ABSTRACT
Access cases provide the other setting in which return orders (even discretionary ones) are not permitted under the Convention. As in the case of delayed petitions for the return of children who have become settled, litigation is left to the courts of the refuge state. This drafting decision, too, has been distorted-in this case, by courts which hold that ne exeat orders (travel restrictions) confer custody rights on the visiting parent.32 A fair reading of the legislative history and of the import of travel restrictions is to the contrary.33 Ne exeat orders guarantee convenient access by permit-
Convention." Perez-Vera, supra note 2, ^ 107. She also notes that (by requiring that the children be settled) an inflexible time limit was not imposed on the Convention's reach. Finally, she discusses the "one year and sealed" defense-not with the Article 13 defenses, but rather with Article 18 (which authorizes the application of non-Convention law) and suggests (again) that this may provide the legal basis for return orders in Article 12 cases. Id. flfl 109, 112. See also an excellent recent English judgment that considers the relevant authorities and agrees with Justice Kay's analysis. Re C (Abduction: Settlement) [2004] E.W.H.C 1245 at fl 1-5-42 (Fam.) (Singer, J.) (Eng.).
