Giving new meaning to the term "moot court", Canada's Supreme Court used a Hague Convention case, which everyone agreed was moot, to debate whether it was better to say that the petitioner had successfully proved Habitual Residence under a "hybrid" standard, or under a "parental intent" standard. Moot though the case was, the court's opinion is extremely important, potentially affecting all international families. The majority was for a "hybrid" standard that looks at a wide variety of facts and might not be bound even by a clearly shared parental intent or agreement. The minority said that this mushiness would make even simple cases get treated as complex, difficult cases, shifting power towards abductors, agreement-welshers, delayers, and whoever has deeper pockets. They argued that where shared parental intent was clear, it must control, but other evidence could be considered when evidence of shared intent is absent or ambiguous. Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16 (April 20, 2018)
Comments