Leena Yousefi Wins Case on Child Abduction in Non-Hague Signatory Case

We are thrilled to announce that in a non-Hague signatory child abduction case, Leena Yousefi was the successful counsel in the precedent setting case of S.C. v H.S., after working countless sleepless nights to secure child custody for the father.

This case sets an important legal precedent in how future international child abduction cases involving parents from non-Hague signatory countries will be decided.

The Hague Convention is an international treaty that aims to unify international procedures when resolving child abduction across borders. However, Taiwan is not an official signatory of the Hague Convention treaty due to its complex political status, and the case fell into a legal grey area. In the past, cases such as these made returning children abducted from other non-signatory countries exceptionally difficult.

The Facts on this Child Abduction Case

S.C. and H.S met in Taiwan and got married there in 2006. They later got a divorce in 2011 in Taiwan.

After the divorce, the mother gave birth to a baby girl. She denied that S.C. was the father but after running a paternity test, it was confirmed that he was.

In 2015, the Taiwanese courts gave S.C., the father, sole custody of their daughter. However, in late 2014, the mother brought the child to BC, without the consent of her father, which was considered international child abduction.

The Difficulty with Child Abduction and Non-Hague Signatory Countries

Usually, if a parent abducts a child across borders, the Hague Convention helps lawyers get a return order to bring the child back the country of origin.  Because Taiwan had not signed the Hague Convention, it made the process significantly more difficult. Legally, it was entirely plausible that the BC court system would have rejected the return order because Taiwan was a non-Hague signatory.

By the time that this case was brought to court in Canada, the child had already been living in BC for 5 years. In that time, she had not seen her father for the majority of her life.

The mother tried to argue that during that time period, BC had become her daughter’s new home and that returning the daughter to the father should not be allowed since she had little to no connection with him at that point.

Lastly, the mother attempted to argue that since she had left Taiwan with her daughter before the original custody order was filed, that had not broken the custody order.

What was the outcome?

Leena Yousefi argued that bringing the child to BC back in 2014 should be considered wrongful removal, which made the actions of the mother fall under child abduction. Even though the mother left before the final verdict in Taiwan, she still had a duty to return the child back to Taiwan once the custody was granted to the father.

The judge sided with Leena Yousefi’s case, and confirmed the original Taiwanese ruling in 2011 and the child was ordered to return to her rightful home back in Taiwan. The judge confirmed the ruling of the Taiwanese courts from 2015 and the father was granted sole custody of his daughter, and was entitled to a $3,000 monetary compensation from the mother.

What Does this Case Mean for Child Abduction Cases from Countries that are Non-Hague Signatory?

This precedent-setting decision confirms that a parent’s rights do not disappear when the country they are from is a non-Hague signatory.

If your child was abducted internationally, and the country you are from is not a signatory of the Hague Convention, that does not mean that your parental rights are taken from you. If your child is abducted to Canada, there is hope that you can still win, especially if you have a ruling in your favour from the country you reside in.

Contact us  or call us at (604) 974-9529 today if you need experienced legal counsel to protect your child and enforce your parental rights in your complex, international child abduction case with a non-Hague signatory country. We have the expertise and knowledge you need.