Prepared by Professor Peter McEleavy (University of Dundee, Scotland) with the assistance of Aude Fiorini (University of Dundee, Scotland) on behalf of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
Analysis of case law sorted by legal issue (NB: only presents the state of the law up to the date of the most recently cited case per section):
Case Law Analysis
Aims & Scope of the Convention
Convention Aims
Convention Aims
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
Children Covered by the Convention
Children Covered by the Convention
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Jurisdiction Issues under the Hague Convention
Jurisdiction Issues under the Hague Convention
Jurisdiction Issues under the Hague Convention (Art. 16)
Given the aim of the Convention to secure the prompt return of abducted children to their State of habitual residence to allow for substantive proceedings to be convened, it is essential that custody proceedings not be initiated in the State of refuge. To this end Article 16 provides that:
"After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice."
Contracting States which are also party to the 1996 Hague Convention are provided greater protection by virtue of Article 7 of that instrument.
Contracting States which are Member States of the European Union and to which the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 (Brussels II a Regulation) applies are provided further protection still by virtue of Article 10 of that instrument.
The importance of Article 16 has been noted by the European Court of Human Rights:
Iosub Caras v. Romania, Application No. 7198/04, (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 35, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 867];
Carlson v. Switzerland no. 49492/06, 8 November 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 999].
When should Article 16 be applied?
The High Court in England & Wales has held that courts and lawyers must be pro-active where there is an indication that a wrongful removal or retention has occurred.
R. v. R. (Residence Order: Child Abduction) [1995] Fam 209, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 120].
When a court becomes aware, expressly or by inference that there has been a wrongful removal or retention it receives notice of that wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 16. Moreover, it is the duty of the court to consider taking steps to secure that the parent in that State is informed of his or her Convention rights.
Re H. (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2000] 2 FLR 294, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 478]
Lawyers, even those acting for abducting parents, had a duty to draw the attention of the court to the Convention where this was relevant.
Scope and Duration of Article 16 Protection?
Article 16 does not prevent provisional and protective measures from being taken:
Belgium
Cour de cassation 30/10/2008, CG c BS, N° de rôle: C.06.0619.F, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/BE 750].
However, in this case the provisional measures ultimately became final and the return was never enforced, due to a change in circumstances.
A return application must be made within a reasonable period of time:
France
Cass Civ 1ère 9 juillet 2008 (N° de pourvois K 06-22090 & M 06-22091), 9.7.2008, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 749]
United Kingdom - England & Wales
R. v. R. (Residence Order: Child Abduction) [1995] Fam 209, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 120].
A return order which has become final but has not yet been enforced is covered by Article 16:
Germany
Bundesgerichtshof, XII. Zivilsenat Decision of 16 August 2000 - XII ZB 210/99, BGHZ 145, 97 16 August 2000 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 467].
Article 16 will no longer apply when a return order cannot be enforced:
Switzerland
5P.477/2000/ZBE/bnm, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/CH 785].
General Approach to Interpretation
Pérez-Vera Report
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Autonomous Concepts
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Interpretation
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Removal & Retention
Commencement of Removal / Retention
Primarily this will be a factual question for the court seised of the return petition. The issue may be of relevance where there is doubt as to whether the 12 month time limit referred to in Article 12(1) has elapsed, or indeed if there is uncertainty as to whether the alleged wrongful act has occurred before or after the entry into force of the Convention between the child's State of habitual residence and the State of refuge.
International Dimension
A legal issue which has arisen and been settled with little controversy in several States, is that as the Convention is only concerned with international protection for children from removal or retention and not with removal or retention within the State of their habitual residence, the removal or retention in question must of necessity be from the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of the child's habitual residence and not simply from the care of holder of custody rights.
Australia
Murray v. Director, Family Services (1993) FLC 92-416, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 113].
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232]; Kay J. confirmed that time did not run, for the purposes of Art. 12, from the moment the child arrived in the State of refuge.
State Central Authority v. C.R. [2005] Fam CA 1050, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232]; Kay J. held that the precise determination of time had to be calculated in accordance with local time at the place where the wrongful removal had occurred.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H.; Re S. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1991] 2 AC 476, [1991] 3 All ER 230, [1991] 2 FLR 262, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 115].
United Kingdom - Scotland
Findlay v. Findlay 1994 SLT 709, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 184].
However in a very early Convention case Kilgour v. Kilgour 1987 SC 55, 1987 SLT 568, 1987 SCLR 344, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 116], the parties were at one in proceeding on the basis that the relevant removal for the purposes of the Convention was a removal in breach of custody rights rather than a removal from the country where the child previously lived.
Agreement on the issue of the commencement of return was not reached in the Israeli case Family Application 000111/07 Ploni v. Almonit, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 938]. One judge accepted that the relevant date was the date of removal from the State of habitual residence, whilst the other who reached a view held that it was the date of arrival in Israel.
Communication of Intention Not to Return a Child
Different positions have been adopted as to whether a retention will commence from the moment a person decides not to return a child, or whether the retention only commences from when the other custody holder learns of the intention not to return or that intention is specifically communicated.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
In Re S. (Minors) (Abduction: Wrongful Retention) [1994] Fam 70, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 117], the English High Court was prepared to accept that an uncommunicated decision by the abductor was of itself capable of constituting an act of wrongful retention.
Re A.Z. (A Minor) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1993] 1 FLR 682, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 50]: the moment the mother unilaterally decided not to return the child was not the point in time at which the retention became wrongful. This was no more than an uncommunicated intention to retain the child in the future from which the mother could still have resiled. The retention could have originated from the date of the aunt's ex parte application for residence and prohibited steps orders.
United States of America
Slagenweit v. Slagenweit, 841 F. Supp. 264 (N.D. Iowa 1993), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 143].
The wrongful retention did not begin to run until the mother clearly communicated her desire to regain custody and asserted her parental right to have the child live with her.
Zuker v. Andrews, 2 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D. Mass. 1998) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKf 122], the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a retention occurs when, on an objective assessment, a dispossessed custodian learns that the child is not to be returned.
Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2006), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 879].
The Court of Appeals held that ultimately it was not required to decide whether a child was not retained under the Convention until a parent unequivocally communicated his or her desire to regain custody, but it assumed that this standard applied.
Anticipated Non-Return
Courts have taken different views with regard to whether it is possible to have an 'anticipated non-return', i.e. whether it is possible for a lawful period of retention to become wrongful prior to the scheduled return date.
This possibility was implicitly accepted in:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re S. (Minors) (Child Abduction: Wrongful Retention) [1994] Fam 70 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 117];
New Zealand
P. v. The Secretary for Justice [2003] NZLR 54, [2003] NZFLR 673 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 575] (overturned on appeal - see below).
A greater number of courts have though refused to find a retention to be wrongful in advance of the scheduled return date:
China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
B.L.W. v. B.W.L. [2007] 2 HKLRD 193, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 975];
France
Cass Civ 1ère 19/03/2002 (Arrêt n° 516 FS-P, pourvoi n° 00-17692), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 512];
New Zealand
P. v. Secretary for Justice [2004] 2 NZLR 28 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 583];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Watson v. Jamieson 1998 SLT 180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 75];
United States of America
Toren v. Toren, 191 F.3d 23 (1st Cir 1999) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 584].
Nature of Removal and Retention
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Habitual Residence
Can a Child be left without a Habitual Residence?
In early Convention case law there was a clear reluctance on the part of appellate courts to find that a child did not have a habitual residence. This was because of the concern that such a conclusion would render the instrument inoperable, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re F. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 548 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 40];
Australia
Cooper v. Casey (1995) FLC 92-575 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 104].
However, in more recent years there has been a recognition that situations do exist where it is not possible to regard a child as being habitually resident anywhere:
Australia
D.W. & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2006] FamCA 93, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 870].
In this case the majority accepted that their decision could be said to deny the child of the benefit of the Convention. However, the majority argued that the interests of children generally could be adversely affected if courts were too willing to find that a parent who had attempted a reconciliation in a foreign country, was to be found, together with the child, to have become "habitually resident" in that foreign country.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
W. and B. v. H. (Child Abduction: Surrogacy) [2002] 1 FLR 1008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 470];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Robertson v. Robertson 1998 SLT 468 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 194];
D. v. D. 2002 SC 33 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 351];
New Zealand
S.K. v. K.P. [2005] 3 NZLR 590, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 816];
United States of America
Delvoye v. Lee, 329 F.3d 330 (3rd Cir. 2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 529];
Ferraris v. Alexander, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1417 (2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 797].
Can a Child have more than one Habitual Residence?
Academic commentators have long held that if the factual nature of the connecting factor is to be respected then situations may arise where an individual is habitually resident in more than one place at a particular time, see in particular:
Clive E. M. ‘The Concept of Habitual Residence' Juridical Review (1997), p. 137.
However, the Court of Appeal in England has accepted in the context of divorce jurisdiction that it is possible for an adult to be habitually resident in two places simultaneously, see:
Ikimi v. Ikimi [2001] EWCA Civ 873, [2002] Fam 72.
Courts in Convention proceedings have though held to the view that a child can only have one habitual residence, see for example:
Canada
SS-C c GC, Cour supérieure (Montréal), 15 août 2003, n° 500-04-033270-035, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 916];
Wilson v. Huntley (2005) A.C.W.S.J. 7084; 138 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1107 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 800];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re V. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1995] 2 FLR 992, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 45].
In this case where the children's lives alternated between Greece and England the court held that their habitual residence also alternated. The court ruled out their having concurrent habitual residences in both Greece and England.
United Kingdom - Northern Ireland
Re C.L. (A Minor); J.S. v. C.L., transcript, 25 August 1998, High Court of Northern Ireland, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKn 390];
United States of America
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, (6th Cir. 1993), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 142].
Relocations
Where there is clear evidence of an intention to commence a new life in another State then the existing habitual residence will be lost and a new one acquired.
In common law jurisdictions it is accepted that acquisition may be able to occur within a short period of time, see:
Canada
DeHaan v. Gracia [2004] AJ No.94 (QL), [2004] ABQD 4, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 576];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 2];
Re F. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 548, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 40].
In civil law jurisdictions it has been held that a new habitual residence may be acquired immediately, see:
Switzerland
Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) Décision du 15 novembre 2005, 5P.367/2005 /ast, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/CH 841].
Conditional Relocations
Where parental agreement as regards relocation is conditional on a future event, should an existing habitual residence be lost immediately upon leaving that country?
Australia
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia answered this question in the negative and further held that loss may not even follow from the fulfilment of the condition if the parent who aspires to relocate does not clearly commit to the relocation at that time, see:
Kilah & Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] FamCAFC 81, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 995].
However, this ruling was overturned on appeal by the High Court of Australia, which held that an existing habitual residence would be lost if the purpose had a sufficient degree of continuity to be described as settled. There did not need to be a settled intention to take up ‘long term' residence:
L.K. v. Director-General Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9, (2009) 253 ALR 202, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1012].
Open-Ended Moves
Where a move is open ended, or potentially open ended, the habitual residence at the time of the move may also be lost and a new one acquired relatively quickly, see:
United Kingdom - England and Wales (Non-Convention case)
Al Habtoor v. Fotheringham [2001] EWCA Civ 186, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 875];
New Zealand
Callaghan v. Thomas [2001] NZFLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 413];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Cameron v. Cameron 1996 SC 17, 1996 SLT 306, 1996 SCLR 25 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 71];
Moran v. Moran 1997 SLT 541 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 74];
United States of America
Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2006), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 879].
Time Limited Moves
Where a move abroad is time limited, even if it is for an extended period of time, there has been acceptance in certain Contracting States that the existing habitual residence can be maintained throughout, see:
Denmark
Ø.L.K., 5. April 2002, 16. afdeling, B-409-02 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DK 520];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H. (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2000] 2 FLR 294; [2000] 3 FCR 412 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 478];
United States of America
Morris v. Morris, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Colo., Aug. 30, 1999) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 306];
Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 301].
However, where a move was to endure for two years the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a change of habitual residence occurred shortly after the move, see:
Whiting v. Krassner 391 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2004) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 778].
In an English first instance decision it was held that a child had acquired a habitual residence in Germany after five months even though the family had only moved there for a six month secondment, see:
Re R. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [2003] EWHC 1968 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 580].
The Court of Appeal of China (Hong Kong SAR) found that a 21 month move led to a change in habitual residence:
B.L.W. v. B.W.L. [2007] 2 HKLRD 193, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 975].
Shuttle Custody Agreement & Agreements / Courts Order fixing Jurisdiction
Convention case law reveals several examples of cases where parties or a court seek to pre-empt future litigation over the appropriate venue by fixing jurisdiction in the Contracting State currently seized of the action. In such cases it is usually envisaged that the child will move for an extended time to another State, often pursuant to a ‘shuttle custody arrangement,' before returning to the designated home State.
Experience has shown however that disputes will frequently arise as to where the child is habitually resident if he or she has spent an extended period out of the designated home State.
In cases where the child is not returned to the designated home State attempts to enforce a jurisdiction agreement in the other Contracting State have failed, see:
Sweden
A.F.J. v. T.J., Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) RÅ 1996 ref 52, 9 May 1996 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/SE 80];
Canada
Wilson v. Huntley (2005) A.C.W.S.J. 7084; 138 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1107 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 800].
However, in a case where a child was removed, with his willing participation, to the designated home State the order as to jurisdiction was upheld in the face of a subsequent return application, see:
Israel
Family case 107064/99 K.L v. N.D.S., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 835].
For an example of a case where the parents sought to enter a jurisdiction clause in a custody agreement yet not restrict any evolution in the children's habitual residence, see:
New Zealand
Winters v. Cowen [2002] NZFLR 927 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 473].
The interpretation given by the Regeringsratten (Sweden) in A.F.J. v. T.J., that a child's habitual residence will change notwithstanding a jurisdiction clause in a shuttle custody arrangement mirrors that adopted by:
the Court of Session in Scotland in Watson v. Jamieson 1998 SLT 180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 75];
the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Punter v Secretary for Justice [2004] 2 NZLR 28 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 583], and,
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Canada) in Wilson v. Huntley (2005) A.C.W.S.J. 7084; 138 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1107 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 800].
Reference should equally be made to the Report of the Third Special Commission Meeting to Review the Operation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (17 - 21 March 1997) at para 16:
'Alternating custody agreements, or 'shuttle agreements' might give rise to problems in determining the habitual residence of the child. The question arises whether such agreements may determine habitual residence in a way that would be binding on courts requested to order the return of the child, eg by including an additional clause that non-return of the child on the date agreed upon constitutes unlawful retention under the Convention or other kinds of choice of court clauses. Such choice of court clauses do not fall to be recognised under the Convention, however, and parties to such an agreement should not have the power to create a habitual residence that does not match with the factual habitual residence of the child. This is, firstly, because the concept of 'habitual residence' under the Convention is regarded as a purely factual matter and, secondly, because the Convention provides for a very specific remedy applicable in cases of emergency and is not meant to solve parental disputes on the merits of custody rights.'
For academic commentary see:
Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E. 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p.p. 99-101;
Schiratzki J. 'Friends at Odds - Construing Habitual Residence for Children in Sweden and the United States,' International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (2001), 297 - 326;
Schuz R. ‘Habitual Residence of Children under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Theory and Practice' (2001) Child and Family Law Quarterly 1.
Habitual Residence
The interpretation of the central concept of habitual residence (Preamble, Art. 3, Art. 4) has proved increasingly problematic in recent years with divergent interpretations emerging in different jurisdictions. There is a lack of uniformity as to whether in determining habitual residence the emphasis should be exclusively on the child, with regard paid to the intentions of the child's care givers, or primarily on the intentions of the care givers. At least partly as a result, habitual residence may appear a very flexible connecting factor in some Contracting States yet much more rigid and reflective of long term residence in others.
Any assessment of the interpretation of habitual residence is further complicated by the fact that cases focusing on the concept may concern very different factual situations. For example habitual residence may arise for consideration following a permanent relocation, or a more tentative move, albeit one which is open-ended or potentially open-ended, or indeed the move may be for a clearly defined period of time.
General Trends:
United States Federal Appellate case law may be taken as an example of the full range of interpretations which exist with regard to habitual residence.
Child Centred Focus
The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has advocated strongly for a child centred approach in the determination of habitual residence:
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 125 ALR Fed. 703 (6th Cir. 1993) (6th Cir. 1993) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 142]
Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/US 935].
See also:
Villalta v. Massie, No. 4:99cv312-RH (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 1999) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 221].
Combined Child's Connection / Parental Intention Focus
The United States Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 8th Circuits, have espoused a child centred approach but with reference equally paid to the parents' present shared intentions.
The key judgment is that of Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 83].
See also:
Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 530];
Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2006) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 879].
In the latter case a distinction was drawn between the situation of very young children, where particular weight was placed on parental intention(see for example: Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 808]) and that of older children where the impact of parental intention was more limited.
Parental Intention Focus
The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 301] has been highly influential in providing that there should ordinarily be a settled intention to abandon an existing habitual residence before a child can acquire a new one.
This interpretation has been endorsed and built upon in other Federal appellate decisions so that where there was not a shared intention on the part of the parents as to the purpose of the move this led to an existing habitual residence being retained, even though the child had been away from that jurisdiction for an extended period of time. See for example:
Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 777]: United States habitual residence retained after 8 months of an intended 4 year stay in Germany;
Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 780]: United States habitual residence retained during 32 month stay in Mexico;
Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 176 F. Supp.2d 1045 (E.D. Wash. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 482]: United States habitual residence retained during 27 month stay in Greece.
The Mozes approach has also been approved of by the Federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd and 7th Circuits:
Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 776];
Koch v. Koch, 450 F.3d 703 (2006 7th Cir.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 878].
It should be noted that within the Mozes approach the 9th Circuit did acknowledge that given enough time and positive experience, a child's life could become so firmly embedded in the new country as to make it habitually resident there notwithstanding lingering parental intentions to the contrary.
Other Jurisdictions
There are variations of approach in other jurisdictions:
Austria
The Supreme Court of Austria has ruled that a period of residence of more than six months in a State will ordinarily be characterized as habitual residence, and even if it takes place against the will of the custodian of the child (since it concerns a factual determination of the centre of life).
8Ob121/03g, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AT 548].
Canada
In the Province of Quebec, a child centred focus is adopted:
In Droit de la famille 3713, No 500-09-010031-003 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 651], the Cour d'appel de Montréal held that the determination of the habitual residence of a child was a purely factual issue to be decided in the light of the circumstances of the case with regard to the reality of the child's life, rather than that of his parents. The actual period of residence must have endured for a continuous and not insignificant period of time; the child must have a real and active link to the place, but there is no minimum period of residence which is specified.
Germany
A child centred, factual approach is also evident in German case law:
2 UF 115/02, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 944].
This has led to the Federal Constitutional Court accepting that a habitual residence may be acquired notwithstanding the child having been wrongfully removed to the new State of residence:
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 1206/98, 29. Oktober 1998 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 233].
The Constitutional Court upheld the finding of the Higher Regional Court that the children had acquired a habitual residence in France, notwithstanding the nature of their removal there. This was because habitual residence was a factual concept and during their nine months there, the children had become integrated into the local environment.
Israel
Alternative approaches have been adopted when determining the habitual residence of children. On occasion, strong emphasis has been placed on parental intentions. See:
Family Appeal 1026/05 Ploni v. Almonit [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/Il 865];
Family Application 042721/06 G.K. v Y.K. [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/Il 939].
However, reference has been made to a more child centred approach in other cases. See:
decision of the Supreme Court in C.A. 7206/03, Gabai v. Gabai, P.D. 51(2)241;
FamA 130/08 H v H [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/Il 922].
New Zealand
In contrast to the Mozes approach the requirement of a settled intention to abandon an existing habitual residence was specifically rejected by a majority of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. See
S.K. v. K.P. [2005] 3 NZLR 590 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 816].
Switzerland
A child centred, factual approach is evident in Swiss case law:
5P.367/2005/ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 841].
United Kingdom
The standard approach is to consider the settled intention of the child's carers in conjunction with the factual reality of the child's life.
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 Reference: HC/E/UKe 2]. For academic commentary on the different models of interpretation given to habitual residence. See:
R. Schuz, "Habitual Residence of Children under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Theory and Practice", Child and Family Law Quarterly Vol 13, No. 1, 2001, p. 1;
R. Schuz, "Policy Considerations in Determining Habitual Residence of a Child and the Relevance of Context", Journal of Transnational Law and Policy Vol. 11, 2001, p. 101.
Article 12 Return Mechanism
Return
Place of Return
Article 12 of the Convention does not prescribe the place to which the child should be returned. The drafters wished for the provision to be left sufficiently wide to allow for a return to a State other than that of the child's habitual residence. However, the Preamble makes clear that the general intention is that a return should be to the latter State. Of course a return to the State of habitual residence does not of itself require the child to be placed into the care of the applicant parent or indeed of a State agency; very often the child will remain in the care of the abducting parent pending the determination of the substantive custody case. Furthermore a return need not mean a return to the particular place in the State where the child previously lived.
Courts have taken advantage of the flexibility in the drafting of Article 12 when dealing with return applications, see:
Australia
Murray v. Director, Family Services (1993) FLC 92-416 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 113].
The Full Court suggested that mother and children return to a different part of New Zealand from that where they previously lived in order to avoid danger at the hands of the applicant father.
Israel
G. v. B., 25 April 2007, Court for Family Matters, Beersheva [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 910].
Child ordered to be returned to Belgium, the country where he was to live, although it was not his State of habitual residence prior to the removal.
Where a court considered that the applicant father had no intention of actually remaining in the State of habitual residence with the child, but was actually seeking to bring about a relocation to a non-Convention State, it decided not to make a return order.
Canada
Espiritu v. Bielza, [2007] O.J. No. 1587; 2007 ONCJ 175; 39 R.F.L. (6th) 218; 2007 CarswellOnt 2546, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 728].
For discussion of the drafting of Article 12 see:
P. Beaumont & P. McEleavy The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oxford OUP, 1999.
After 12 Month Period
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Return Forthwith
Where a removal or retention is established as being wrongful and less that 12 months have elapsed before the commencement of the return proceedings, then Article 12(1) provides that the child shall be returned forthwith. This is designed to give effect to the goal of restoring the pre-abduction situation as quickly as possibly. However questions sometimes arise as to the modalities of return and whether, if at all, time should be allowed to make preparations or to allow the child finish the school term. Practice varies on this issue.
United States of America
Sampson v. Sampson, 267 Kan. 175, 975 P.2d 1211 (Kan. App. 1999), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 226].
The trial court gave the mother 90 days to submit herself and the children to the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts.
In other cases the concept of the return 'forthwith' of a wrongfully removed or retained child has been interpreted much more strictly, see:
France
Procureur de la Rèpublique c. Bartège, 27 June 1994, transcript, Montpellier Court of Appeal [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 63];
New Zealand
Fenton v. Morris, 28 July 1995, transcript, New Zealand District Court at Wellington [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 249];
United Kingdom - Scotland
D.I. Petitioner [1999] Green's Family Law Reports 126, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 352].
The trial judge held that the meaning of the term ‘return forthwith' depended on the circumstances of the case. It was agreed by the parties that the original time of two days was unrealistically short and a figure of seven days was agreed instead.
It has equally been noted that a return forthwith may no longer be appropriate where excessive delay has occurred since the commencement of the return proceedings:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880] : almost 4 years had elapsed since the arrival of the child.
Rights of Custody
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.
Autonomous Interpretation of 'Rights of Custody' And 'Wrongfulness'
Conflicts have on occasion emerged between courts in different Contracting States as to the outcomes in individual cases. This has primarily been with regard to the interpretation of custody rights or the separate, but related issue of the ‘wrongfulness' of a removal or retention.
Conflict Based on Scope of ‘Rights of Custody'
Whilst the overwhelming majority of Contracting States have accepted a uniform interpretation of rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention, some differences do exist.A
For example: in New Zealand a very broad view prevails - Gross v. Boda [1995] 1 NZLR 569 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 66]. But in parts of the United States of America a narrow view is favoured - Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir., 2000; cert. den. Oct. 9, 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 313].
Consequently where a return petition involves either of these States a conflict may arise with the other Contracting State as to whether a right of custody does or does not exist and therefore whether the removal or retention is wrongful.
New Zealand / United Kingdom - England & Wales
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].
A positive determination of wrongfulness by the courts in the child's State of habitual residence in New Zealand was rejected by the English Court of Appeal which found the applicant father to have no rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention.
United Kingdom - Scotland / United States of America (Virginia)
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].
For the purposes of Scots law the removal of the child was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody. This view was however rejected by the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
United States of America / United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re P. (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [2004] EWCA CIV 971, [2005] Fam. 293, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 591].
Making a return order the English Court of Appeal held that the rights given to the father by the New York custody order were rights of custody for Convention purposes, whether or not New York state or federal law so regarded them whether for domestic purposes or Convention purposes.
Conflict Based on Interpretation of ‘Wrongfulness'
United Kingdom - England & Wales
The Court of Appeal has traditionally held the view that the issue of wrongfulness is a matter for law of the forum, regardless of the law of the child's State of habitual residence.
Re F. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights Abroad) [1995] Fam 224 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 8].
Whilst the respondent parent had the right under Colorado law to remove their child out of the jurisdiction unilaterally the removal was nevertheless regarded as being wrongful by the English Court of Appeal.
Re P. (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [2004] EWCA CIV 971, [2005] Fam. 293, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 591];
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].
In the most extreme example this reasoning was applied notwithstanding an Article 15 declaration to the contrary, see:
Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 866].
However, this finding was overturned by the House of Lords which unanimously held that where an Article 15 declaration is sought the ruling of the foreign court as to the content of the rights held by the applicant must be treated as conclusive, save in exceptional cases where, for example, the ruling has been obtained by fraud or in breach of the rules of natural justice:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
Elsewhere there has been an express or implied preference for the general application of the law of the child's State of habitual residence to the issue of wrongfulness, see:
Australia
S. Hanbury-Brown and R. Hanbury-Brown v. Director General of Community Services (Central Authority) (1996) FLC 92-671, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 69];
Austria
3Ob89/05t, Oberster Gerichtshof, 11/05/2005 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 855];
6Ob183/97y, Oberster Gerichtshof, 19/06/1997 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 557];
Canada
Droit de la famille 2675, Cour supérieure de Québec, 22 April 1997, No 200-04-003138-979[INCADAT cite : HC/E/CA 666];
Germany
11 UF 121/03, Oberlandesgericht Hamm, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 822];
2 UF 115/02, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 944];
United States of America
Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 970].
The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit refused to recognize a Spanish non-return order, finding that the Spanish courts had applied their own law rather than the law of New Jersey in assessing whether the applicant father held rights of custody.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
The ECrtHR has been prepared to intervene where interpretation of rights of custody has been misapplied:
Monory v. Hungary & Romania, (2005) 41 E.H.R.R. 37, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 802].
In Monory the ECrtHR found that there had been a breach of the right to family life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) where the Romanian courts had so misinterpreted Article 3 of the Hague Convention that the guarantees of the latter instrument itself were violated.
Actual Exercise
Courts in a variety of Contracting States have afforded a wide interpretation to what amounts to the actual exercise of rights of custody, see:
Australia
Director General, Department of Community Services Central Authority v. J.C. and J.C. and T.C. (1996) FLC 92-717 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 68];
Austria
8Ob121/03g, Oberster Gerichtshof, 30/10/2003 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 548];
Belgium
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles 6/3/2003 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 545];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re W. (Abduction: Procedure) [1995] 1 FLR 878, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 37];
France
Ministère Public c. M.B. Cour d'Appel at Aix en Provence (6e Ch.) 23 March 1989, 79 Rev. crit. 1990, 529 note Y. Lequette [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 62];
CA Amiens 4 mars 1998, n° 5704759 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];
CA Aix en Provence 8/10/2002, L. v. Ministère Public, Mme B et Mesdemoiselles L (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];
Germany
11 UF 121/03, Oberlandesgericht Hamm, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 822];
21 UF 70/01, Oberlandesgericht Köln, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 491];
New Zealand
The Chief Executive of the Department for Courts for R. v. P., 20 September 1999, Court of Appeal of New Zealand [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 304];
United Kingdom - Scotland
O. v. O. 2002 SC 430 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 507].
In the above case the Court of Session stated that it might be going too far to suggest, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had done in Friedrich v Friedrich that only clear and unequivocal acts of abandonment might constitute failure to exercise custody rights. However, Friedrich was fully approved of in a later Court of Session judgment, see:
S. v S., 2003 SLT 344 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 577].
This interpretation was confirmed by the Inner House of the Court of Session (appellate court) in:
AJ. V. FJ. 2005 CSIH 36, 2005 1 S.C. 428 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 803].
Switzerland
K. v. K., Tribunal cantonal de Horgen [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CZ 299];
449/III/97/bufr/mour, Cour d'appel du canton de Berne, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 433];
5A_479/2007/frs, Tribunal fédéral, IIè cour civile, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953];
United States of America
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 82];
Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 394 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2004), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 779];
Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 1029].
See generally Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E., 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p. 84 et seq.
Rights of Custody held by a Court
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
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.
Article 15 Decision or Determination
The Role and Interpretation of Article 15
Article 15 is an innovative mechanism which reflects the cooperation which is central to the 1980 Hague Convention. It provides that the authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to making a return order, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the child's State of habitual residence a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination.
Scope of the Article 15 Decision or Determination Mechanism
Common law jurisdictions are divided as to the role to be played by the Article 15 mechanism, in particular whether the court in the child's State of habitual residence should make a finding as to the wrongfulness of the removal or retention, or, whether it should limit its decision to the extent to which the applicant possesses custody rights under its own law. This division cannot be dissociated from the autonomous nature of custody rights for Convention purposes as well as that of 'wrongfulness' i.e. when rights of custody are to be deemed to have been breached.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
The Court of Appeal favoured a very strict position with regard to the scope of Article 15:
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 809].
The Court held that where the question for determination in the requested State turned on a point of autonomous Convention law (e.g. wrongfulness) then it would be difficult to envisage any circumstances in which an Article 15 request would be worthwhile.
Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 866].
This position was however reversed by the House of Lords in the Deak case:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
Whilst there was unanimity as to the utility and binding nature of a ruling of a foreign court as to the content of the rights held by an applicant, Baroness Hale, with whom Lord Hope and Lord Brown agreed, further specified that the foreign court would additionally be much better placed than the English court to understand the true meaning and effect of its own laws in Convention terms.
New Zealand
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] NZFLR 433 (NZ CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 1018].
A majority in the Court of Appeal, approving of the position adopted by the English Court of Appeal in Hunter v. Morrow, held that a court seised of an Article 15 decision or determination should restrict itself to reporting on matters of national law and not stray into the classification of a removal as being wrongful or not; the latter was exclusively a matter for the court in the State of refuge in the light of its assessment of the autonomous law of the Convention.
Status of an Article 15 Decision or Determination
The status to be accorded to an Article 15 decision or determination has equally generated controversy, in particular the extent to which a foreign ruling should be determinative as regards the existence, or inexistence, of custody rights and in relation to the issue of wrongfulness.
Australia
In the Marriage of R. v. R., 22 May 1991, transcript, Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Perth), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];
The court noted that a decision or determination under Article 15 was persuasive only and that it was ultimately a matter for the French courts to decide whether there had been a wrongful removal.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].
The Court of Appeal held that an Article 15 decision or determination was not binding and it rejected the determination of wrongfulness made by the New Zealand High Court: M. v. H. [Custody] [2006] NZFLR 623 (HC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1021]. In so doing it noted that New Zealand courts did not recognise the sharp distinction between rights of custody and rights of access which had been accepted in the United Kingdom.
Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 866].
The Court of Appeal declined to accept the finding of the Romanian courts that the father did not have rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention.
This position was however reversed by the House of Lords in the Deak case:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
The House of Lords held unanimously that where an Article 15 decision or determination was sought the ruling of the foreign court as to the content of the rights held by the applicant must be treated as conclusive, save in exceptional cases where, for example, the ruling had been obtained by fraud or in breach of the rules of natural justice. Such circumstances were absent in the present case, therefore the trial court and the Court of Appeal had erred in disregarding the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and in allowing fresh evidence to be adduced.
As regards the characterisation of the parent's rights, Baroness Hale, with whom Lord Hope and Lord Brown agreed, held that it would only be where this was clearly out of line with the international understanding of the Convention's terms, as might well have been the case in Hunter v. Murrow, should the court in the requested state decline to follow it. For his part Lord Brown affirmed that the determination of content and classification by the foreign court should almost invariably be treated as conclusive.
Switzerland
5A_479/2007/frs, Tribunal fédéral, IIè cour civile, 17 octobre 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953].
The Swiss supreme court held that a finding on custody rights would in principle bind the authorities in the requested State. As regards an Article 15 decision or determination, the court noted that commentators were divided as to the effect in the requested State and it declined to make a finding on the issue.
Practical Implications of Seeking an Article 15 Decision or Determination
Recourse to the Article 15 mechanism will inevitably lead to delay in the conduct of a return petition, particularly should there happen to be an appeal against the original determination by the authorities in the State of habitual residence. See for example:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
This practical reality has in turn generated a wide range of judicial views.
In Re D. a variety of opinions were canvassed. Lord Carswell affirmed that resort to the procedure should be kept to a minimum. Lord Brown noted that it would only be used on rare occasions. Lord Hope counselled against seeking perfection in ascertaining whether a removal or retention was wrongful, rather a balance had to be struck between acting on too little information and searching for too much. Baroness Hale noted that when a country first acceded to the Convention Article 15 might be useful in cases of doubt to obtain an authoritative ruling on the content and effect of the local law.
New Zealand
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] NZFLR 433 (NZ CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 1018].
The majority in the Court of Appeal, suggested that Article 15 requests should only rarely be made as between Australia and New Zealand, given the similarities of the legal systems.
Alternatives to Seeking an Article 15 Decision or Determination
Whilst courts may simply wish to determine the foreign law in the light of the available information, an alternative is to seek expert evidence. Experience in England and Wales has shown that this is far from fool-proof and does not necessarily result in time being saved, see:
Re F. (A Child) (Abduction: Refusal to Order Summary Return) [2009] EWCA Civ 416, [2009] 2 F.L.R. 1023, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1020].
In the latter case Thorpe L.J. suggested that greater recourse could be made to the European Judicial Network, through the International Family Law Office at the Royal Courts of Justice. Pragmatic advice could be offered as to the best route to follow in a particular case: whether to go for a single joint expert; whether to go for an Article 15 decision or determination; or whether to go for an opinion from the liaison judge as to the law of his own country, an opinion that would not be binding but which would perhaps help the parties and the trial court to see the weight, or want of weight, in the challenge to the plaintiff's ability to cross the Article 3 threshold.
Patria Potestas
The doctrine of patria potestas which continues to occupy a residual role in many Spanish speaking jurisdictions, has, when not otherwise limited or restricted, been interpreted by Courts in several Contracting States as giving rise to custody rights for the purposes of the Convention, see:
Iceland
The Supreme Court of Iceland has found that the removal of a child in breach of the patria potestas held by a father under Spanish law gave rise to a wrongful removal, see:
M. v. K., 20/06/2000; Iceland Supreme Court [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IS 363].
United Kingdom - Scotland
The Court of Session in Scotland has similarly found that the removal of a child in breach of the patria potestas held by a father under Spanish law gave rise to a wrongful removal, see:
Bordera v. Bordera 1995 SLT 117 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 183].
United States of America
In Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. October 27, 2000) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 388] the concept of patria potestas under Mexican law was given the same interpretation;
In Gil v. Rodriguez, 184 F.Supp.2d 1221 (M.D.Fla.2002) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 462]
and
Vale v. Avila, 538 F.3d 581, (7th Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 990]
the concept of patria potestas under Venezuelan law was given the same interpretation.
However, in the case of Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir 2002) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 493], the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the applicant father could not claim custody rights on the basis of the Mexican concept of patria potestas because he and the mother had executed a formal legal custody agreement.
New Zealand Case Law
A very wide interpretation has been given to rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention by the New Zealand courts. Notably, a right of intermittent possession and care of a child has been regarded as amounting to a right of custody as well as being an access right. It has been held that there is no convincing reason for postulating a sharp dichotomy between the concepts of custody and access.
Gross v. Boda [1995] 1 NZLR 569 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 66];
Dellabarca v. Christie [1999] 2 NZLR 548 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 295];
Anderson v. Paterson [2002] NZFLR 641 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 471].
This interpretation has been expressly rejected elsewhere, see for example:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe @809@].
Sources of Custody Rights
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Who may Hold Rights of Custody for Convention Purposes?
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Exceptions to Return
General Issues
Limited Nature of the Exceptions
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Discretionary Nature of Article 13
The drafting of Article 13 makes clear that where one of the constituent exceptions is established to the standard required by the Convention, the making of a non-return order is not inevitable, rather the court seised of the return petition has a discretion whether or not to make a non-return order.
The most extensive recent overview of the exercise of the discretion to return in child abduction cases has come in the decision of the supreme United Kingdom jurisdiction, 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].
In that case Baroness Hale affirmed that it would be wrong to import any test of exceptionality into the exercise of discretion under the Hague Convention. The circumstances in which a return might be refused were themselves exceptions to the general rule. It was neither necessary nor desirable to import an additional gloss into the Convention.
The manner in which the discretion would be exercised would differ depending on the facts of the case; general policy considerations, including not only the swift return of abducted children, but also comity between Contracting States, mutual respect for judicial processes and deterrence of abductions, had to be weighed against the interests of the child in the individual case. A court would be entitled to take into account the various aspects of the Convention policy, alongside the circumstances which gave the court a discretion in the first place and the wider considerations of the child's rights and welfare. Sometimes Convention objectives would be given more weight than the other considerations and sometimes they would not.
The discretionary nature of the exceptions is seen most commonly within the context of Article 13(2) - objections of a mature child - but there are equally examples of return orders being granted notwithstanding other exceptions being established.
Consent
Australia
Kilah & Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] FamCAFC 81 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 995];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267].
Acquiescence
New Zealand
U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529 [INCADAT Cite: HC/E/NZ @472@].
Grave Risk
New Zealand
McL. v. McL., 12/04/2001, transcript, Family Court at Christchurch (New Zealand) [INCADAT Cite: HC/E/NZ @538@].
It may be noted that in the English appeal Re D. (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51; [2007] 1 AC 619 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ UKe @880@] Baroness Hale held that it was inconceivable that a child might be returned where a grave risk of harm was found to exist.
Impact of Abducting Parent Applying for Asylum / Refugee Status
On occasion an abducting parent will apply in the State of refuge for political asylum or refugee status. Where this has occurred, the State of the child's habitual residence has not normally been a Contracting State to the 1980 Hague Convention. Nevertheless the court seised of the non-Convention return must decide how to weigh general child abduction policy considerations against the actual (or possible) award of refugee status or asylum.
Canada
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 (Canada) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 368].
A Salvadorian abducting parent and children were awarded refugee status by the Canadian Immigration Board. In subsequent abduction proceedings the Ontario Court; Provincial Division held that the findings of the Board should be given significant weight but added that the issue it had to decide was different. It 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. Return ordered.
Kovacs v. Kovacs (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 671 (Sup. Ct.) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 760].
Hungarian mother and child of Roma origin applied for refugee status on arrival in Canada. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that an order for the return of a child could be made while a refugee claim on behalf of the child was pending. The Hague Convention required that applications for return be dealt with expeditiously. Convention applications could usually be completed within a few months. Refugee claims took a year or more. A refugee claim could not be allowed to defeat the aims of the Convention.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Garcia, 2007 FCA 75, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 322 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 727].
The Federal Court of Appeal decided that the non-return order of the Quebec Court of Appeal in respect of one of the children did not "directly contravene" the deportation order that had been made. Rather the latter ruling simply dismissed the father's application for return of the child - it did not include a specific order as to the child's place of residence. Moreover the finding of the Quebec Court of Appeal in the Hague Convention proceeding that the child had settled into his new environment was not sufficient to justify a stay of the deportation order under the IRPA, s. 50(a).
2008 QCSC 4762, Superior Court of Québec (District of Montreal), No: 500-04-048266-085 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 925].
The mother's application for refugee status did not affect the application of the Hague Convention because the child in this case was an American citizen and had a right to live in the USA.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re S. (Children) (Abduction: Asylum Appeal) [2002] EWCA Civ 843, [2002] 1 WLR 2548 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 590].
A mother applied for asylum after taking her sons from India ostensibly for a two month vacation. She argued that section 15 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which gave domestic effect in the United Kingdom to Article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 (hereinafter UN Refugees Convention), prohibited the return of the boys to India. The provision provides:
'(1) During the period beginning when a person makes a claim for asylum and ending when the Secretary of State gives him notice of the decision on the claim, he may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent-(a) directions for his removal being given during that period; (b) a deportation order being made against him during that period.'
The Court of Appeal accepted the father's argument that section 15 only bound the executive branch and as such did not create an exception to the obligations arising under Article 12 of the Hague Convention nor was it intended to circumscribe the duty and discretion of a judge exercising the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Court acknowledged that there was a potential question as to the extent to which a family court faced with an abduction case should be obliged to take account or comply with Article 33 of the UN Refugees Convention as a freestanding instrument. It did not give a definite answer but stated it was likely a family judge would at the least pay very careful attention to any credible suggestion that a child might be persecuted if he were returned to his country of origin or habitual residence before making any order that such a return should be effected. Nevertheless on the facts of the case the return order was upheld.
Re H. (Child Abduction: Mother's Asylum) [2003] EWHC 1820, [2003] 2 FLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 587].
The mother had already been granted refugee status when the father's non-Convention return application was heard. The High Court had to consider Article 33 of UN Refugees Convention.
Neither party sought to argue that the grant of refugee status was determinative, one way or the other, of the return application; rather the father argued that it should be given little weight, the mother substantial weight. In the balancing exercise of the factors for and against the return of the child the trial judge ultimately decided that a return order should be made.
Re F. (Children)(Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 854, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982].
Return ordered as after 3 years of failed asylum applications evidence was produced that the abducting mother would almost inevitably be deported. Consequently it was in the best interests of the children that they be ordered to return to their former State of habitual residence rather than being removed to the mother's State of nationality.
EM. (Lebanon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64, [2009] 1 A.C. 1198 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 994].
Solely an immigration case. Mother failed in her application for asylum, but she eventually succeeded in arguing that a return would lead to a violation of her and the child'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 Convention rights
Impact of Convention Proceedings on Siblings and Step-Siblings
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Consent
Classifying Consent
The classification of consent has given rise to difficulty. Some courts have indeed considered that the issue of consent goes to the wrongfulness of the removal or retention and should therefore be considered within Article 3, see:
Australia
In the Marriage of Regino and Regino v. The Director-General, Department of Families Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-587 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 312];
France
CA Rouen, 9 mars 2006, N°05/04340, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 897];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re O. (Abduction: Consent and Acquiescence) [1997] 1 FLR 924 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 54];
Re P.-J. (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1014].
Although the issue had ostensibly been settled in English case law, that consent was to be considered under Art 13(1) a), neither member of the two judge panel of the Court of Appeal appeared entirely convinced of this position.
Reference can equally be made to examples where trial courts have not considered the Art 3 - Art 13(1) a) distinction, but where consent, in terms of initially going along with a move, has been treated as relevant to wrongfulness, see:
Canada
F.C. c. P.A., Droit de la famille - 08728, Cour supérieure de Chicoutimi, 28 mars 2008, N°150-04-004667-072, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 969];
Switzerland
U/EU970069, Bezirksgericht Zürich (Zurich District Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 425];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Murphy v. Murphy 1994 GWD 32-1893 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 186].
The case was not considered in terms of the Art 3 - Art 13(1) a) distinction, but given that the father initially went along with the relocation it was held that there would be neither a wrongful removal or retention.
The majority view is now though that consent should be considered in relation to Article 13(1) a), see:
Australia
Director-General, Department of Child Safety v. Stratford [2005] Fam CA 1115, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 830];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 53];
T. v. T. (Abduction: Consent) [1999] 2 FLR 912;
Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267];
Re P. (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [2004] EWCA CIV 971, [2005] Fam. 293, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 591];
Ireland
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 287];
United Kingdom - Scotland
T. v. T. 2004 S.C. 323, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 997];
For a discussion of the issues involved see Beaumont & McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, 1999 at p. 132 et seq.
Establishing Consent
Different standards have been applied when it comes to establishing the Article 13(1) a) exception based on consent.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
In an early first instance decision it was held that ordinarily the clear and compelling evidence which was necessary would need to be in writing or at least evidenced by documentary material, see:
Re W. (Abduction: Procedure) [1995] 1 FLR 878, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 37].
This strict view has not been repeated in later first instance English cases, see:
Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 53];
Re K. (Abduction: Consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 55].
In Re K. it was held that while consent must be real, positive and unequivocal, there could be circumstances in which a court could be satisfied that consent had been given, even though not in writing. Moreover, there could also be cases where consent could be inferred from conduct.
Germany
21 UF 70/01, Oberlandesgericht Köln, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 491].
Convincing evidence is required to establish consent.
Ireland
R. v. R. [2006] IESC 7; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 817].
The Re K. approach was specifically endorsed by the Irish Supreme Court.
The Netherlands
De Directie Preventie, optredend voor haarzelf en namens F. (vader/father) en H. (de moeder/mother) (14 juli 2000, ELRO-nummer: AA6532, Zaaknr.R99/167HR); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NL 318].
Consent need not be for a permanent stay. The only issue is that there must be consent and that it has been proved convincingly.
South Africa
Central Authority v. H. 2008 (1) SA 49 (SCA) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 900].
Consent could be express or tacit.
Switzerland
5P.367/2005 /ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 841];
5P.380/2006 /blb; Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 895];
5P.1999/2006 /blb, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung ) (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 896];
The Swiss Supreme Court has held that with regard to consent and acquiescence, the left behind parent must clearly agree, explicitly or tacitly, to a durable change in the residence of the child. To this end the burden is on the abducting parent to show factual evidence which would lead to such a belief being plausible.
United States of America
Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 808].
There must be a subjective assessment of what the applicant parent was actually contemplating. Consideration must also be given to the nature and scope of the consent.
Consent and Alleged Deception
There are examples of cases where it has been argued that prima facie consent should be vitiated by alleged deception on the part of the abducting parent, see for example:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267].
The fact that a document consenting to the removal of the children was presented to the mother on a pretext did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was a trap. The mother was found to have consented. But the trial judge nevertheless exercised his discretion to make a return order.
Israel
Family Application 2059/07 Ploni v. Almonit, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 940].
Allegation of deception rejected; the father's consent was found to be informed and since it had been relied upon by the mother, the father could not renege on his initial consent to the relocation.
Prospective Consent
There is authority that consent might validly be given to a future removal, see:
Canada
Decision of 4 September 1998 [1998] R.D.F. 701, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 333].
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re L. (Abduction: Future Consent) [2007] EWHC 2181 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 915; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 993].
It was held that the happening of the event must be reasonably ascertainable and there must not have been a material change in the circumstances since the consent was given.
United Kingdom - Scotland
Zenel v. Haddow 1993 SC 612, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 76].
For a criticism of the majority view in Zenel v. Haddow, see:
Case commentary 1993 SCLR 872 at 884, 885;
G. Maher, Consent to Wrongful Child Abduction under the Hague Convention, 1993 SLT 281;
P. Beaumont and P. McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, Oxford, 1999 at pp. 129, 130.
Acquiescence
Acquiescence
There has been general acceptance that where the exception of acquiescence is concerned regard must be paid in the first instance to the subjective intentions of the left behind parent, see:
Australia
Commissioner, Western Australia Police v. Dormann, JP (1997) FLC 92-766 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 213];
Barry Eldon Matthews (Commissioner, Western Australia Police Service) v. Ziba Sabaghian PT 1767 of 2001 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 345];
Austria
5Ob17/08y, Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austrian Supreme Court) 1/4/2008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 981].
Considering the issue for the first time, Austria's supreme court held that acquiescence in a temporary state of affairs would not suffice for the purposes of Article 13(1) a), rather there had to be acquiescence in a durable change in habitual residence.
Belgium
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles 6/3/2003, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 545];
Canada
Ibrahim v. Girgis, 2008 ONCA 23, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 851];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H. and Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 46];
In this case the House of Lords affirmed that acquiescence was not to be found in passing remarks or letters written by a parent who has recently suffered the trauma of the removal of his children.
Ireland
K. v. K., 6 May 1998, transcript, Supreme Court of Ireland [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 285];
Israel
Dagan v. Dagan 53 P.D (3) 254 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 807];
New Zealand
P. v. P., 13 March 2002, Family Court at Greymouth (New Zealand), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 533];
United Kingdom - Scotland
M.M. v. A.M.R. or M. 2003 SCLR 71, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 500];
South Africa
Smith v. Smith 2001 (3) SA 845 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 499];
Switzerland
5P.367/2005 /ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 841].
In keeping with this approach there has also been a reluctance to find acquiescence where the applicant parent has sought initially to secure the voluntary return of the child or a reconciliation with the abducting parent, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H. and Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 46];
P. v. P. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] 2 FLR 835, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 179];
Ireland
R.K. v. J.K. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [2000] 2 IR 416, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 285];
United States of America
Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78 (D. Mass. 1994), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 84];
In the Australian case Townsend & Director-General, Department of Families, Youth and Community (1999) 24 Fam LR 495, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 290] negotiation over the course of 12 months was taken to amount to acquiescence but, notably, in the court's exercise of its discretion it decided to make a return order.
Grave Risk of Harm
Primary Carer Abductions
The issue of how to respond when a taking parent who is a primary carer threatens not to accompany a child back to the State of habitual residence if a return order is made, is a controversial one.
There are examples from many Contracting States where courts have taken a very strict approach so that, other than in exceptional situations, the Article 13(1)(b) exception has not been upheld where the non-return argument has been raised, see:
Austria
4Ob1523/96, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AT 561]
Canada
M.G. v. R.F., 2002 R.J.Q. 2132 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 762]
N.P. v. A.B.P., 1999 R.D.F. 38 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 764]
In this case, a non-return order was made since the facts were exceptional. There had been a genuine threat to the mother, which had put her quite obviously and rightfully in fear for her safety if she returned to Israel. The mother was taken to Israel on false pretences, sold to the Russian Mafia and re-sold to the father who forced her into prostitution. She was locked in, beaten by the father, raped and threatened. The mother was genuinely in a state of fear and could not be expected to return to Israel. It would be wholly inappropriate to send the child back without his mother to a father who had been buying and selling women and running a prostitution business.
United Kingdom - England and Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 34]
Re C. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 269]
However, in a more recent English Court of Appeal judgment, the C. v. C. approach has been refined:
Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2002] 3 FCR 43, [2002] EWCA Civ 908 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 469]
In this case, it was ruled that a mother's refusal to return was capable of amounting to a defence because the refusal was not an act of unreasonableness, but came about as a result of an illness she was suffering from. It may be noted, however, that a return order was nevertheless still made. In this context reference may also be made to the decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Re E. (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27, [2012] 1 A.C. 144 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1068] and Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2012] UKSC 10, [2012] 2 A.C. 257 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1147], in which it was accepted that the anxieties of a respondent mother about return, which were not based upon objective risk to her but nevertheless were of such intensity as to be likely, in the event of a return, to destabilise her parenting of the child to the point at which the child's situation would become intolerable, could in principle meet the threshold of the Article 13(1)(b) exception.
Germany
Oberlandesgericht Dresden, 10 UF 753/01, 21 January 2002 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 486]
Oberlandesgericht Köln, 21 UF 70/01, 12 April 2001 [INCADAT: HC/E/DE 491]
Previously a much more liberal interpretation had been adopted:
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 17 UF 260/98, 25 November 1998 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 323]
Switzerland
5P_71/2003/min, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 27 mars 2003 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 788]
5P_65/2002/bnm, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 11 avril 2002 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 789]
5P_367/2005/ast, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 15 novembre 2005 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 841]
5A_285/2007/frs, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 16 août 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 955]
5A_479/2012, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 13 juillet 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1179]
New Zealand
K.S. v. L.S. [2003] 3 NZLR 837 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 770]
United Kingdom - Scotland
McCarthy v. McCarthy [1994] SLT 743 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 26]
United States of America
Panazatou v. Pantazatos, No. FA 96071351S (Conn. Super. Ct., 1997) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USs 97]
In other Contracting States, the approach taken with regard to non-return arguments has varied:
Australia
In Australia, early Convention case law exhibited a very strict approach adopted with regard to non-return arguments, see:
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 294]
Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 293]
In State Central Authority v. Ardito, 20 October 1997 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 283], the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne did find the grave risk of harm exception to be established where the mother would not return, but in this case the mother had been denied entry into the United States of America, the child's State of habitual residence.
Following the judgment of the High Court of Australia (the highest court in the Australian judicial system) in the joint appeals DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority; J.L.M. v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 346, 347], greater attention has been focused on the post-return situation facing abducted children.
In the context of a primary-carer taking parent refusing to return to the child's State of habitual residence see: Director General, Department of Families v. RSP. [2003] FamCA 623 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 544].
France
In French case law, a permissive approach to Article 13(1)(b) has been replaced with a much more restrictive interpretation. For examples of the initial approach, see:
Cass. Civ 1ère 12. 7. 1994, S. c. S.. See 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 Reference: HC/E/FR 103]
Cass. Civ 1ère, 22 juin 1999, No de RG 98-17902 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 498]
And for examples of the stricter interpretation, see:
Cass Civ 1ère, 25 janvier 2005, No de RG 02-17411 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 708]
CA Agen, 1 décembre 2011, No de RG 11/01437 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/FR 1172]
Israel
In Israeli case law there are contrasting examples of the judicial response to non-return arguments:
Civil Appeal 4391/96 Ro v. Ro [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 832]
in contrast with:
Family Appeal 621/04 D.Y v. D.R [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 833]
Poland
Decision of the Supreme Court, 7 October 1998, I CKN 745/98 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 700]
The Supreme Court noted that it would not be in the child's best interests if she were deprived of her mother's care, were the latter to choose to remain in Poland. However, it equally affirmed that if the child were to stay in Poland it would not be in her interests to be deprived of the care of her father. For these reasons, the Court concluded that it could not be assumed that ordering the return of the child would place her in an intolerable situation.
Decision of the Supreme Court, 1 December 1999, I CKN 992/99 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 701]
The Supreme Court specified that the frequently used argument of the child's potential separation from the taking parent, did not, in principle, justify the application of the exception. It held that where there were no objective obstacles to the return of a taking parent, then it could be assumed that the taking parent considered his own interest to be more important than those of the child.
The Court added that a taking parent's fear of being held criminally liable was not an objective obstacle to return, as the taking parent should have been aware of the consequences of his actions. The situation with regard to infants was however more complicated. The Court held that the special bond between mother and baby only made their separation possible in exceptional cases, and this was so even if there were no objective obstacles to the mother's return to the State of habitual residence. The Court held that where the mother of an infant refused to return, whatever the reason, then the return order should be refused on the basis of Article 13(1)(b). On the facts, return was ordered.
Uruguay
Solicitud conforme al Convenio de La Haya sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional de Menores - Casación, IUE 9999-68/2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UY 1185]
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
There are decisions of the ECrtHR which have endorsed a strict approach with regard to the compatibility of Hague Convention exceptions and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some of these cases have considered arguments relevant to the issue of grave risk of harm, including where an abductor has indicated an unwillingness to accompany the returning child, see:
Ilker Ensar Uyanık c. Turquie (Application No 60328/09) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1169]
In this case, the ECrtHR upheld a challenge by the left-behind father that the refusal of the Turkish courts to return his child led to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The ECrtHR stated that whilst very young age was a criterion to be taken into account to determine the child's interest in an abduction case, it could not be considered by itself a sufficient ground, in relation to the requirements of the Hague Convention, to justify dismissal of a return application.
Recourse has been had to expert evidence to assist in ascertaining the potential consequences of the child being separated from the taking parent
Maumousseau and Washington v. France (Application No 39388/05) of 6 December 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 942]
Lipowsky and McCormack v. Germany (Application No 26755/10) of 18 January 2011 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1201]
MR and LR v. Estonia (Application No 13420/12) of 15 May 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1177]
However, it must equally be noted that since the Grand Chamber ruling in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, there are examples of a less strict approach being followed. The latter ruling had emphasised the best interests of the individual abducted child in the context of an application for return and the ascertainment of whether the domestic courts had conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation as well as a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, see:
Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (Application No 41615/07), Grand Chamber, of 6 July 2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1323]
X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09) of 13 December 2011 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1146]; and Grand Chamber ruling X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09), Grand Chamber [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1234]
B. v. Belgium (Application No 4320/11) of 10 July 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1171]
In this case, a majority found that the return of a child to the United States of America would lead to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The decision-making process of the Belgian Appellate Court as regards Article 13(1)(b) was held not to have met the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 of the ECHR. The two dissenting judges noted, however, that the danger referred to in Article 13 should not consist only of the separation of the child from the taking parent.
(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)
Allegations of Inappropriate Behaviour / Sexual Abuse
Courts have responded in different ways when faced with allegations that the left-behind parent has acted inappropriately or sexually abused the wrongfully removed or retained children. In the most straightforward cases the accusations may simply be dismissed as unfounded. Where this is not possible courts have been divided as to whether a detailed investigation should be undertaken in the State of refuge, or, whether the relevant assessment should be conducted in the State of habitual residence, with interim measures being taken to attempt to protect the child on his return.
- Accusations Dismissed:
Belgium
Civ. Liège (réf) 14 mars 2002, Ministère public c/ A [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/BE 706]
The father claimed that the mother sought the return of the child to have her declared mentally incapable and to sell her organs. The Court held, however, that even if the father's accusations were firmly held, they were not backed up by any evidence.
Canada (Québec)
Droit de la famille 2675, No 200-04-003138-979 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 666]
The Court held that if the mother had serious concerns with regard to her son, then she would not have left him in the care of the father on holiday after what she claimed there had been a serious incident.
J.M. c. H.A., Droit de la famille, No 500-04-046027-075 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 968]
The mother claimed that a grave risk arose because the father was a sexual predator.
The Court noted that such allegations had been rejected in foreign proceedings. It equally drew attention to the fact that Convention proceedings concerned the return of the child and not the issue of custody. The fears of the mother and of the maternal grandparents were deemed to be largely irrational. There was also no proof that the judicial authorities in the State of habitual residence were corrupt. The Court instead expressed concerns about the actions of members of the maternal family (who had abducted the child notwithstanding the existence of three court orders to the contrary) as well as the mental state of the mother, who had kept the child in a state of fear of the father.
France
CA Amiens, 4 mars 1998, No de RG 5704759 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 704]
The Court rejected the allegation of physical violence against the father; if there had been violence, it was not of the level required to activate Article 13(1)(b).
New Zealand
Wolfe v. Wolfe [1993] NZFLR 277 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 303]
The Court rejected arguments by the mother that the father's alleged sexual practices would place the child at a grave risk of harm. The Court held that there was no evidence a return would expose the child to the level of harm contemplated under Article 13(1)(b).
Switzerland
Obergericht des Kantons Zürich (Appellate Court of the Canton Zurich), 28/01/1997, U/NL960145/II.ZK [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 426]
The mother argued that the father was a danger to the children because, inter alia, he had sexually abused the daughter. In rejecting this accusation, the Court noted that the mother had previously been willing to leave the children in the father's sole care whilst she went abroad.
- Return ordered with investigation to be carried out in the State of habitual residence:
United Kingdom - England and Wales
N. v. N. (Abduction: Article 13 Defence) [1995] 1 FLR 107 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 19]
The possible risk to the daughter needed to be investigated in the pending custody proceedings in Australia. In the interim, the child needed protection. However, this protection did not require the refusal of the application for her return. Such risk of physical harm as might exist was created by unsupervised contact to the father, not by return to Australia.
Re S. (Abduction: Return into Care) [1999] 1 FLR 843 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 361]
It was argued that the allegations of sexual abuse by the mother's cohabitee were of such a nature as to activate the Article 13(1)(b) exception. This was rejected by the Court. In doing this the Court noted that the Swedish authorities were aware of the case and had taken steps to ensure that the child would be protected upon her return: she would be placed in an analysis home with her mother. If the mother did not agree to this, the child would be placed in care. The Court also noted that the mother had now separated from her cohabitee.
Finland
Supreme Court of Finland 1996:151, S96/2489 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FI 360]
When considering whether the allegations of the father's sexual abuse of his daughter constituted a barrier to returning the children, the Court noted that one of the objectives of the Hague Child Abduction Convention was that the forum for the determination of custody issues was not to be changed at will and that the credibility of allegations as to the personal characteristics of the petitioner were most properly investigated in the spouses' common State of habitual residence. In addition, the Court noted that a grave risk of harm did not arise if the mother were to return with the children and saw to it that their living conditions were arranged in their best interests. Accordingly, the Court found that there was no barrier to the return of the children.
Ireland
A.S. v. P.S. (Child Abduction) [1998] 2 IR 244 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IE 389]
The Irish Supreme Court accepted that there was prima facie evidence of sexual abuse by the father and that the children should not be returned into his care. However, it found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that this amounted to a grave risk of harm in returning the children to England per se. In the light of the undertakings given by the father, there would be no grave risk in returning the children to live in the former matrimonial home in the sole care of their mother.
- Investigation to be undertaken in the State of refuge:
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
D. v. G. [2001] 1179 HKCU 1 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/HK 595]
The Court of Appeal criticised the fact that the return order had been made conditional on the acts of a third party (the Swiss Central Authority) over whom China's (Hong Kong SAR) Court had neither jurisdiction nor control. The Court ruled that unless and until the allegations could be discounted altogether or after investigation could be found to have no substance, it was almost inconceivable that the trial court's discretion could reasonably and responsibly be exercised to return the child to the environment in which the alleged abuse took place.
United States of America
Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 459]
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that great care had to be exercised before returning a child where there existed credible evidence of the child having suffered sexual abuse. It further stated that a court should be particularly wary about using potentially unenforceable undertakings to try to protect a child in such situations.
Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 971]
The District Court had appointed an independent expert in paediatrics, child abuse, child sexual abuse and child pornography, to assess whether the photographs of the sons constituted child pornography and whether the behaviour problems suffered by the children were indications of sexual abuse. The expert reported that there was no evidence to suggest that the father was a paedophile, that he was sexually aroused by children, or that the pictures were pornographic. The expert approved of the German investigations and stated that they were accurate assessments and that their conclusions were consistent with their reported observations. The expert determined that the symptoms that the boys displayed were consistent with the stress in their lives caused by the acrimonious custody dispute and recommended that the boys not undergo further sexual abuse evaluation because it would increase their already-dangerous stress levels.
- Return Refused:
United Kingdom - Scotland
Q., Petitioner [2001] SLT 243 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 341]
The Court held that there was a possibility that the allegations of abuse were true. It was also possible that the child, if returned, could be allowed into the unsupervised company of the alleged abuser. The Court equally noted that a court in another Hague Convention country would be able to provide adequate protection. Consequently it was possible for a child to be returned where an allegation of sexual abuse had been made. However, on the facts, the Court ruled that in light of what had happened in France during the course of the various legal proceedings, the courts there might not be able or willing to provide adequate protection for the children. Consequently, the risk amounted to a grave risk that the return of the girl would expose her to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation.
United States of America
Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 597]
Having found that sexual abuse had occurred, the Court of Appeals ruled that this rendered immaterial the father's arguments that the courts of Sweden could take ameliorative actions to prevent further harm once the children had been returned. The Court of Appeals held that in such circumstances, Article 13(1)(b) did not require separate consideration either of undertakings or of the steps which might be taken by the courts of the country of habitual residence.
(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)
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)
Economic Factors
Article 13(1)(b) and Economic Factors
There are many examples, from a broad range of Contracting States, where courts have declined to uphold the Article 13(1)(b) exception where it has been argued that the taking parent (and hence the children) would be placed in a difficult financial situation were a return order to be made.
Australia
Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 293]
The fact that the mother could not accompany the child to England for financial reasons or otherwise was no reason for non-compliance with the clear obligation that rests upon the Australian courts under the terms of the Convention.
Canada
Y.D. v. J.B. [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que. C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 369]
Financial weakness was not a valid reason for refusing to return a child. The Court stated: "The signatories to the Convention did not have in mind the protection of children of well-off parents only, leaving exposed and incapable of applying for the return of a wrongfully removed child the parent without wealth whose child was so abducted."
France
CA Lyon, 19 septembre 2011, No de RG 11/02919 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 1168]
The existence of more favourable living conditions in France could not be taken into consideration.
Germany
7 UF 39/99, Oberlandesgericht Bamberg [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 821]
New Zealand
K.M.A. v. Secretary for Justice [2007] NZFLR 891 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 1118]
Financial hardship was not proven on the facts; moreover, the Court of Appeal considered it most unlikely that the Australian authorities would not provide some form of special financial and legal assistance, if required.
United Kingdom - England and Wales
In early case law, the Court of Appeal repeatedly rejected arguments that economic factors could justify finding the existence of an intolerable situation for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b).
Re A. (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1992] Fam 106 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 48]
In this case, the court decided that dependency on State benefits cannot be said in itself to constitute an intolerable situation.
B. v. B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 32, [1993] 2 All ER 144, [1993] 1 FLR 238, [1993] Fam Law 198 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 10]
In this case, it was said that inadequate housing / financial circumstances did not prevent return.
Re M. (Abduction: Undertakings) [1995] 1 FLR 1021 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 20]
The Court suggested that the exception might be established were young children to be left homeless, and without recourse to State benefits. However, to be dependent on Israeli State benefits, or English State benefits, could not be said to constitute an intolerable situation.
United Kingdom - Scotland
Starr v. Starr, 1999 SLT 335 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 195]
IGR, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 208 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 1154]
Switzerland
5A_285/2007/frs, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 16 août 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 955]
Zimbabwe
Secretary For Justice v. Parker 1999 (2) ZLR 400 (H) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ZW 340]
There are some examples where courts have placed emphasis on the financial circumstances (or accommodation arrangements) that a child / abductor would face, in deciding whether or not to make a return order:
Australia
Harris v. Harris [2010] FamCAFC 221 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 1119]
The financially precarious position in which the mother would find herself were a return order to be made was a relevant consideration in the making of a non-return order.
France
CA Paris, 13 avril 2012, No de RG 12/0617 [INCADAT Reference : HC/E/FR 1189]
In this case, inadequate housing was a relevant factor in the consideration of a non-return order.
Netherlands
De directie Preventie, optredend voor zichzelf en namens Y (de vader /the father) against X (de moeder/ the mother) (7 February 2001, ELRO nr.AA9851 Zaaknr:813-H-00) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NL 314]
In this case, financial circumstances were a relevant factor in the consideration of a non-return order.
United Kingdom - Scotland
C. v. C. 2003 S.L.T. 793 [INCADAT Reference : HC/E/UKs 998]
An example where financial circumstances did lead to a non-return order being made.
A, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 215, 2012 S.L.T. 370 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 1153]
In this case, adequate accommodation and financial support were relevant factors in the consideration of a non-return order.
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy (Application No 14737/09) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1152]
The ECrtHR, in finding that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the return of a child from Latvia to Italy, noted that the Italian courts exercising their powers under the Brussels IIa Regulation, had overlooked the fact that it was not financially viable for the mother to return with the child: she spoke no Italian and was virtually unemployable.
(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)
Australian and New Zealand Case Law
Australia
In Australia a very strict approach was adopted initially with regard to Article 13(1) b), see:
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@];
Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU @293@].
However, following the judgment of the High Court in the joint appeals:
D.P. v. Commonwealth Central Authority; J.L.M. v. Director-General, New South Wales Department of Community Services (2001) 206 CLR 401; (2001) FLC 93-081), [INCADAT cite HC/E/AU @346@, @347@], where a literal interpretation of the exception was advocated, greater attention has now been focused on the risk to the child and the post return situation.
In the context of a primary carer abducting parent refusing to return to the child's State of habitual residence, see:
Director General, Department of Families v. R.S.P. [2003] FamCA 623, [INCADAT cite HC/E/AU @544@].
With regard to a child facing a grave risk of psychological harm see:
J.M.B. and Ors & Secretary, Attorney-General's Department [2006] FamCA 59, [INCADAT cite HC/E/AU 871].
For recent examples of cases where the grave risk of harm exception was rejected see:
H.Z. v. State Central Authority [2006] FamCA 466, [INCADAT cite HC/E/AU 876];
State Central Authority v. Keenan [2004] FamCA 724, [INCADAT cite HC/E/AU @782@].
New Zealand
Appellate authority initially indicated that the change in emphasis adopted in Australia with regard to Article 13(1) b) would be followed in New Zealand also, see:
El Sayed v. Secretary for Justice, [2003] 1 NZLR 349, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 495].
However, in the more recent decision: K.S. v. L.S. [2003] 3 NZLR 837 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 770] the High Court of New Zealand (Auckland) has affirmed, albeit obiter, that the binding interpretation in New Zealand remained the strict interpretation given by the Court of Appeal in:
Anderson v. Central Authority for New Zealand [1996] 2 NZLR 517 (CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 90].
UK - England and Wales Case Law
The English Court of Appeal has taken a very strict approach to Article 13 (1) b) and it is rare indeed for the exception to be upheld. Examples of where the standard has been reached include:
Re F. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights Abroad) [1995] Fam 224, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 8];
Re M. (Abduction: Psychological Harm) [1997] 2 FLR 690, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 86];
Re M. (Abduction: Leave to Appeal) [1999] 2 FLR 550, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 263];
Re D. (Article 13B: Non-return) [2006] EWCA Civ 146, [2006] 2 FLR 305, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 818];
Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 931].
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@].
German Case Law
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Immigration Issues
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Child's Objection
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).
Separate Representation
There is a lack of uniformity in English speaking jurisdictions with regard to separate representation for children.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
An early appellate judgment established that in keeping with the summary nature of Convention proceedings, separate representation should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Re M. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 56].
Reaffirmed by:
Re H. (A Child: Child Abduction) [2006] EWCA Civ 1247, [2007] 1 FLR 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 881];
Re F. (Abduction: Joinder of Child as Party) [2007] EWCA Civ 393, [2007] 2 FLR 313, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 905].
The exceptional circumstances standard has been established in several cases, see:
Re M. (A Minor) (Abduction: Child's Objections) [1994] 2 FLR 126 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 57];
Re S. (Abduction: Children: Separate Representation) [1997] 1 FLR 486 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 180];
Re H.B. (Abduction: Children's Objections) (No. 2) [1998] 1 FLR 564 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 168];
Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428, [2004] 2 FLR 64 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 579];
Vigreux v. Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630, [2006] 2 FLR 1180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 829];
Nyachowe v. Fielder [2007] EWCA Civ 1129, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 964].
In Re H. (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 1247, [2007] 1 FLR 242, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 881] it was suggested by Thorpe L.J. that the bar had been raised by the Brussels II a Regulation insofar as applications for party status were concerned.
This suggestion was rejected by Baroness Hale in:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880]. Without departing from the exceptional circumstances test, she signalled the need, in the light of the new Community child abduction regime, for a re-appraisal of the way in which the views of abducted children were to be ascertained. In particular she argued for views to be sought at the outset of proceedings to avoid delays.
In Re F. (Abduction: Joinder of Child as Party) [2007] EWCA Civ 393, [2007] 2 FLR 313, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 905] Thorpe L.J. acknowledged that the bar had not been raised in applications for party status. He rejected the suggestion that the bar had been lowered by the House of Lords in Re D.
However, in Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937] Baroness Hale again intervened in the debate and affirmed that a directions judge should evaluate whether separate representation would add enough to the Court's understanding of the issues to justify the resultant intrusion, delay and expense which would follow. This would suggest a more flexible test, however, she also added that children should not be given an exaggerated impression of the relevance and importance of their views and in the general run of cases party status would not be accorded.
Australia
Australia's supreme jurisdiction sought to break from an exceptional circumstances test in De L. v. Director General, New South Wales Department of Community Services and Another, (1996) 20 Fam LR 390 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 93].
However, the test was reinstated by the legislator in the Family Law Amendment Act 2000, see: Family Law Act 1975, s. 68L.
See:
State Central Authority & Quang [2009] FamCA 1038, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1106].
France
Children heard under Art 13(2) can be assisted by a lawyer (art 338-5 NCPC and art 388-1 Code Civil - the latter article specifies however that children so assisted are not conferred the status of a party to the proceedings), see:
Cass Civ 1ère 17 Octobre 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 946];
Cass. Civ 1ère 14/02/2006, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 853].
In Scotland & New Zealand there has been a much greater willingness to allow children separate representation, see for example:
United Kingdom - Scotland
C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 962];
M. Petitioner 2005 SLT 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 804];
W. v. W. 2003 SLT 1253 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 508];
New Zealand
K.S v.L.S [2003] 3 NZLR 837 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 770];
B. v. C., 24 December 2001, High Court at Christchurch (New Zealand) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 532].
Extreme Reaction to a Return Order
In a certain number of cases the reaction of children to a proposed return to the State of habitual residence goes beyond a mere objection and may manifest itself in physical opposition to being sent back or the threat of suicide. There have also been examples of an abducting parent threatening to commit suicide if forced to return to the child's State of habitual residence.
Physical Resistance
There are several examples of cases where the views of the children concerned were not gathered or were initially not acted upon and this resulted in the children taking steps to prevent the return order being enforced; in each case the return order was subsequently overturned or dismissed, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re M. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 56];
The children attempted to open the door of the aircraft taking them back to Australia as it taxied for take off at London's Heathrow airport.
Re H.B. (Abduction: Children's Objections) [1998] 1 FLR 422 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 167];
The younger of two siblings, a girl aged 12, refused to board a plane to take her back to Denmark. Ironically, the older brother had only been made subject to the return order to ensure the siblings would not be separated.
Re B. (Children) (Abduction: New Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 531 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 420];
The children attacked the court officers sent to take them to Heathrow airport for their flight back to New Zealand.
Australia
Re F. (Hague Convention: Child's Objections) [2006] FamCA 685, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 864];
An 11 year old boy resisted attempts to place him on a plane to the United States of America.
Threat of Suicide
Where it is alleged at trial that the child or abducting parent will commit suicide if forced to return, it is for the court seized to decide on the veracity of the claim in the light of the available evidence and the circumstances of the case.
The issue of course may not always be raised, as happened in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region case S. v. S. [1998] 2 HKC 316, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 234] where after a return order was made the mother killed her child and then committed suicide.
Threat of Suicide - Child
Evidence that the child concerned had threatened to commit suicide was central to a non-return order being made in the following cases:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re R. (A Minor Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 59].
Israel
Evidence that a child had previously made a suicide attempt in the State of habitual residence was not accepted as justifying a non-return order in:
Family Appeal 1169/99 R. v. L. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 834].
A submission that a child would commit suicide was not accepted as justifying a non-return order in:
B. v. G., Supreme Court 8 April 2008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 923].
Australia
Commissioner, Western Australia Police v. Dormann, JP (1997) FLC 92-766 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 213].
Threat of Suicide - Abducting parent
Evidence that the abducting parent may commit suicide if forced to return to the child's State of habitual residence has been upheld as creating a situation where the child concerned would be at a grave risk of harm and should not therefore be sent back, see:
Australia
J.L.M. v. Director-General NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 347];
Director-General, Department of Families v. RSP [2003] FamCA 623 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 544].
Illness
New Zealand
Secretary for Justice v. C., ex parte H., 28/04/2000, transcript, District Court at Otahuhu [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 534].
The latter meeting, during which the child's counsel was present, terminated when the boy became unwell and vomited as a result of the judge mentioning the possibility of a return to Australia.
Parental Influence on the Views of Children
Courts applying Article 13(2) have recognised that it is essential to determine whether the objections of the child concerned have been influenced by the abducting parent.
Courts in a variety of Contracting States have dismissed claims under Article 13(2) where it is apparent that the child is not expressing personally formed views, see in particular:
Australia
Director General of the Department of Community Services v. N., 19 August 1994, transcript, Family Court of Australia (Sydney) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 231];
Canada
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 754];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 87].
Although not at issue in the case, the Court of Appeal affirmed that little or no weight should be given to objections if the child had been influenced by the abducting parent or some other person.
Finland
Court of Appeal of Helsinki: No. 2933 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FI 863];
France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947].
The Court of Appeal of Bordeaux limited the weight to be placed on the objections of the children on the basis that before being interviewed they had had no contact with the applicant parent and had spent a long period of time with the abducting parent. Moreover the allegations of the children had already been considered by the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence.
Germany
4 UF 223/98, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 820];
Hungary
Mezei v. Bíró 23.P.500023/98/5. (27. 03. 1998, Central District Court of Budapest; First Instance); 50.Pkf.23.732/1998/2. 16. 06. 1998., (Capital Court as Appellate Court) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HU 329];
Israel
Appl. App. Dist. Ct. 672/06, Supreme Court 15 October 2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 885];
United Kingdom - Scotland
A.Q. v. J.Q., 12 December 2001, transcript, Outer House of the Court of Session (Scotland) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 415];
Spain
Auto Audiencia Provincial Nº 133/2006 Pontevedra (Sección 1ª), Recurso de apelación Nº 473/2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 887];
Restitución de Menores 534/1997 AA [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 908].
Switzerland
The highest Swiss court has held that the views of children could never be entirely independent; therefore a distinction had to be made between a manipulated objection and an objection, which whilst not entirely autonomous, nevertheless merited consideration, see:
5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795].
United States of America
Robinson v. Robinson, 983 F. Supp. 1339 (D. Colo. 1997) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 128].
In this case the District Court held that it would be unrealistic to expect a caring parent not to influence the child's preference to some extent, therefore the issue to be ascertained was whether the influence was undue.
It has been held in two cases that evidence of parental influence should not be accepted as a justification for not ascertaining the views of children who would otherwise be heard, see:
Germany
2 BvR 1206/98, Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 233];
New Zealand
Winters v. Cowen [2002] NZFLR 927 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 473].
Equally parental influence may not have a material impact on the child's views, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 901].
The Court of Appeal did not dismiss the suggestion that the child's views may have been influenced or coloured by immersion in an atmosphere of hostility towards the applicant father, but it was not prepared to give much weight to such suggestions.
In an Israeli case the court found that the child had been brainwashed by his mother and held that his views should therefore be given little weight. Nevertheless, the Court also held that the extreme nature of the child's reactions to the proposed return, which included the threat of suicide, could not be ignored. The court concluded that the child would face a grave risk of harm if sent back, see:
Family Appeal 1169/99 R. v. L. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 834].
Exercise of Discretion
Where it is established that a child objects to a return and he is of sufficient age and maturity at which it is appropriate to take his views into account, then the Court seised of the case will have a discretion whether or not to make a return order.
Different approaches have been espoused as to the manner in which this discretion should be exercised and the relevant factors that should be taken into consideration.
Australia
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 904]
The appellate court found that the trial judge had erred in ruling that there had to be 'clear and compelling' reasons to frustrate the objectives of the Convention. The Court recalled that there were permitted exceptions to a mandatory return and where established these exceptions gave rise to a discretion. The relevant factors in the exercise of that discretion would vary according to each case, but would include giving significant weight to the objectives of the Convention in appropriate cases.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
The exercise of the discretion has caused difficulty for the Court of Appeal, in particular the factors to be considered and the weight to be accorded to them.
In the first key case:
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 87]
The Court of Appeal held that a court's discretion to refuse the immediate return of a child must be exercised with regard to the overall approach of the Convention, i.e. a child's best interests are furthered by a prompt return, unless there are exceptional circumstances for ordering otherwise.
In Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 60] contrasting views were put forward by two members of the panel.
Balcombe L.J., who was content for there to be a relatively flexible approach to the gateway findings of age and objection, held that the weight to be given to objections would vary with the age of the child, but the policy of the Convention would always be a very weighty factor.
Millet L.J., who advocated a stricter interpretation of the gateway filters, held that if it was appropriate to consider the views of a child then those views should prevail unless there were countervailing factors, which would include the policy of the Convention.
The third member of the panel gave his support to the interpretation of Balcombe L.J.
In Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] Ward L.J. took up the interpretation of Millett L.J.
The reasoning of Re. T. was implicitly accepted by a differently constituted Court of Appeal in:
Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428, [2004] 2 FLR 64 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 579].
However, it was rejected in Zaffino v. Zaffino (Abduction: Children's Views) [2005] EWCA Civ 1012; [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 813].
The correct approach to the exercise of judicial discretion in England is now clearly that advanced by Balcombe L.J.
In Zaffino v. Zaffino the Court also held that regard could be paid to welfare considerations in the exercise of the discretion. In that case, welfare considerations militated in favour of a return.
In Vigreux v. Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630, [2006] 2 FLR 1180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 829] the Court of Appeal considered how discretion should be exercised in a case governed by the Brussels II a Regulation. It held that the aims and policy of the Regulation had to be considered in addition to the policy of the Convention.
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] the Court gave a general consideration to welfare considerations in deciding not to order the return of the 8 year old girl concerned.
The Court also appeared to accept an obiter comment raised in Vigreux v. Michel that there had to be an ‘exceptional' dimension to a case before a Court might consider exercising its discretion against a return order.
Exceptionality was raised in Nyachowe v. Fielder [2007] EWCA Civ 1129, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 964]. There a return order was made notwithstanding the strong objections of an independent 12 year old. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the girl had come for a 2 week vacation.
In Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937] the House of Lords affirmed that it was wrong to import any test of exceptionality into the exercise of discretion under the Hague Convention. The circumstances in which a return may be refused were themselves exceptions to the general rule. That in itself was sufficient exceptionality. It was neither necessary nor desirable to import an additional gloss into the Convention.
Baroness Hale continued that where a discretion arose from the terms of the Convention itself, the discretion was at large. In Article 13(2) cases the court would have to consider the nature and strength of the child's objections, the extent to which they were authentically the child's own or the product of the influence of the abducting parent, the extent to which they coincided or were at odds with other considerations which were relevant to the child's welfare, as well as general Convention considerations. The older the child, the greater the weight that objections would likely carry.
New Zealand
The Balcombe / Millett interpretations gave rise to contrasting High Court judgments. The Court of Appeal however voiced its preference for the Balcombe ‘shades of grey' approach in:
White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].
United Kingdom - Scotland
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 963]
When exercising his discretion to make a return order, the trial judge noted that a return order should not be refused unless there were sound reasons for not giving effect to the objects of the Convention. This was upheld on appeal. The Inner House of the Court of Session further held that the existence of the Article 13 exceptions did not negate or eliminate the general policy of the Convention that wrongfully removed children should be returned.
Singh v. Singh 1998 SC 68 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 197]
The Court held that the welfare of the child was a general factor which should be taken into account in the exercise of discretion. A court should not limit itself to a consideration of the child's objection and the reasons for it. Nevertheless, the court held that a rule could not be laid down as to whether a child's welfare should be considered broadly or in detail; this was a matter within the discretion of the court concerned.
In W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805] the Inner House held that a balancing exercise had to be carried out, and one of the factors in favour of return was the spirit and purpose of the Convention to allow the court of habitual residence to resolve the custody dispute.
United States of America
De Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279, (10th Cir. 2007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 903].
In upholding the views of a 14 year old boy the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit paid regard to his best interests but not to the policy of the Convention.
France
An appellate court limited the weight to be placed on the objections of the children on the basis that before being interviewed they had had no contact with the applicant parent and had spent a long period of time with the abducting parent. Moreover the allegations of the children had already been considered by the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence:
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947].
Requisite Age and Degree of Maturity
Article 13(2) does not include a minimum age from which the objections of a child must be ascertained, rather it employs the formula that the child must have ‘attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.' Nevertheless it was the intention of the drafters that the exception would be primarily directed towards teenagers who were not prepared to go back to their home State.
Undoubtedly influenced by domestic family law practice, different patterns emerged in Contracting States as to the manner in which this exception has been applied. Moreover those patterns may have evolved in jurisdictions during the life span of the application of the Convention, particularly as greater recognition has been paid to children as legal actors in their own right. Indeed in the European Union, at least as regards intra-EU abductions, there is now an obligation that a child is given an opportunity to be heard, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or maturity: Council Regulation 2201/2003, Art. 11(2).
The issue of age and maturity is also closely inter-related with the threshold applied to the exception, that is to say the criteria used to determine the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to take a child's objections into account, see for example: Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FLR 192 [INCADAT cite HC/E/UKe 270]; Zaffino v. Zaffino [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite HC/E/UKe 813]; W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805]; White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].
Australia
H.Z. v. State Central Authority [2006] Fam CA 466, INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 876]
8 year old expressed objections which went beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes, however, in the light of her age and degree of maturity it would not be appropriate to take account of her views.
Director-General, Department of Families, Youth and Community Care v. Thorpe (1997) FLC 92-785 INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 212]
Objections of 9 year old upheld
Germany
4 UF 223/98, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 820]
No fixed age limit. The 8 year old concerned lacked sufficient maturity.
93 F 178/98 HK, Familengericht Flensburg (Family Court), 18 September 1998, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 325]
Objections of 6 year old gathered, but not upheld.
Ireland
In the Matter of M. N. (A Child) [2008] IEHC 382, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 992]
Detailed assessment of the age at which the views of a child should be heard in the light of Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003). Order made that the views of a 6 year old be ascertained.
New Zealand
U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529, INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 472]
Objections of 7 year old considered, but not upheld.
Switzerland
5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795]
No minimum age. Children aged 9 1/2 and 10 ½ heard, but their objections were not upheld.
5P.3/2007 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 894]
A child would have the requisite maturity if he was able to understand the nature of the return proceedings. It was not possible to give general guidance as to the minimum age from which a child would be able to deal with such an abstract issue. The Court noted however that research in the field of child psychology suggested a child would only be capable of such reasoning from the age of 11 or 12. The court of appeal had therefore been entitled not to gather the views of children, then aged 9 and 7.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re W (Minors) [2010] EWCA 520 Civ, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 1324]
Objections of siblings aged 8 and almost 6 upheld.
The Court accepted that the objections of a child of 6 falling within the exception would have been outside the contemplation of the drafters. However, Wilson L.J. held that: "...over the last thirty years the need to take decisions about much younger children not necessarily in accordance with their wishes but at any rate in the light of their wishes has taken hold... ."
United Kingdom - Scotland
N.J.C. v. N.P.C. [2008] CSIH 34, 2008 S.C. 571, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 996]
Views of 9 ½ year old not gathered; objections of her 15 and 11 year old siblings not upheld.
W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805]
9 year old not of sufficient maturity to have her views considered - decision of trial judge reversed.
United States
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 585]
No minimum age at which objections of a child can be ascertained. Objections of 8 year old, within the context of an Art. 13(1)b) assessment, upheld.
Escobar v. Flores 183 Cal. App. 4th 737 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 1026]
No minimum age at which objections of a child can be ascertained. Objections of 8 year old upheld.
Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms
Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Settlement of the child
Concealment
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].
Equitable Tolling
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].
Discretion to make a Return Order where Settlement is established
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.
Settlement of the Child
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.
Commencement of Convention Proceedings
For the purposes of Art 12(1) the obligation on Contracting States to return children ‘forthwith' exists where less than 12 months has elapsed between the wrongful removal / retention and ‘the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority' in the Contracting State of refuge.
Courts in several Contracting States have considered the issue of the precise date of the commencement of such proceedings and have concluded that it is not enough for the purposes of Article 12(1) for the return application to have been filed with the relevant Central Authority in the State of refuge, rather civil return proceedings must have been initiated. In this it has been noted that the reference to administrative authorities in Art 12 refers to States where administrative tribunals have jurisdiction for return petitions.
Canada
V.B.M. v. D.L.J. [2004] N.J. No. 321; 2004 NLCA 56 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 592].
United States of America
Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F. Supp. 413 (E.D. Mich. 1997) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 105].
The issue has been accepted without argument in both England & Wales and Scotland:
Re M. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1996] 1 FLR 315, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 21];
Perrin v. Perrin 1994 SC 45, 1995 SLT 81, 1993 SCLR 949, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 108].
Implementation & Application Issues
Measures to Facilitate the Return of Children
Judicial Cooperation & Communication
The Fourth Special Commission to review the operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention in 2001 recommended that Contracting States actively encourage international judicial co-operation. This view was repeated at the Fifth Special Commission in 2006.
Where this co-operation has manifested itself in the form of direct communication between judges, it has been noted that the procedural standards and safeguards of the forum should be respected. The latter was acknowledged in the "Emerging Guidance and General Principles for Judicial Communications" (Prel. Doc. No 3A for the attention of the Special Commission of June 2011, revised in July 2012) where it is stated in Principles 6.1 to 6.5 that:
"6.1 Every judge engaging in direct judicial communications must respect the law of his or her own jurisdiction.
6.2 When communicating, each judge seized should maintain his or her independence in reaching his or her own decision on the matter at issue.
6.3 Communications must not compromise the independence of the judge seized in reaching his or her own decision on the matter at issue.
6.4 In Contracting States in which direct judicial communications are practised, the following are commonly accepted procedural safeguards:
- except in special circumstances, parties are to be notified of the nature of the proposed communication;
- a record is to be kept of communications and it is to be made available to the parties;
- any conclusions reached should be in writing;
- parties or their representatives should have the opportunity to be present in certain cases, for example via conference call facilities.
6.5 Nothing in these commonly accepted procedural safeguards prevents a judge from following rules of domestic law or practices which allow greater latitude."
Direct judicial co-operation has been employed in several jurisdictions:
Canada
Y.D. v. J.B., [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que.C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA/ 369]
Hoole v. Hoole, 2008 BCSC 1248 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA/ 991]
Adkins v. Adkins, 2009 BCSC 337 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 1108]
In this case, as a result of the direct communication, the Convention proceedings were adjourned pending an adjudication of the substantive custody issue by the competent Court of the child's State of habitual residence in Nevada, United States of America.
United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re M. and J. (Abduction) (International Judicial Collaboration) [1999] 3 FCR 721 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 266]
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-Return Order) [2006] EWHC 3397, [2007] 1 FLR 1923 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 883]
United Kingdom - Northern Ireland
RA v DA [2012] NIFam 9 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKn 1197]
United States of America
Panazatou v. Pantazatos, No. FA 960713571S (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 1997) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USs 97]
Special provision is made for judicial communication in the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997), s. 110, see:
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/child_custody_jurisdiction/uccjea_final_97.pdf
Criticism of the practice of direct judicial co-operation has been raised by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Court of Appeal in D. v. G. [2001] 1179 HKCU 1 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/HK 595].
A study of all aspects of international judicial co-operation was undertaken by Philippe Lortie, Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, first in 2002: "Practical Mechanisms for Facilitating Direct International Judicial Communications in the Context of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: Preliminary Report", Preliminary Document No 6 of August 2002 for the attention of the Special Commission of September / October 2002.
In 2006, Philippe Lortie prepared the "Report on Judicial Communications in Relation to International Child Protection", Preliminary Document No 8 of October 2006 for the attention of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commission to review the operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (30 October - 9 November 2006).
(See < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" and "Preliminary Documents".)
In 2013, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference published the brochure "Direct Judicial Communications - Emerging Guidance regarding the development of the International Hague Network of Judges and General Principles for Judicial Communications, including commonly accepted safeguards for Direct Judicial Communications in specific cases, within the context of the International Hague Network of Judges". (See < www.hcch.net >, under "Publications", then "Brochures".)
For other commentaries see:
Hague Conference "The Judges' Newsletter" Volume IV/Summer 2002 and Volume XV/Autumn 2009. (See < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Judges' Newsletter".)
R. Moglove Diamond, "Canadian Initiatives Respecting the Handling of Hague Abduction Convention Cases" (2008) 50 R.F.L. (6th) 275.
(June 2014)
Safe Return / Mirror Orders
A practice has arisen in a number of Contracting States for return orders to be made subject to compliance with certain specified requirements or undertakings. To ensure that such protective measures are enforceable, the applicant may be required to have these measures registered in identical or equivalent terms in the child's State of habitual residence. These replica orders are commonly referred to as ‘safe return' or ‘mirror orders'.
Return orders have been made subject to the enactment of safe return /mirror orders in the following jurisdictions:
Australia
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];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re W. (Abduction: Domestic Violence) [2004] EWHC 1247, [2004] 2 FLR 499 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ UKe 599];
Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 842, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Central Authority v. H. 2008 (1) SA 49 (SCA) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 900].
A request by the English High Court for protective measures ancillary to an order for international contact to be registered in the State of visitation was upheld by the Panama Second Court of Childhood and Adolescence, see:
Ruling Nº393-05-F, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/PA 872].
A request that a return order be made subject to the implementation of mirror orders was turned down in:
Israel
Family Application 8743/07 Y.D.G. v T.G., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 983].
The Jerusalem Family Court ruled that since accusations against the father had not been upheld there was no basis to impose conditions to ensure the children's safety, other than deposit of money to secure the father's undertaking that they could live in his apartment. There was no need to obtain a mirror order from the US courts as the delay in so doing would harm the children.
Undertakings
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Central Authorities' Co-operation
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Procedural Matters
Oral Evidence
To ensure that Convention cases are dealt with expeditiously, as is required by the Convention, courts in a number of jurisdictions have restricted the use of oral evidence, see:
Australia
Gazi v. Gazi (1993) FLC 92-341, 16 Fam LR 18; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 277]
It should be noted however that more recently Australia's supreme jurisdiction, the High Court, has cautioned against the ‘inadequate, albeit prompt, disposition of return applications', rather a ‘thorough examination on adequate evidence of the issues' was required, see:
M.W. v. Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] HCA 12, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 988].
Canada
Katsigiannis v. Kottick-Katsigianni (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 456 (C.A.); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 758].
The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that if credibility was a serious issue, courts should consider hearing viva voce evidence of witnesses whose credibility is in issue.
China - Hong Kong
S. v. S. [1998] 2 HKC 316; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 234];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re F. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 548; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 40];
Re W. (Abduction: Procedure) [1995] 1 FLR 878; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 37].
In the above case it was accepted that a situation where oral evidence should be allowed was where the affidavit evidence was in direct conflict.
Re W. (Abduction: Domestic Violence) [2004] EWCA Civ 1366, [2005] 1 FLR 727; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 771]
In the above case the Court of Appeal ruled that a trial judge could consider of his own motion to allow oral evidence where he conceived that oral evidence might be determinative of the case.
However, to warrant oral exploration of written evidence as to the existence of a grave risk of harm which was only embryonic on the written material, a judge must be satisfied that there was a realistic possibility that oral evidence would establish an Article 13(1) b) case.
Re F. (Abduction: Child's Wishes) [2007] EWCA Civ 468, [2007] 2 FLR 697; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 906]
Here the Court of Appeal affirmed that where the exception of acquiescence was alleged oral evidence was more commonly allowed because of the necessity to ascertain the applicant's subjective state of mind, as well as his communications in response to knowledge of the removal or retention.
Finland
Supreme Court of Finland: KKO:2004:76; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FI 839].
Ireland
In the Matter of M. N. (A Child) [2008] IEHC 382; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 992].
The trial judge noted that applications were heard on affidavit evidence only, except where the Court, in exceptional circumstances, directed or permitted oral evidence.
New Zealand
Secretary for Justice v. Abrahams, ex parte Brown; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 492];
Hall v. Hibbs [1995] NZFLR 762; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 248];
South Africa
Pennello v. Pennello [2003] 1 All SA 716; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 497];
Central Authority v. H. 2008 (1) SA 49 (SCA); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 900].
In the above case the Supreme Court of Appeal noted that even where the parties had not requested that oral evidence be admitted, it might be required where a finding on the issue of consent could not otherwise be reached.
United States of America
Ferraris v. Alexander, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1417 (Cal. App. 3d. Dist., 2005); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 797]
The father argued that the trial court denied him a fair hearing because it determined disputed issues of fact without hearing oral evidence from the parties.
The Court of Appeal rejected this submission noting that nothing in the Hague Convention entitled the father to an evidentiary hearing with sworn witness testimony. Moreover, it noted that under California law declarations could be used in place of witness testimony in various situations.
The Court further ruled that the father could not question the propriety of the procedure used with regard to evidence on appeal because he did not object to the use of affidavits in evidence at trial.
For a consideration of the use of oral evidence in Convention proceedings see: Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E. 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p. 257 et seq.
Under the rules applicable within the European Union for intra-EU abductions (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II a)) Convention applications are now subject to additional provisions, including the requirement that an applicant be heard before a non-return order is made [Article 11(5) Brussels II a Regulation], and, that the child be heard ‘during the proceedings unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his or her age or degree of maturity' [Article 11(2) Brussels II a Regulation].
Requirement of Expedition (art. 11)
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Delays by the Applicant Parent After Initiating Return Proceedings
Whilst rare there have been examples of left behind parents initiating proceedings only then to not to continue, or of left behind parents succeeding in obtaining a return order only then not to take steps to secure enforcement. The response to situations is governed by the procedural rules of the Member State concerned.
Failure to Continue With Application
United Kingdom - England & Wales
A left behind parent who filed a return petition but then waited 10 months before taking any further steps had the application struck out as an abuse of process.
Re G. (Abduction: Striking Out Application) [1995] 2 FLR 410, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 170].
Failure to Seek Enforcement of a Return Order
Australia
The Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986, Reg 19A provides:
(1) If a court makes a return order, the responsible Central Authority, the Article 3 applicant or a respondent to the proceeding may apply to the court, in accordance with Form 2D, for the discharge of the order.
(2) The court may make an order discharging a return order, or a part of a return order, only if it is satisfied that:
(a) all the parties consent to the return order being discharged; or
(b) since the return order was made, circumstances have arisen that make it impracticable for the order to be carried out; or
(c) exceptional circumstances exist that justify the return order being discharged; or
(d) the day on which the application for the discharge of the return order was made is more than 1 year after the return order was made or any appeal in relation to the return order was determined.
New Zealand
In B. v. Secretary for Justice, 26 February 2008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 965] the High Court (Christchurch) held that there was no jurisdiction under New Zealand law to strike out a return order where the left behind parent had failed to act to secure its enforcement. The judge held that had such jurisdiction existed he would have struck out the return order, as an 8 month delay was extreme.
The ruling of the High Court was upheld by the Court of Appeal: Butler v. Craig [2008] NZCA 198.
Enforcement of Return Orders
Where an abducting parent does not comply voluntarily the implementation of a return order will require coercive measures to be taken. The introduction of such measures may give rise to legal and practical difficulties for the applicant. Indeed, even where ultimately successful significant delays may result before the child's future can be adjudicated upon in the State of habitual residence. In some extreme cases the delays encountered may be of such length that it may no longer be appropriate for a return order to be made.
Work of the Hague Conference
Considerable attention has been paid to the issue of enforcement at the Special Commissions convened to review the operation of the Hague Convention.
In the Conclusions of the Fourth Review Special Commission in March 2001 it was noted:
"Methods and speed of enforcement
3.9 Delays in enforcement of return orders, or their non-enforcement, in certain Contracting States are matters of serious concern. The Special Commission calls upon Contracting States to enforce return orders promptly and effectively.
3.10 It should be made possible for courts, when making return orders, to include provisions to ensure that the order leads to the prompt and effective return of the child.
3.11 Efforts should be made by Central Authorities, or by other competent authorities, to track the outcome of return orders and to determine in each case whether enforcement is delayed or not achieved."
See: < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" and "Conclusions and Recommendations".
In preparation for the Fifth Review Special Commission in November 2006 the Permanent Bureau prepared a report entitled: "Enforcement of Orders Made Under the 1980 Convention - Towards Principles of Good Practice", Prel. Doc. No 7 of October 2006, (available on the Hague Conference website at < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" then "Preliminary Documents").
The 2006 Special Commission encouraged support for the principles of good practice set out in the report which will serve moreover as a future Guide to Good Practice on Enforcement Issues, see: < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" then "Conclusions and Recommendations" then "Special Commission of October-November 2006"
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
The ECrtHR has in recent years paid particular attention to the issue of the enforcement of return orders under the Hague Convention. On several occasions it has found Contracting States to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention have failed in their positive obligations to take all the measures that could reasonably be expected to enforce a return order. This failure has in turn led to a breach of the applicant parent's right to respect for their family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), see:
Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, No. 31679/96, (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 7, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 336];
Sylvester v. Austria, Nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 17, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 502];
H.N. v. Poland, No. 77710/01, (2005) 45 EHRR 1054, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 811];
Karadžic v. Croatia, No. 35030/04, (2005) 44 EHRR 896, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 819];
P.P. v. Poland, No. 8677/03, 8 January 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 941].
The Court will have regard to the circumstances of the case and the action taken by the national authorities. A delay of 8 months between the delivery of a return order and enforcement was held not to have constituted a breach of the left behind parent's right to family life in:
Couderc v. Czech Republic, 31 January 2001, No. 54429/00, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 859].
The Court has dismissed challenges by parents who have argued that enforcement measures, including coercive steps, have interfered with their right to a family life, see:
Paradis v. Germany, 15 May 2003, No. 4783/03, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 860];
A.B. v. Poland, No. 33878/96, 20 November 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 943];
Maumousseau and Washington v. France, No. 39388/05, 6 December 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 942].
The positive obligation to act when faced with the enforcement of a custody order in a non-Hague Convention child abduction case was upheld in:
Bajrami v. Albania, 12 December 2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 898].
However, where an applicant parent has contributed to delay this will be a relevant consideration, see as regards the enforcement of a custody order following upon an abduction:
Ancel v. Turkey, No. 28514/04, 17 February 2009, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1015].
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that the immediate enforcement of a return order whilst a final legal challenge was still pending did not breach Articles 8, 17, 19 or 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact), see:
Case 11.676, X et Z v. Argentina, 3 October 2000, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report n°71/00, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 772].
Case Law on Enforcement
The following are examples of cases where a return order was made but enforcement was resisted:
Belgium
Cour de cassation 30/10/2008, C.G. c. B.S., N° de rôle: C.06.0619.F, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 750];
Canada
H.D. et N.C. c. H.F.C., Cour d'appel (Montréal), 15 mai 2000, N° 500-09-009601-006 (500-04-021679-007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 915];
Switzerland
427/01/1998, 49/III/97/bufr/mour, Cour d'appel du canton de Berne (Suisse); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 433];
5P.160/2001/min, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 423];
5P.454/2000/ZBE/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 786];
5P.115/2006/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 840].
Enforcement may equally be rendered impossible because of the reaction of the children concerned, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re B. (Children) (Abduction: New Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 531; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 420];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Cameron v. Cameron (No. 3) 1997 SCLR 192; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 112];
Spain
Auto Juzgado de Familia Nº 6 de Zaragoza (España), Expediente Nº 1233/95-B; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 899].
Enforcement of Return Orders Pending Appeal
For examples of cases where return orders have been enforced notwithstanding an appeal being pending see:
Argentina
Case 11.676, X et Z v. Argentina, 3 October 2000, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report n° 11/00 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 772].
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that the immediate enforcement of a return order whilst a final legal challenge was still pending did not breach Articles 8, 17, 19 or 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact).
Spain
Sentencia nº 120/2002 (Sala Primera); Número de Registro 129/1999. Recurso de amparo [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 907];
United States of America
Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491 (4th Cir. Va., 2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494].
In Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 461] while it is not clear whether the petition was lodged prior to the return being executed, the appeal was nevertheless allowed to proceed.
However, in Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 909] an appeal was not allowed to proceed once the child was returned to the State of habitual residence.
In the European Union where following the entry into force of the Brussels IIa Regulation there is now an obligation that abductions cases be dealt with in a six week time frame, the European Commission has suggested that to guarantee compliance return orders might be enforced pending appeal, see Practice Guide for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.
Costs
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Access / Contact
Protection of Rights of Access
Protection of Rights of Access
Article 21 has been subjected to varying interpretations. Contracting States favouring a literal interpretation have ruled that the provision does not establish a basis of jurisdiction for courts to intervene in access matters and is focussed on procedural assistance from the relevant Central Authority. Other Contracting States have allowed proceedings to be brought on the basis of Article 21 to give effect to existing access rights or even to create new access rights.
A literal interpretation of the provision has found favour in:
Austria
S. v. S., 25 May 1998, transcript (official translation), Regional civil court at Graz, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 245];
Germany
2 UF 286/97, Oberlandesgericht Bamberg, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 488];
United States of America
Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp. 2d 857, 860-61 (E.D. Pa. 1998). [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 223];
Teijeiro Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1125 (W.D. Mich. 2000);
Janzik v. Schand, 22 November 2000, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 463];
Wiggill v. Janicki, 262 F. Supp. 2d 687, 689 (S.D.W. Va. 2003);
Yi Ly v. Heu, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1011 (D. Minn. 2003);
In re Application of Adams ex. rel. Naik v. Naik, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1030 (N.D. Ill. 2005);
Wiezel v. Wiezel-Tyrnauer, 388 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 828];
Cantor v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2006), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 827].
In Cantor, the only US appellate decision on Article 21, there was a dissenting judgment which found that the US implementing act did provide a jurisdictional basis for federal courts to hear an application with regard to an existing access right.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
In Re G. (A Minor) (Enforcement of Access Abroad) [1993] Fam 216 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 110].
More recently however the English Court of Appeal has suggested that it might be prepared to consider a more permissive interpretation:
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].
Baroness Hale has recommended the elaboration of a procedure whereby the facilitation of rights of access in the United Kingdom under Article 21 could be contemplated at the same time as the return of the child under Article 12:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51[INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
Switzerland
Arrondissement judiciaire I Courterlary-Moutier-La Neuveville (Suisse) 11 October 1999, N° C 99 4313 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 454].
A more permissive interpretation of Article 21 has indeed been adopted elsewhere, see:
United Kingdom - Scotland
Donofrio v. Burrell, 2000 S.L.T. 1051 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 349].
Wider still is the interpretation adopted in New Zealand, see:
Gumbrell v. Jones [2001] NZFLR 593 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 446].
Australia
The position in Australia has evolved in the light of statutory reforms.
Initially a State Central Authority could only apply for an order that was ‘necessary or appropriate to organise or secure the effective exercise of rights of access to a child in Australia', see:
Director-General, Department of Families Youth & Community Care v. Reissner [1999] FamCA 1238, (1999) 25 Fam LR 330, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 278].
Subsequently it acquired the power to initiate proceedings to establish access rights:
State Central Authority & Peddar [2008] FamCA 519, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1107];
State Central Authority & Quang [2009] FamCA 1038, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1106].
Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law
Compatibility of the Convention with National Constitutions
Compatibility of the Hague Convention with National Constitutions
The Convention has been found to be in accordance with national constitutions or charters of rights in other Contracting States, see:
Argentina
W. v. O., 14 June 1995, Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AR 362];
Belgium
N° 03/3585/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 547];
Canada - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Parsons v. Styger, (1989) 67 OR (2d) 1, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 16];
Y.D. v. J.B., [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que.C.A.), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA/369];
Czech Republic
III. ÚS 440/2000 DAOUD / DAOUD, 7 December 2000, Ústavní soud České republiky (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic);[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CZ 468];
Germany
2 BvR 982/95 and 2 BvR 983/95, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 310];
2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];
Ireland
C.K. v. C.K. [1993] ILRM 534, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 288];
W. v. Ireland and the Attorney General and M.W. [1994] ILRM 126, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 289];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Bundesgericht (Tribunal fédéral), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427];
5A_479/2007 /frs, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953];
United States of America
Fabri v. Pritikin-Fabri, 221 F. Supp. 2d 859 (2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 484];
Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 971];
Rodriguez v. Nat'l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5658 (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 799].
However, several challenges have been upheld in Spain, see:
Re S., Auto de 21 abril de 1997, Audiencia Provincial Barcelona, Sección 1a, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 244];
Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 970].
European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) Judgments
Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
Brussels II a Regulation
The application of the 1980 Hague Convention within the Member States of the European Union (Denmark excepted) has been amended following the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, see:
Affaire C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] ECR I 5271 [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 987];
Affaire C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1327].
The Hague Convention remains the primary tool to combat child abductions within the European Union but its operation has been fine tuned.
An autonomous EU definition of ‘rights of custody' has been adopted: Article 2(9) of the Brussels II a Regulation, which is essentially the same as that found in Article 5 a) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. There is equally an EU formula for determining the wrongfulness of a removal or retention: Article 2(11) of the Regulation. The latter embodies the key elements of Article 3 of the Convention, but adds an explanation as to the joint exercise of custody rights, an explanation which accords with international case law.
See: Case C-400/10 PPU J Mc.B. v. L.E, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].
Of greater significance is Article 11 of the Brussels II a Regulation.
Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires that when applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention that the child is given the opportunity to be heard during the proceedings, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or degree of maturity.
This obligation has led to a realignment in judicial practice in England, see:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880] where Baroness Hale noted that the reform would lead to children being heard more frequently in Hague cases than had hitherto happened.
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 901]
The Court of Appeal endorsed the suggestion by Baroness Hale that the requirement under the Brussels II a Regulation to ascertain the views of children of sufficient age of maturity was not restricted to intra-European Community cases of child abduction, but was a principle of universal application.
Article 11(3) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires Convention proceedings to be dealt with within 6 weeks.
Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 931]
Thorpe LJ held that this extended to appeal hearings and as such recommended that applications for permission to appeal should be made directly to the trial judge and that the normal 21 day period for lodging a notice of appeal should be restricted.
Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation provides that the return of a child cannot be refused under Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his return.
Cases in which reliance has been placed on Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation to make a return order include:
France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947];
CA Paris 15 février 2007 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 979].
The relevant protection was found not to exist, leading to a non-return order being made, in:
CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 717].
The most notable element of Article 11 is the new mechanism which is now applied where a non-return order is made on the basis of Article 13. This allows the authorities in the State of the child's habitual residence to rule on whether the child should be sent back notwithstanding the non-return order. If a subsequent return order is made under Article 11(7) of the Regulation, and is certified by the issuing judge, then it will be automatically enforceable in the State of refuge and all other EU-Member States.
Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Granted:
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [2007] 1 FLR 1923 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 883]
Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Refused:
Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 930].
The CJEU has ruled that a subsequent return order does not have to be a final order for custody:
Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1328].
In this case it was further held that the enforcement of a return order cannot be refused as a result of a change of circumstances. Such a change must be raised before the competent court in the Member State of origin.
Furthermore abducting parents may not seek to subvert the deterrent effect of Council Regulation 2201/2003 in seeking to obtain provisional measures to prevent the enforcement of a custody order aimed at securing the return of an abducted child:
Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].
For academic commentary on the new EU regime see:
P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.
Inter-American Convention
Inter-American Convention
Preparation of INCADAT commentary progress.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Non-Convention Child Abduction Cases under National Law
Asylum Issues
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
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.
1996 Hague Child Protection Convention
1996 Hague Child Protection Convention
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Leave to remove
Leave to remove
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.