Two countries, two custody orders, and both parents actually showed up and argued their case in each one — that specific fact, more than any general sympathy for either side, is what made this a family matter the rules exclude from a Red Notice at all. A parallel Yellow Notice on the children fell with it, once the other country confirmed exactly where they were.
Two courts, two outcomes, and genuine participation in both
Holding joint custody after separating, the father took the children abroad and did not return them as agreed. He obtained a custody order in his new country, and the mother contested it there, filing her own lawsuit and being notified of the hearings. In parallel, courts in the country he had left granted her custody, partly in his absence while he was tied up in extradition proceedings on the very Red Notice at issue — though he later engaged a lawyer who argued his case there too, on the basis of the custody he had secured abroad. Ultimately, one country’s courts confirmed his sole custody as final; a domestic court in the other, once informed of that outcome, dismissed the underlying criminal case against him entirely, on the basis that a custody grant defeated the accusation of unlawful abduction.
The precise legal test, not just a general sympathy
This decision states the operative test more precisely than similar cases elsewhere in this catalogue. Applicable guidance interpreting the family-matters exclusion specifies that the criterion is not met where both parents actually participated in proceedings in both of the countries involved. That is a narrower, more checkable standard than simply asking whether a custody dispute exists in the background.
- The father was party to proceedings in the country he had relocated to, where the mother herself filed a challenge and was notified of the hearings against her.
- He also engaged counsel to present his position in the original country’s proceedings, relying specifically on the custody order he had obtained abroad.
- On that record, the Commission found both parents had, at varying stages, actually participated and presented arguments on the competing custody claims in both jurisdictions — meeting the specific test for treating the matter as an excluded family dispute, not merely a general custody disagreement in the background.
- A domestic court in the original country had, independently of the Commission, already reached the same underlying conclusion: once he held custody, the abduction charge could not stand, and it dismissed the case on exactly that basis.
The Yellow Notices fell separately, on a different and more familiar ground
The children’s Yellow Notices required their own analysis. Consistent with other decisions in this catalogue, a Yellow Notice exists to locate someone whose whereabouts are unknown to the police — and here, the country where the children lived confirmed their location and their status under their custodial parent’s guardianship. Asked directly whether the notices served any continued purpose given that confirmed location, the requesting bureau gave no concrete answer at all.
What this decision teaches
- The family-matter exclusion has a specific, two-sided test: did both parents actually participate in both countries’ proceedings? That is stronger and more precise than simply pointing to a custody dispute existing somewhere in the background.
- Engaging counsel to argue your custody position in the requesting country, even while contesting the notice, is not a concession — it can be exactly the participation the exclusion requires.
- A domestic dismissal of the underlying charge, reached independently by a national court, is powerful corroborating evidence — it shows the same conclusion from a body with actual fact-finding power.
- A bureau’s silence when asked directly whether a Yellow Notice still serves a purpose, once location is confirmed, is treated as a real gap — not something the Commission will fill in on the bureau’s behalf.
Decision extract published by INTERPOL · catalogue reference ccf-2025-01 · 2025 · Red Notice and Yellow Notice · data deleted. Read the full extract (PDF). Source: interpol.int. Names, countries and dates are redacted in the published extract.
If you and your former partner have each pursued custody proceedings in two different countries, document your actual participation in both — that specific fact, not the existence of a dispute alone, is what the family-matter exclusion turns on. Send us the custody proceedings from both countries and we will assess whether both parents genuinely took part in each.
When two countries have each ruled on custody
Does having a custody dispute in two countries automatically make my case an excluded family matter?
Not automatically. The specific test applied is whether both parents actually participated in the proceedings in both countries — a general dispute in the background is not, by itself, sufficient.
If I engage a lawyer to argue my custody rights in the country pursuing me, does that hurt my challenge to the notice?
No. Genuine participation in both countries’ proceedings, including through counsel, has been treated as exactly the kind of engagement that supports the family-matter exclusion.
Does a domestic court dismissing the underlying charge help before the Commission?
Considerably. An independent national court reaching the same conclusion — that a custody grant defeats an abduction charge — is strong corroboration for a challenge before the Commission.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.