EN | FR | ES

Case Law Search

New search

CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

The Matter of the Children's Law Reform Act: Between S. Del Carmen Miranda de Martinez v. G. Martinez-Jarquin (18 July 1990), transcript, Ontario Court; Provincial Division

INCADAT reference

HC/E/CA 368

Court

Country

CANADA

Name

Ontario Court; Provincial Division

Level

First Instance

Judge(s)
Karswick, P.C.J.

States involved

Requesting State

EL SALVADOR

Requested State

CANADA

Decision

Date

18 July 1990

Status

Final

Grounds

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Order

-

HC article(s) Considered

-

HC article(s) Relied Upon

-

Other provisions

-

Authorities | Cases referred to

-

Published in
http://www.hcch.net/incadat/fullcase/0368.htm

INCADAT comment

Exceptions to Return

Grave Risk of Harm
Risks associated with the child's State of habitual residence

Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law

Non-Convention Child Abduction Cases under National Law
Policy Issues

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | FR | ES

Facts

The children, a boy and a girl, were 10 1/2 and 3 1/3 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. They had lived in El Salvador all of their lives. The parents were separated. The mother had custody and the father visiting rights.

On 7 April 1989 the father took the children to the United States where they joined the father's girlfriend and their 4 1/4 year-old daughter. On 21 April 1989 the father took the children to Canada.

In August 1989 the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board granted the father, his girlfriend and the children, refugee status.

On 18 September 1989 an El Salvadorian court granted the mother custody of her two children. On 22 June 1990 the Ontario Provincial Court granted, inter alia, ex parte interim custody to the mother.

The mother then applied for the recognition of the El Salvadorian order and the return of her children to their State of habitual residence.

Ruling

The El Salvadorian custody order was afforded recognition and the return of the children ordered. The children would not face serious harm if sent back.

Grounds

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

While this was a non-Convention case the court stated that by incorporating the provisions of the Hague Convention into statute, the Province of Ontario had formally and emphatically declared its support for the paramount policy of discouraging international child abduction and requiring matters of custody and access to be determined by the courts of a child's State of habitual residence. The primary issue related to the fact that the Canadian Immigration Board had declared the father and his children to be refugees. The court noted that the findings of the Board should be given significant weight and any subsequent judicial decision should not be seen to be in contradiction of the earlier findings. However, the court added that the issue it had to decide was different to that determined by the Immigration Board. It further noted that the mother had not been a party to the immigration proceedings and that the father had withheld certain evidence. The court ruled that any perceived conflict between the refugee and child abduction issues should be resolved in favour of the policy enunciated by Ontario and embodied in the Hague Convention.

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

Research prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board Documentation Centre described El Salvador as a country with an extremely volatile political and social character. However, the court found that the father had failed to demonstrate that the children would suffer serious harm if returned. At the time of the removal they had been living in a quiet, peaceful neighbourhood; they were happy and secure with their mother and they had never been harmed nor did they anticipate any risk of harm. The court ruled that the father’s move had at least partly been motivated by economic reasons.

INCADAT comment

Risks associated with the child's State of habitual residence

Article 13(1)(b) has on occasion been raised not with regard to a specific risk directed at the individual child, but as the result of general circumstances prevailing in the State of habitual residence.

In the well-known US appellate case of Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 82], it was held, inter alia, that a grave risk could only exist when the return would put the child in imminent danger prior to the resolution of a custody dispute, e.g. by returning the child to a war zone or famine area.

This argument has been raised most frequently with regard to Israel.

Return to Israel

Courts have been divided over whether a return to Israel would expose a child to a grave risk of harm, but a clear majority has taken the view that it would not, see:

Argentina
A. v. A. [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AR 487]

Australia
Kilah & Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] FamCAFC 81 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 995]

Belgium
No 03/3585/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/BE 547]

Canada
Docket No 1 F 3709/00; C., 4 December 2001, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Court File No 01-FA-10575

Denmark
V.L.K., 11. januar 2002, 13. afdeling, B-2939-01 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DK 519]

United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2002] 3 FCR 43, [2002] EWCA Civ 908 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 469]

France
CA Aix en Provence, 8 octobre 2002, No de RG 02/14917 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 509]

Germany
1 F 3709/00, Familiengericht Zweibrücken, 25 January 2001 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 392]

United States of America
Freier v. Freier, 969 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Mich. 1996) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 133]

However, the argument has been upheld on several occasions:

Australia
Janine Claire Genish-Grant and Director-General Department of Community Services [2002] FamCA 346 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 458]

United States of America
Silverman v. Silverman, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8313 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 481] (see however: Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/US 530])  

Return to Zimbabwe

The highest jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords, rejected in 2008 a submission that the moral and political climate in Zimbabwe was such that any child would be at grave risk of psychological harm, or should not be expected to tolerate having to live there.

Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55 [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]

Return to Mexico

CA Rennes, 28 juin 2011, No de RG 11/02685 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 1129]

The mother mentioned the pollution of Mexico City, the insecurity due to crime in the Mexico City metropolis, and earthquake risks. She did not, however, show how these risks affected the children personally and directly. She had not mentioned those factors as justification for her decision to move to France, in a document sent to the father in 2010, but had referred to financial and family difficulties. In addition, the Court of Appeal noted that these factors had not deterred her from living in Mexico from 1998 to 2010 and raising two children there. It further noted that the mother had not seen fit to apply to the Mexican authorities for permission to move to France with the children, without explaining the reasons which in her view could jeopardise her right to a fair trial in Mexico.

The Court of Appeal made it clear that it did not affirm that the pleas raised by the mother were groundless. They might be used in connection with the issue of custody, but were not a sufficient proof of a grave risk.

(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)

Policy Issues

When a parent seeks the return of a child outside the scope of the Hague Convention, or another international or regional instrument, the court seised will have to decide how to balance the interests of the child with the general international policy of combating the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad (Art. 11(1) UNCRC 1990).

Canada
Shortridge-Tsuchiya v. Tsuchiya, 2009 BCSC 541, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 4138, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 1109].

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Appellate courts have struggled to agree on the appropriate balance to be struck.

An internationalist interpretation, favouring an approach mirrored on that of Hague Convention, was adopted by the Court of Appeal in:

Re E. (Abduction: Non-Convention Country) [1999] 2 FLR 642 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 589];

Re J. (Child Returned Abroad: Human Rights) [2004] EWCA Civ. 417, [2004] 2 FLR 85 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 586].

However, in the earlier case Re J.A. (Child Abduction: Non-Convention Country) [1998] 1 FLR 231 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 588] a return order was not made, there being concerns as to whether the legal system in the foreign jurisdiction would be able to act in the best interests of the child. A factor in that case was that the abducting mother, who was British, would not be entitled to relocate from the child's State of habitual residence unless she had the consent of the father.

In Re J. (A Child) (Return to Foreign Jurisdiction: Convention Rights), [2005] UKHL 40, [2006] 1 AC 80, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 801] the House of Lords expressly stated that the approach of the Court of Appeal in Re J.A. (Child Abduction: Non-Convention Country) [1998] 1 FLR 231 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 588] was the one to be preferred.

The House of Lords held that the rationale of the Hague Convention necessarily meant that the State of refuge might on occasion have to do something which was not in the best interests of the individual child involved. States parties had accepted this disadvantage to some individual children for the sake of the greater advantage to children in general.  However, there was no warrant, either in statute or authority, for the principles of the Hague Convention to be extended to countries which were not parties to it. In a non-Convention case the court must act in accordance with the welfare of the individual child. Whilst there was no ‘strong presumption' in favour of return on the facts of an individual case a summary return may very well be in the best interests of the individual child.

It may be noted that in Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 854, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982] a trial judge who felt compelled to discharge his original order for return in the light, inter alia, of the ruling in Re M. had his judgment overturned. The Court of Appeal did not, however, comment on the ruling of the House of Lords and the case ostensibly turned on the existence of new evidence, pointing to the inevitability of the mother's deportation.

In E.M. (Lebanon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64, [2009] 1 A.C. 1198 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 994] an immigration case centred around the wrongful removal of a child from a non-Convention country, the House of Lords ruled that a return would lead to a violation of the child's and his mother's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, it must be noted that on the facts the child's only ‘family life' was with the mother, the father having had no contact with the child since the day of his birth. A majority of the panel (4:1) held that the discriminatory nature of Lebanese family law, which would have led to the automatic transfer of care for the child being passed from mother to father, upon the child reaching his 7th birthday, would not have led to a breach of the ECHR.