Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ohlander (W) was a Swedish citizen. Larson (H) was a citizen of the U.S. They were married in 1989 in Utah. They had a daughter and decided to take their five-month-old daughter to Sweden. When they got there, W decided she wanted to stay and went into hiding with her daughter and severed contact with H. H eventually re-established contact with W and W returned to Utah with the child and remained for seven months. In 1992, W returned once again to Sweden without H's consent. In 1993, H decided to kidnap his child from Sweden and did so. W then filed a petition pursuant to The Hague Convention seeking the return of her daughter. H was ordered to deliver the child to W, but W was under a court order not to leave Utah with the child. Upon getting the return of the child, W fled to Sweden. An order of contempt was issued directing W to return the child, and W failed to comply. H then filed a Convention application for the child's return. W filed a motion under Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss her district court petition based on the Convention's article 12. The court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss and was informed of a proceeding by H in Sweden. The district court denied the motion based on the contempt. A bench trial was conducted, and W's removal of the child to Sweden was found to be wrongful under the Convention. W was ordered to return the child and aid was requested from Contracting States under the Convention. The Swedish court ruled that W's citizenship had changed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.