CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

CA Grenoble, 29 mars 2000, No de RG 00/00797

INCADAT reference

HC/E/FR 274

Court

Country

FRANCE

Name

Cour d'appel de Grenoble

Level

Appellate Court

Judge(s)
Combe, Pres., Husquin, and Rebuffet

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Requested State

FRANCE

Decision

Date

29 March 2000

Status

Final

Grounds

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Order

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

HC article(s) Considered

3 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 20 26

HC article(s) Relied Upon

3

Other provisions

-

Authorities | Cases referred to

-

INCADAT comment

Exceptions to Return

General Issues
Limited Nature of the Exceptions
Grave Risk of Harm
French Case Law
Child's Objection
Nature and Strength of Objection
Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms
Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | FR | ES

Facts

The child, a girl, was 6 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. She had lived in the United States for the majority of her life. The parents were separated.

In September 1996, after the child had twice been unilaterally removed by the mother, the Superior Court of San Diego, California, granted physical custody to the father and access to the mother. Both parents were barred from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the court without the consent of the other or order of the court. On 4 June 1999 the mother took the child to France.

On 17 February 2000 the Family Court of Grenoble ordered the return of the child. On 18 February the mother was given leave to make an emergency appeal.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful and return ordered with undertakings offered; none of the exceptions argued had been proved to the requisite standard.

Grounds

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

There was no immediate grave risk that the return of the child would expose her to a physical or psychological danger or place her in an intolerable situation. In this the court noted that the child had had her principal residence with her father in the United States since September 1996.

Undertakings

The father offered several undertakings to the court, notably he promised to take the child to France four times a year for at least one week each time and he would also allow the child to see her mother when they were in Italy on vacation.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

The child was heard by the court but while she indicated a preference for life in France, she did not oppose a return to the United States.

Human Rights - Art. 20

There was no evidence to indicate that the order of the Superior Court of San Diego was contrary to French public policy. Moreover, the return of the child would not give rise to a breach of human rights or of fundamental freedoms since the mother enjoyed a right of contact with the child.

Procedural Matters

The mother was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the father's costs of 35000 francs.

INCADAT comment

Limited Nature of the Exceptions

Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.

French Case Law

The treatment of Article 13(1) b) by French courts has evolved, with a permissive approach being replaced by a more robust interpretation.

The judgments of France's highest jurisdiction, the Cour de cassation, from the mid to late 1990s, may be contrasted with more recent decisions of the same court and also with decisions of the court of appeal. See:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 juillet 1994, Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt ; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 103];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 21 novembre 1995 (Pourvoi N° 93-20140), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 514];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 22 juin 1999, (N° de pourvoi : 98-17902), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 498];

And contrast with:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 25 janvier 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 02-17411), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 708];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 14 juin 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 04-16942), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 844];

Cass. Civ 1ère 13 juillet 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 05-10519), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 845];

CA. Amiens 4 mars 1998, n°5704759, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];

CA. Grenoble 29 mars 2000 M. c. F., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];

CA. Paris 7 février 2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2001/21768), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 849];

CA. Paris, 20/09/2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2002/13730), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 850];

CA. Aix en Provence 8 octobre 2002, L c. Ministère Public, Mme B. et Mesdemoiselles L. (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];

CA. Paris 27 octobre 2005, 05/15032 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 14 décembre 2005 (N° de pourvoi :05-12934) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @889@];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 14 November 2006 (N° de pourvoi : 05-15692) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @890@].

Recent examples where Article 13(1) b) has been upheld include:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 Décembre 2006 (N° de pourvoi : 05-22119) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @891@];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 17 Octobre 2007 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @946@]. 

The interpretation given by the Cour d'appel de Rouen in 2006, whilst obiter, does recall the more permissive approach to Article 13(1) b) favoured in the early 1990s, see:

CA. Rouen, 9 Mars 2006, N°05/04340 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR @897@].

Nature and Strength of Objection

Australia
De L. v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) FLC 92-706 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 93].

The supreme Australian jurisdiction, the High Court, advocated a literal interpretation of the term ‘objection'.  However, this was subsequently reversed by a legislative amendment, see:

s.111B(1B) of the Family Law Act 1975 inserted by the Family Law Amendment Act 2000.

Article 13(2), as implemented into Australian law by reg. 16(3) of the Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1989, now provides not only that the child must object to a return, but that the objection must show a strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes.

See for example:

Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 904].

The issue as to whether a child must specifically object to the State of habitual residence has not been settled, see:

Re F. (Hague Convention: Child's Objections) [2006] FamCA 685 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 864].

Austria
9Ob102/03w, Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 8/10/2003 [INCADAT: cite HC/E/AT 549].

A mere preference for the State of refuge is not enough to amount to an objection.

Belgium
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, 27/5/2003 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 546].

A mere preference for the State of refuge is not enough to amount to an objection.

Canada
Crnkovich v. Hortensius, [2009] W.D.F.L. 337, 62 R.F.L. (6th) 351, 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 1028].

To prove that a child objects, it must be shown that the child "displayed a strong sense of disagreement to returning to the jurisdiction of his habitual residence. He must be adamant in expressing his objection. The objection cannot be ascertained by simply weighing the pros and cons of the competing jurisdictions, such as in a best interests analysis. It must be something stronger than a mere expression of preference".

United Kingdom - England & Wales
In Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 87] the Court of Appeal held that the return to which a child objects must be an immediate return to the country from which it was wrongfully removed. There is nothing in the provisions of Article 13 to make it appropriate to consider whether the child objects to returning in any circumstances.

In Re M. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 56] it was, however, accepted that an objection to life with the applicant parent may be distinguishable from an objection to life in the former home country.

In Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] Ward L.J. set down a series of questions to assist in determining whether it was appropriate to take a child's objections into account.

These questions where endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 901].

For academic commentary see: P. McEleavy ‘Evaluating the Views of Abducted Children: Trends in Appellate Case Law' [2008] Child and Family Law Quarterly, pp. 230-254.

France
Objections based solely on a preference for life in France or life with the abducting parent have not been upheld, see:

CA Grenoble 29/03/2000 M. v. F. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];

TGI Niort 09/01/1995, Procureur de la République c. Y. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 63].

United Kingdom - Scotland
In Urness v. Minto 1994 SC 249 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 79] a broad interpretation was adopted, with the Inner House accepting that a strong preference for remaining with the abducting parent and for life in Scotland implicitly meant an objection to returning to the United States of America.

In W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805] the Inner House, which accepted the Re T. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] gateway test, held that objections relating to welfare matters were only to be dealt with by the authorities in the child's State of habitual residence.

In the subsequent first instance case: M. Petitioner 2005 S.L.T. 2 OH [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 804], Lady Smith noted the division in appellate case law and decided to follow the earlier line of authority as exemplified in Urness v. Minto.  She explicitly rejected the Re T. gateway tests.

The judge recorded in her judgment that there would have been an attempt to challenge the Inner House judgment in W. v. W. before the House of Lords but the case had been resolved amicably.

More recently a stricter approach to the objections has been followed, see:  C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 962]; upheld on appeal: C v. C. [2008] CSIH 34, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 996].

Switzerland
The highest Swiss court has stressed the importance of children being able to distinguish between issues relating to custody and issues relating to return, see:

5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795];

5P.3/2007 /bnm; Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 894].

A mere preference for life in the State of refuge, even if reasoned, will not satisfy the terms of Article 13(2):

5A.582/2007 Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 986].

For general academic commentary see: R. Schuz ‘Protection or Autonomy -The Child Abduction Experience' in  Y. Ronen et al. (eds), The Case for the Child- Towards the Construction of a New Agenda,  271-310 (Intersentia,  2008).

Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.