consent letter she sent him via WhatsApp, which he acknowledged with a thumbs-up emoji.
The mother emphasized that she had clearly communicated her intention to return to South Africa to live with her family, which was known to the father. She added that he had previously visited South Africa with her in 2016, staying at the family home, which is now the address where she and the child reside.
In her defense, the mother also argued that returning the child to Israel would expose her to significant physical and psychological harm. She further contended that the child had settled into her life in Johannesburg, where she had lived for nearly four years. The child, now thriving, speaks only English, has no memory of her time in Israel, and is deeply connected to her mother and her maternal grandparents.
Judge Leicester Adams, in his ruling, pointed out that a substantial amount of time had passed since the child’s relocation. The judge also noted that if he were to order the child’s return, she would be separated from her mother, who cannot return to Israel due to financial and educational limitations. The mother’s inability to secure stable employment after the birth of the child had forced her to seek financial assistance from a welfare organization.
Considering these factors, the judge decided not to grant the father’s request, acknowledging the child’s well-being and the untenable situation the mother would face if she were forced to return to Israel.
