CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

State Central Authority v. Keenan [2004] FamCA 724, (2004) FLC 93-200

INCADAT reference

HC/E/AU 782

Court

Country

AUSTRALIA

Name

Family Court of Australia at Melbourne

Level

First Instance

Judge(s)
Morgan J.

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Requested State

AUSTRALIA

Decision

Date

6 August 2004

Status

Final

Grounds

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Order

Return ordered

HC article(s) Considered

3 13(1)(b)

HC article(s) Relied Upon

3 13(1)(b)

Other provisions

-

Authorities | Cases referred to
McCall and McCall: State Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-551; Murray v. Director, Family Services, ACT (1993) FLC 92-416; Re H. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72; Re B. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1994] FLC 249; Re O. (Child Abduction: Custody Rights) [1997] 2 FLR 702; DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority (2001) FLC 93-081.

INCADAT comment

Article 12 Return Mechanism

Rights of Custody
Inchoate Rights of Custody
What is a Right of Custody for Convention Purposes?

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | FR | ES

Facts

The child, a boy, was 5 at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents met over the internet in 1998. The child was conceived in the same year, when the mother, an Australian citizen, travelled to the US to visit the father. The mother then returned to Australia where the child was born.

In 1999, the mother obtained court orders granting her residence and sole responsibility for the care, welfare and development of the child. The father's contact was reserved.

In 2000, the mother and child moved to the United States to live with father. The parties married in December that year, residing together in the State of Virginia until October 2002, when the mother, without notice to the father, removed the child to Australia.

On 20 December 2002, a request was forwarded to the Central Authority in Australia to issue proceedings for the child's return. The father, in the meantime, filed a complaint in a Virginia state court seeking custody and return of the child. The Australian proceedings were adjourned to await the outcome of the US proceedings.

The Virginian court held it had no jurisdiction to grant relief as the child had been resident in the state for less than 6 months before the application was made, and Virginia was not, therefore, the "home state" of the child. A direction was made however that the matter remain on the court docket.

The return proceedings in Australia were eventually heard on 22 July 2004. It was common ground in those proceedings that prior to the child's removal, the child had been habitually resident in the US and that the father had been exercising normal parental rights and obligations in respect of the child. The issues before the court were whether the father had a right of custody enforceable in the US at the time of the removal and whether the child would be exposed to a grave risk of harm if returned.

Ruling

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father, the mother failed to establish that the child if returned would be exposed to a grave risk of harm.

Grounds

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The trial Judge noted that under the Uniform Child Custody (Jurisdiction and Enforcement) Act of the Code of Virginia, a child custody order of a foreign state is generally enforceable as if it were an order of a State of the US. This suggested that the Australian orders granting the mother residence would have full force in the State of Virginia and the father had no rights of custody under State law. An issue arose however as to whether the parties’ subsequent marriage nullified the effect of those orders in Virginia. The trial Judge heard conflicting expert evidence on this issue, ultimately preferring the evidence of the father’s expert. He argued that although there was no authority in Virginia on this issue, there was authority in other states that a Virginia court would find persuasive that the effect of a remarriage was to nullify a prior custody order. The fact that the parties’ had subsequently married rather than remarried was a “distinction without a difference”. Alternatively, the trial Judge was willing to find that the term “rights of custody” was sufficiently wide to encompass the inchoate or de facto rights of custody exercised by the father prior to the child’s removal.

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

There was no evidence to suggest that the father had mistreated the child, nor was there any expert evidence that the child would be exposed to psychological harm if returned. The child, in any event, would not be returned to the father, but to the United States, a country which was capable of providing legal protection to the child if such protection was required.

INCADAT comment

Inchoate Rights of Custody

The reliance on 'inchoate custody rights', to afford a Convention remedy to applicants who have actively cared for removed or retained children, but who do not possess legal custody rights, was first identified in the English decision:

Re B. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1994] 2 FLR 249 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 4],

and has subsequently been followed in that jurisdiction in:

Re O. (Child Abduction: Custody Rights) [1997] 2 FLR 702, [1997] Fam Law 781 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 5];

Re G. (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2002] 2 FLR 703 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 505].

The concept has been the subject of judicial consideration in:

Re W. (Minors) (Abduction: Father's Rights) [1999] Fam 1 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/Uke 503];

Re B. (A Minor) (Abduction: Father's Rights) [1999] Fam 1 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 504];

Re G. (Child Abduction) (Unmarried Father: Rights of Custody) [2002] EWHC 2219 (Fam); [2002] ALL ER (D) 79 (Nov), [2003] 1 FLR 252 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 506].

In one English first instance decision: Re J. (Abduction: Declaration of Wrongful Removal) [1999] 2 FLR 653 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 265], it was questioned whether the concept was in accordance with the decision of the House of Lords in Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562, [1990] 2 All ER 961, [1990] 2 FLR 450, sub nom C. v. S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 2] where it was held that de facto custody was not sufficient to amount to rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention.

The concept of 'inchoate custody rights', has attracted support and opposition in other Contracting States.

The concept has attracted support in a New Zealand first instance case: Anderson v. Paterson [2002] NZFLR 641 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 471].

However, the concept was specifically rejected by the majority of the Irish Supreme Court in the decision of: H.I. v. M.G. [1999] 2 ILRM 1; [2000] 1 IR 110 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 284].

Keane J. stated that it would go too far to accept that there was 'an undefined hinterland of inchoate rights of custody not attributed in any sense by the law of the requesting state to the party asserting them or to the court itself, but regard by the court of the requested state as being capable of protection under the terms of the Convention.'

The Court of Justice of the European Union has subsequently upheld the position adopted by the Irish Courts:

Case C-400/10 PPU J. McB. v. L.E., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].

In its ruling the European Court noted that the attribution of rights of custody, which were not accorded to an unmarried father under national law, would be incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty and with the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, notably those of the mother. 

This formulation leaves open the status of ‘incohate rights’ in a EU Member State where the concept had become part of national law.  The United Kingdom (England & Wales) would fall into this category, but it must be recalled that pursuant to the terms of Protocol (No. 30) on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom (OJ C 115/313, 9 May 2008), the CJEU could not in any event make a finding of inconsistency with regard to UK law vis-a-vis Charter rights. 

For academic criticism of the concept of inchoate rights see: Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E. 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' Oxford, OUP, 1999, at p. 60.

What is a Right of Custody for Convention Purposes?

Courts in an overwhelming majority of Contracting States have accepted that a right of veto over the removal of the child from the jurisdiction amounts to a right of custody for Convention purposes, see:

Australia
In the Marriage of Resina [1991] FamCA 33, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];

State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232];

Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 294];

Austria
2 Ob 596/91, OGH, 05 February 1992, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 375];

Canada
Thomson v. Thomson [1994] 3 SCR 551, 6 RFL (4th) 290 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 11].

The Supreme Court did draw a distinction between a non-removal clause in an interim custody order and in a final order. It suggested that were a non-removal clause in a final custody order to be regarded as a custody right for Convention purposes, that could have serious implications for the mobility rights of the primary carer.

Thorne v. Dryden-Hall, (1997) 28 RFL (4th) 297 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 12];

Decision of 15 December 1998, [1999] R.J.Q. 248 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 334];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654, [1989] 2 All ER 465, [1989] 1 FLR 403, [1989] Fam Law 228 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 34];

Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880];

France
Ministère Public c. M.B. 79 Rev. crit. 1990, 529, note Y. Lequette [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 62];

Germany
2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, (Federal Constitutional Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];

10 UF 753/01, Oberlandesgericht Dresden, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 486];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Bordera v. Bordera 1995 SLT 1176 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 183];

A.J. v. F.J. [2005] CSIH 36, 2005 1 SC 428 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 803];

South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];

Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Tribunal fédéral suisse, (Swiss Supreme Court), 29 March 1999, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427].

United States of America
In the United States, the Federal Courts of Appeals were divided on the appropriate interpretation to give between 2000 and 2010.

A majority followed the 2nd Circuit in adopting a narrow interpretation, see:

Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir., 2000; cert. den. Oct. 9, 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 313];

Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir 2002) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 493];

Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 157 L. Ed. 2d 732, 124 S. Ct. 805 (2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494];

Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 989].

The 11th Circuit however endorsed the standard international interpretation.

Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 578].

The matter was settled, at least where an applicant parent has a right to decide the child's country of residence, or the court in the State of habitual residence is seeking to protect its own jurisdiction pending further decrees, by the US Supreme Court endorsing the standard international interpretation. 

Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 1029].

The standard international interpretation has equally been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights, see:

Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No. 41615/07, 8 January 2009 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1001].

Confirmed by the Grand Chamber: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No 41615/07, 6 July 2010 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1323].


Right to Object to a Removal

Where an individual does not have a right of veto over the removal of a child from the jurisdiction, but merely a right to object and to apply to a court to prevent such a removal, it has been held in several jurisdictions that this is not enough to amount to a custody right for Convention purposes:

Canada
W.(V.) v. S.(D.), 134 DLR 4th 481 (1996), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA17];

Ireland
W.P.P. v. S.R.W. [2001] ILRM 371, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 271];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re V.-B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 261];

S. v. H. (Abduction: Access Rights) [1998] Fam 49 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 36];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Pirrie v. Sawacki 1997 SLT 1160, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 188].

This interpretation has also been upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union:
Case C-400/10 PPU J. McB. v. L.E., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].

The European Court held that to find otherwise would be incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty and with the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, notably those of the sole custodian.

For academic commentary see:

P. Beaumont & P. McEleavy The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oxford, OUP, 1999, p. 75 et seq.;

M. Bailey The Right of a Non-Custodial Parent to an Order for Return of a Child Under the Hague Convention; Canadian Journal of Family Law, 1996, p. 287;

C. Whitman 'Croll v Croll: The Second Circuit Limits 'Custody Rights' Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction' 2001 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 605.