HC/E/US 1262
UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Supreme Court of the United States
Superior Appellate Court
UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
5 March 2014
Final
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
Appeal dismissed, return refused
-
The Supreme Court noted that the Hague Convention's central operating feature is the return of the wrongfully removed / retained child. It agreed that in general the Convention reflected a design to discourage child abduction. But, referring to the exceptions in Art. 13 and in Art. 12(2), the Court held that the Convention did not pursue that goal at any cost.
Equitable Tolling Doctrine:
The question before the Court was whether the 1-year time period in Art. 12(1) is subject to the American doctrine of "equitable tolling" when the abducting parent conceals the child's location from the other parent. The Court noted that Federal Courts of Appeals were divided on this issue: Lozano v Alvarez 697 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 1261] - equitable tolling not available; Yaman v. Yaman, 730 F. 3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) - not available; Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2009) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 741] - available; Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 578] - available.
The Court noted that equitable tolling was a long-established feature of American jurisprudence. Referring to case law on federal statutes of limitations, it explained that as a general matter, "equitable tolling pauses the running of, or 'tolls,' a statute of limitations when a litigant has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him from bringing a timely action". The Court added that because the doctrine effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by the United States Congress, the availability of equitable tolling is fundamentally a question of statutory intention. The Court held that whilst there was a presumption to incorporate equitable tolling into federal statutes of limitations, since the doctrine was part of the established backdrop of American law, there was no general presumption that equitable tolling applied to treaties. The Court noted that the doctrine was not a principle shared by the signatories to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and that it had been rejected by intermediate courts of appeals in several Contracting States. The Court further added that Congress' enactment of implementing legislation for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (ICARA) did not import background principles of American law into the treaty interpretation process.
The Court held that even if the doctrine had force outside of domestic law, it had only been applied to statutes of limitations, and the 1-year period in Article 12(1) was not a statute of limitations. It explained that the continued availability of the return remedy after one year preserved the possibility of relief for the left-behind parent and prevented repose for the abducting parent. Furthermore, the expiration of the 1-year period opened the door to consideration of the child's interest in settlement; this was not the sort of interest addressed by a statute of limitations.
The Court held that the Convention did not support extending the 1-year period in Art. 12(1) where the child had been concealed. It noted moreover that concealment did not necessarily profit the abducting parent, as the steps required to conceal could prevent the stable attachments required to make a child settled. The Court concluded that equitable tolling was therefore neither required by the Convention nor the only available means to advance its objectives. It further held that equitable tolling could not be applied as a matter of some independent authority to reconsider the fairness of legislative judgments balancing the needs for relief and repose.
Exercise of Discretion:
The Supreme Court did not decide whether, or under what circumstances, a court may exercise discretion to order return notwithstanding a child's subsequent settlement. It noted that the District Court had not exercised its discretion to order the return of the child and that the father had not challenged this decision in the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the issue was beyond the scope of the question presented before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did note that in the view of the United States Department of State, the Hague Convention did confer equitable discretion on courts to order the return of a child even if the court had determined the child to be "settled" within the meaning of Art. 12.
Justice Alito, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor joined, stated in a separate concurring judgment that courts had equitable discretion under the Hague Convention to order a child's return even after he / she had become settled. Justice Alito explained that such discretion would prevent abuses that the father claimed would follow from holding that the 1-year period in Art. 12(1) may not be equitably tolled. Referring to Art. 18, Justice Alito noted that a court had the power to order a child's return in the exercise of its sound discretion even where the Art. 12(1) obligation no longer applied. However, even without the express language of Art. 18, he held that nothing in Art. 12 called into question the discretionary power of courts to order return after the 1-year period had expired and the child had become settled. Justice Alito further noted that courts in other Contracting States had also found a discretion to exist. He concluded that the power of a court, in the exercise of its discretion, to return even a settled child would prevent the inapplicability of equitable tolling to the 1-year limit in Art. 12(1) from encouraging parents to flee to the United States of America and conceal their children there.
Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy
See also the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Lozano v. Alvarez 697 F.3d 41 (2nd Cir. 2012) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 1261].
Courts in all Contracting States must inevitably make reference to and evaluate the aims of the Convention if they are to understand the purpose of the instrument, and so be guided in how its concepts should be interpreted and provisions applied.
The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, explicitly and implicitly, embodies a range of aims and objectives, positive and negative, as it seeks to achieve a delicate balance between the competing interests of the central actors; the child, the left behind parent and the abducting parent, see for example the discussion in the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court: W.(V.) v. S.(D.), (1996) 2 SCR 108, (1996) 134 DLR 4th 481 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 17].
Article 1 identifies the core aims, namely that the Convention seeks:
"a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States."
Further clarification, most notably to the primary purpose of achieving the return of children where their removal or retention has led to the breach of actually exercised rights of custody, is given in the Preamble.
Therein it is recorded that:
"the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody;
and that States signatory desire:
to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention;
to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence; and
to secure protection for rights of access."
The aim of return and the manner in which it should best be achieved is equally reinforced in subsequent Articles, notably in the duties required of Central Authorities (Arts 8-10) and in the requirement for judicial authorities to act expeditiously (Art. 11).
Article 13, along with Articles 12(2) and 20, which contain the exceptions to the summary return mechanism, indicate that the Convention embodies an additional aim, namely that in certain defined circumstances regard may be paid to the specific situation, including the best interests, of the individual child or even taking parent.
The Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report draws (at para. 19) attention to an implicit aim on which the Convention rests, namely that any debate on the merits of custody rights should take place before the competent authorities in the State where the child had his habitual residence prior to its removal, see for example:
Argentina
W., E. M. c. O., M. G., Supreme Court, June 14, 1995 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AR 362]
Finland
Supreme Court of Finland: KKO:2004:76 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FI 839]
France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No de RG 06/002739 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 947]
Israel
T. v. M., 15 April 1992, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Supreme Court of Israel [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 214]
Netherlands
X. (the mother) v. De directie Preventie, en namens Y. (the father) (14 April 2000, ELRO nr. AA 5524, Zaaksnr.R99/076HR) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NL 316]
Switzerland
5A.582/2007 Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, 4 décembre 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 986]
United Kingdom - Scotland
N.J.C. v. N.P.C. [2008] CSIH 34, 2008 S.C. 571 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 996]
United States of America
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 125]
The Pérez-Vera Report equally articulates the preventive dimension to the instrument's return aim (at paras. 17, 18, 25), a goal which was specifically highlighted during the ratification process of the Convention in the United States (see: Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10505 (1986)) and which has subsequently been relied upon in that Contracting State when applying the Convention, see:
Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2008) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 741]
Applying the principle of equitable tolling where an abducted child had been concealed was held to be consistent with the purpose of the Convention to deter child abduction.
Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 578]
In contrast to other federal Courts of Appeals, the 11th Circuit was prepared to interpret a ne exeat right as including the right to determine a child's place of residence since the goal of the Hague Convention was to deter international abduction and the ne exeat right provided a parent with decision-making authority regarding the child's international relocation.
In other jurisdictions, deterrence has on occasion been raised as a relevant factor in the interpretation and application of the Convention, see for example:
Canada
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 754]
United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re A.Z. (A Minor) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1993] 1 FLR 682 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 50]
Aims and objectives may equally rise to prominence during the life of the instrument, such as the promotion of transfrontier contact, which it has been submitted will arise by virtue of a strict application of the Convention's summary return mechanism, see:
New Zealand
S. v. S. [1999] NZFLR 625 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 296]
United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 60]
There is no hierarchy between the different aims of the Convention (Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report, at para. 18). Judicial interpretation may therefore differ as between Contracting States as more or less emphasis is placed on particular objectives. Equally jurisprudence may evolve, whether internally or internationally.
In United Kingdom case law (England and Wales) a decision of that jurisdiction's then supreme jurisdiction, the House of Lords, led to a reappraisal of the Convention's aims and consequently a re-alignment in court practice as regards the exceptions:
Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]
Previously a desire to give effect to the primary goal of promoting return and thereby preventing an over-exploitation of the exceptions, had led to an additional test of exceptionality being added to the exceptions, see for example:
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 901]
It was this test of exceptionality which was subsequently held to be unwarranted by the House of Lords in Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]
- Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine:
In United States Convention case law different approaches have been taken in respect of applicants who have or are alleged to have themselves breached court orders under the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine".
In Re Prevot, 59 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 1995) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 150], the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was applied, the applicant father in the Convention application having left the United States to escape his criminal conviction and other responsibilities to the United States courts.
Walsh v. Walsh, No. 99-1747 (1st Cir. July 25, 2000) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 326]
In the instant case the father was a fugitive. Secondly, it was arguable there was some connection between his fugitive status and the petition. But the court found that the connection not to be strong enough to support the application of the doctrine. In any event, the court also held that applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine would impose too severe a sanction in a case involving parental rights.
In March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 386], the doctrine was not applied where the applicant was in breach of civil orders.
In the Canadian case Kovacs v. Kovacs (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 671 (Sup. Ct.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 760], the father's fugitive status was held to be a factor in there being a grave risk of harm facing the child.
Author: Peter McEleavy
A uniform interpretation has not emerged with regard to the concept of settlement; in particular whether it should be construed literally or rather in accordance with the policy objectives of the Convention. In jurisdictions favouring the latter approach the burden of proof on the abducting parent is clearly greater and the exception is more difficult to establish.
Jurisdictions in which a heavy burden of proof has been attached to the establishment of settlement include:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re N. (Minors) (Abduction) [1991] 1 FLR 413 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 106]
In this case it was held that settlement is more than mere adjustment to surroundings. It involves a physical element of relating to, being established in, a community and an environment. It also has an emotional constituent denoting security and stability.
Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA CIV 1330, [2005] 1 FLR 169 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 598]
For academic criticism of Re N. see:
Collins L. et al., Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 14th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2006, paragraph 19-121.
However, it may be noted that a more recent development in England has been the adoption of a child-centric assessment of settlement by the House of Lords in Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937]. This ruling may impact on the previous case law.
However there was no apparent weakening of the standard in the non-Convention case Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 842, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649,[INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982].
United Kingdom - Scotland
Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 107]
For Article 12(2) to be activated the interest of the child in not being uprooted must be so cogent that it outweighs the primary purpose of the Convention, namely the return of the child to the proper jurisdiction so that the child's future may be determined in the appropriate place.
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 963]
A settled situation was one which could reasonably be relied upon to last as matters stood and did not contain indications that it was likely to change radically or to fall apart. There had therefore to be some projection into the future.
C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 962]
United States of America
In re Interest of Zarate, No. 96 C 50394 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 1996) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 134]
A literal interpretation of the concept of settlement has been favoured in:
Australia
Director-General, Department of Community Services v. M. and C. and the Child Representative (1998) FLC 92-829 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 291];
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 825].
The impact of the divergent interpretations is arguably most marked where very young children are concerned.
It has been held that settlement is to be considered from the perspective of a young child in:
Austria
7Ob573/90 Oberster Gerichtshof, 17/05/1990 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 378];
Australia
Secretary, Attorney-General's Department v. T.S. (2001) FLC 93-063 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 823];
State Central Authority v. C.R [2005] Fam CA 1050 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 824];
Israel
Family Application 000111/07 Ploni v. Almonit, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 938];
Monaco
R 6136; M. Le Procureur Général contre M. H. K., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/MC 510];
Switzerland
Präsidium des Bezirksgerichts St. Gallen (District Court of St. Gallen) (Switzerland), decision of 8 September 1998, 4 PZ 98-0217/0532N, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 431].
A child-centric approach has also been adopted in several significant appellate decisions with regard to older children, with emphasis placed on the children's views.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937];
France
CA Paris 27 Octobre 2005, 05/15032, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814];
Québec
Droit de la Famille 2785, Cour d'appel de Montréal, 5 December 1997, No 500-09-005532-973 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 653].
In contrast, a more objective assessment was favoured in the United States decision:
David S. v. Zamira S., 151 Misc. 2d 630, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Fam. Ct. 1991) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 208]
The children, aged 3 and 1 1/2, had not established significant ties to their community in Brooklyn; they were not involved in school, extra-curricular, community, religious or social activities which children of an older age would be.
Where children are concealed in the State of refuge courts are reluctant to make a finding of settlement, even if many years elapse before their discovery:
Canada (7 years elapsed)
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 754];
See however the decision of the Cour d'appel de Montréal in:
Droit de la Famille 2785, Cour d'appel de Montréal, 5 December 1997, No 500-09-005532-973 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 653].
United Kingdom - Scotland (2 ½ years elapsed)
C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, 2008 S.C.L.R. 329 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 962];
Switzerland (4 years elapsed)
Justice de Paix du cercle de Lausanne (Magistrates' Court), decision of 6 July 2000, J 765 CIEV 112E [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 434];
United States of America
(2 ½ years elapsed)
Lops v. Lops, 140 F. 3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 125];
(3 years elapsed)
In re Coffield, 96 Ohio App. 3d 52, 644 N.E. 2d 662 (1994) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 138].
Non-return orders have been made where notwithstanding the concealment the children have still been able to lead open lives:
United Kingdom - England & Wales (4 years elapsed)
Re C. (Abduction: Settlement) (No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 815];
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) (4 ¾ years elapsed)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 825].
In accordance with this principle the one year time limit in Article 12 is only deemed to commence from the date of the discovery of the children. The rationale being that otherwise an abducting parent who concealed children for more than a year would be rewarded for their misconduct by creating eligibility for an affirmative defence which was not otherwise available.
Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 578].
The principle of 'equitable tolling' in the context of the time limit specified in Article 12 has been rejected in other jurisdictions, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA CIV 1330, [2005] 1 FLR 169 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 598];
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/HK 825];
New Zealand
H.J. v. Secretary for Justice [2006] NZFLR 1005 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 1127].
Unlike the Article 13 exceptions, Article 12(2) does not expressly afford courts a discretion to make a return order if settlement is established. Where this issue has arisen for consideration the majority judicial view has nevertheless been to apply the provision as if a discretion does exist, but this has arisen in different ways.
Australia
The matter has not been conclusively decided but there would appear to be appellate support for inferring a discretion, reference has been made to English and Scottish case law, see:
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care v. Moore, (1999) FLC 92-841 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 276].
United Kingdom - England & Wales
English case law initially favoured inferring that a Convention based discretion existed by virtue of Article 18, see:
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1991] 2 FLR 1, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 163];
Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA CIV 1330, [2005] 1 FLR 169 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 598].
However, this interpretation was expressly rejected in the House of Lords decision Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937]. A majority of the panel held that the construction of Article 12(2) left the matter open that there was an inherent discretion where settlement was established. It was pointed out that Article 18 did not confer any new power to order the return of a child under the Convention, rather it contemplated powers conferred by domestic law.
Ireland
In accepting the existence of a discretion reference was made to early English authority and Article 18.
P. v. B. (No. 2) (Child Abduction: Delay) [1999] 4 IR 185; [1999] 2 ILRM 401 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 391].
New Zealand
A discretion derives from the domestic legislation implementing the Convention, see:
Secretary for Justice (as the NZ Central Authority on behalf of T.J) v. H.J. [2006] NZSC 97, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 882].
United Kingdom - Scotland
Whilst the matter was not explored in any detail, settlement not being established, there was a suggestion that a discretion would exist, with reference being made to Article 18.
Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 107].
There have been a few decisions in which no discretion was found to attach to Article 12(2), these include:
Australia
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232], - subsequently questioned;
State Central Authority v. C.R. [2005] Fam CA 1050 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 824];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re C. (Abduction: Settlement) [2004] EWHC 1245, [2005] 1 FLR 127, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 596] - subsequently overruled;
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 825];
Canada (Québec)
Droit de la Famille 2785, Cour d'appel de Montréal, 5 décembre 1997, No 500-09-005532-973 , [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 653].
Article 18 not being included in the act implementing the Convention in Quebec, it is understood that courts do not possess a discretionary power where settlement is established.
For academic commentary on the use of discretion where settlement is established, see:
Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E. 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p. 204 et seq.;
R. Schuz, ‘In Search of a Settled Interpretation of Article 12(2) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention' [2008] Child and Family Law Quarterly.