Australia and Israel are both parties to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Convention is designed to do one thing — return wrongfully removed or retained children quickly to the country of habitual residence so that custody is decided there. This article explains how the Convention works in practice — and where it sits within the broader Israel–Australia family law work the firm handles.
What counts as 'wrongful removal' or 'wrongful retention'
A removal or retention is wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal — and those rights were actually being exercised. In practical terms, where one parent has parental responsibility (or shared parenting rights) under Australian law and the other parent has taken the child to Israel without consent or a court order, the removal is wrongful.
Retention is the mirror image: the child was lawfully taken to Israel — for a holiday, an extended visit — and then not returned at the agreed time. The retention becomes wrongful at the point return was supposed to happen.
Bringing an application — Australia to Israel
Where a child has been taken from Australia to Israel, the left-behind parent applies to the Australian Central Authority (housed in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department). The Australian Central Authority transmits the application to the Israeli Central Authority, which initiates proceedings in the Israeli Family Court for the child's return. The Israeli Court applies the Convention — not Israeli substantive family law — and decides return.
These applications move quickly. Final hearings are typically held within 6 weeks of filing.
Bringing an application — Israel to Australia
The mirror process applies for children taken from Israel to Australia. The Israeli Central Authority transmits the application to the Australian Central Authority, which files in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The FCFCA applies the Convention.
Australian Hague proceedings are run differently from ordinary parenting matters. They are summary in nature, focused exclusively on whether the Convention's return obligation is engaged, not on the merits of any underlying custody dispute.
The narrow defences
Once a wrongful removal or retention is established, return is the default. There are limited defences: Article 13(a) — the left-behind parent was not exercising custody rights, or consented to the removal; Article 13(b) — there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation; Article 13 — the child objects to return and has attained an age and maturity at which it is appropriate to take their views into account; Article 20 — return would violate fundamental principles of human rights in the requested State; and Article 12 — more than 12 months have passed since the wrongful act and the child is now settled in their new environment.
The defences are interpreted narrowly. Day-to-day parenting concerns and views about which country is 'better' are insufficient — the threshold is genuinely high.
What to do in the first 24 hours
If you suspect a child has been or is about to be wrongfully removed, get advice immediately. Step one — establish the facts: dates, flight bookings, communications, the child's location. Step two — contact your lawyer to assess whether a Hague application or urgent domestic restraining orders (such as a Watch List order to prevent international departure from Australia) are appropriate. Step three — where the child is already overseas, the Australian Central Authority is contacted to initiate the Hague process.
Speed matters. The longer the delay between the wrongful act and the application, the more arguments become available to the abducting parent about settlement, status quo, and the child's wishes — which is why aliyah disputes are typically resolved faster when run as a parallel relocation case, not as Hague.
Written and reviewed by Elisa Rothschild BA/LLB — Principal Lawyer, Fogarty Oliver Rothschild. Admitted to legal practice in Victoria. Practising family and property law in Melbourne since 2012. Last reviewed 22 May 2026.
This article is general legal information about Australian family law. It is not legal advice for your specific situation. For advice on your matter, book a free initial consultation.