International Child Abduction: The Claim for Return

2026-06-11 07:00 Science International child abduction

We previously prepared an article on the general procedure for returning a child under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter referred to as the Convention). We recommend reading it to understand the basic principles and mechanisms of the Convention.

The Convention regulates cases of the unlawful removal of a child from their country of habitual residence, as well as situations where a child is unlawfully retained outside of such a country by one of the parents or another person.

Why is correct wording important?

Today, we'll discuss what exactly you should request from a court of concentrated jurisdiction in international child abduction cases if you are the applicant. The correct wording of your requests determines not only the outcome of the case but also the possibility of actually enforcing the court's decision after it enters into legal force.

An application for the return of a child to the country of permanent residence is filed with a Russian court of general jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 22.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The competent court to hear the application is determined based on the district in which the child resides (Part 2 of Article 244.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Is it realistic to return a child during the sanctions period?

Currently, despite sanctions restrictions and the reluctance of courts in some foreign countries to apply the Convention mechanism to return children to Russia, Russian courts continue to consider and grant requests for the return of children from Russia to their country of habitual residence.

NB! The return of children also occurs in the absence of reciprocity in the enforcement of court decisions to return children from "unfriendly states" to Russia during the period of the International Child Abduction. However, the issue of returning a child to their country of habitual residence in the absence of reciprocity is particularly sensitive and requires a balanced assessment, taking into account the actual ability of each parent to exercise custody or access rights.

This balance of interests must underlie the resolution of a specific international abduction dispute.

The likelihood of a child's return depends largely on the parent's involvement in the process, the quality of the evidence presented, and the time that has passed since the international child abduction.

Yes, it is possible to return the child. It is important not to waste time and not give up. In cases of international child abduction, the result largely depends on the verified procedural position and evidence presented to the court. Moreover, in such cases there is a special procedure for distributing the burden of proof, which must be taken into account when constructing a legal position:

"The burden of presenting evidence to confirm the consent of the minor child's other parent to their transfer to the territory of the Russian Federation, the existence of exceptions, and, accordingly, the grounds for refusing to return the child, rests with the person opposing the child's return from the territory of the Russian Federation, i.e., the defendant."

The Appeal Determination of the Novosibirsk Regional Court dated November 7, 2017, in case No. 33-10786/2017.

What should the court request?

Of course, the content of the demands must be determined by the circumstances of the specific case. However, an analysis of the author's practice shows that in the majority of successfully resolved cases of international child abduction, in which the demands were upheld and subsequently effectively enforced, the petition included the following demands:

To order the immediate return of the minor child [full name], illegally removed to the Russian Federation, to his country of habitual residence, the Republic of Italy, on the basis of the international treaty of the Russian Federation, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of October 25, 1980.
[Full name] is obliged to immediately, within 24 hours of the decision being rendered, hand over the minor child [Full name], as well as the original passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation certifying identity outside the territory of the Russian Federation No. […] dated […], to the child's mother, [Full name], for the return of the child to the Republic of Italy, or to the person designated by the child's mother as the person accompanying the child upon his/her return to the Republic of Italy.
In the event of [Full Name]'s refusal to hand over documents for the child to [Full Name], or in the absence of such identity documents, this court decision shall be deemed the basis for [Full Name] to apply to the competent authorities for the unilateral issuance of said documents, and this decision shall also be deemed the basis for lifting the ban on the child leaving the Russian Federation without the Defendant's consent.
Obligate [Full Name] not to obstruct [Full Name] during her departure from the Russian Federation to the Republic of Italy.
Call for immediate execution the court decision on the basis of Art. 212 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Structure matters

It is not only the content of the statement that is important, but also its structure. That is why it is advisable to formulate the petition part in such a way as to increase the chances of the child returning to the state of his usual residence and to ensure the enforceability of the future judicial act.

It will be impossible to overcome the mistakes made after the court has made a decision on the stated requirements through an explanation of the judicial act either in the verification instance or through an explanation of the court decision in the first instance in accordance with Art. 202 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

“Explaining a decision is one way to address its shortcomings. It is made in case of ambiguity, inconsistency and vagueness of the decision. Moreover, the court cannot, under the guise of explaining the decision, change or resolve issues that were not the subject of the trial.”

The Determination of the Central District Court of Novosibirsk dated March 27, 2026 in case No. 2-5188/2025.

Immediate execution of the decision

In accordance with Part 1 p. 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court has the right, at the request of the plaintiff, to call the decision for immediate execution if a delay in its execution due to special circumstances may cause significant damage to the claimant or make execution of the decision impossible or significantly difficult.

If the child has not adapted to the new environment, is in a state of uncertainty or is experiencing psychological discomfort due to separation from one of the parents, delaying the execution of a judicial act may further consolidate the current situation and complicate the achievement of the goals of the Convention aimed at the immediate return of the child to the state of his usual place of residence.

In practice, in cases of international child abduction, the mechanism of immediate execution of the decision is used by the courts only in extraordinary cases. Moreover, an analysis of the current practice of courts of concentrated jurisdiction shows that the application of Art. 212 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in this category of disputes is extremely rare.

Conclusion

In cases of international child abduction, the outcome is largely determined not only by the evidence base, but also by how the requirements are formulated in the application. The pleading part actually determines the scope of the future court decision and its subsequent enforceability.

The return of a child is possible even in the presence of externally unfavorable factors, but it requires an active procedural position, a well-prepared application and a timely appeal to the court. Of key importance is the structure of the requirements, which must be structured in such a way as to reduce the risks of non-enforcement of the decision and ensure the achievement of the goals of the Convention - the immediate return of the child to the state of his usual residence.

Author: Andrei Targashov, lawyer in international family law.