## Facts

- The parents married in Pakistan and had a son, Nadeem, who lived with one or both parents in multiple countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States.
- After extended custody and visitation litigation in New York, a New York visitation order governed the child’s time with the father.
- The mother took the child to London contrary to the New York visitation order.
- The father commenced a wardship proceeding in the High Court in London (without pursuing a Hague Convention return petition at that time).
- The London High Court denied the father’s custody application and entered a final wardship order providing that the child would remain a ward of that court, with care and control with the mother.
- The child later visited the father in New York for summer visitation; at the end of a visit, the father refused to return the child to the United Kingdom and filed in New York for custody.
- The London High Court declared the child was being wrongfully retained in the United States.
- In New York, the mother sought the child’s return based on the London order and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by ICARA.

## Issues

1. Whether the father’s refusal to return the child to the United Kingdom after visitation constituted “wrongful retention” under the Hague Convention.
2. Whether, given the child’s habitual residence and the London wardship order, the New York court was required under the Hague Convention and ICARA to order the child’s prompt return and refrain from deciding custody merits.

## Decision

- The court held the father’s continued retention of the child in New York was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.
- The court found the United Kingdom was the child’s habitual residence at the time of the retention and that the London High Court was exercising custody rights through its wardship order placing care and control with the mother.
- The court determined the Hague Convention and ICARA applied (contracting states, child under 16, and timely request), and no return-precluding exception was applied.
- The court granted the mother’s application and ordered the child returned to the United Kingdom.
- The court denied the father’s attempt to obtain a competing custody determination in New York.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Convention’s return remedy addresses international child abduction and wrongful retention by restoring the pre-removal status and directing custody litigation to the child’s habitual-residence forum.
- A retention is “wrongful” when it breaches custody rights actually exercised under the law of the child’s habitual residence, including rights reflected in an existing foreign court order.
- When the Convention’s prerequisites are met and no established exception applies, the requested court must order prompt return rather than conduct a best-interests custody inquiry.
- ICARA provides the domestic procedural framework for U.S. courts to adjudicate Convention return petitions, including jurisdiction and burdens of proof.
- Foreign custody-related orders (including wardship orders) are relevant to determining custody rights, habitual residence, and wrongful retention, and support giving effect to the habitual-residence court’s continuing authority.

## Conclusion

The court ordered the child’s return to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention and ICARA, finding the father’s refusal to return the child after visitation was a wrongful retention and that New York was not the proper forum to re-decide custody merits in light of the child’s habitual residence and the London High Court’s wardship order.


Sheikh v. Cahill, 546 N.Y.S.2d 517 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989)