Sheikh v. Cahill
New York Supreme Court
546 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1989)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
A couple was married in Pakistan, and a child, Nadeem, was born. The couple later divorced, and custody of Nadeem remained with both parties. After a year-and-a-half of litigation in New York that did not change the custody award, the mother (defendant), in violation of the New York court’s visitation order, took Nadeem to London, where the father (plaintiff) tracked them down. The father commenced a wardship proceeding in the high court, but he did not commence a Hague Convention proceeding, which requires the prompt return of children abducted to or wrongfully retained in a country when both that country (in this case the United States) and the country of the child’s habitual residence (in this case the United Kingdom) are parties to the Hague Convention and the child is under 16. The father’s custody application was denied, and the high court issued a final order that Nadeem was to remain a ward of the court of London with his care and control to remain with the mother. Thereafter, Nadeem had visitation with his father in the United States, and after the end of his first summer visit, the father refused to return Nadeem to the United Kingdom and applied to the New York court for custody. The high court declared that Nadeem was wrongfully retained. The mother sought the return of Nadeem to her based on the order of the high court and the terms of the Hague Convention.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rigler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.