However, courts should not consider views and preferences at the habitual residence stage in a manner that would stray into the Article 13(2) “objections” exception or assessing the best interests of the child. As stated previously, a return order is not a custody determination and the application judge does not have jurisdiction to consider the best interests of the child as a judge would at a custody hearing: Thomson v. Thomson, 1994 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551, at p. 578. Likewise, the Article 13(2) “objections” exception, not the habitual residence stage, is designed to allow the court to give the child “a say in where the child lives”: Balev, at para. 34.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.