INCADAT | TB v. JPB [Child Abduction] [2012] NZFLR 97

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

The mother argued that the trial judge had failed to exercise her judicial function by accepting the concession that the retention of the children was wrongful. The High Court rejected this argument and further noted that where an experienced counsel advised that a party conceded that particular factual matters in a statute were satisfied, it would not usually be necessary or appropriate for the trial judge to look beyond that statement.

Nevertheless, the High Court did reconsider the issue of wrongfulness and in this found that the evidence supported the finding that the parents had agreed that the children would be away for no more than three weeks.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The mother drew attention to a variety of factors and incidents which she submitted indicated acquiescence on the part of the father. These included the father:

- advising the mother in an email that if he were able to sell one of the couple's vehicles he would ship her and the children's belongings to New Zealand;
- terminating the lease on the family home and vacating the property;
- notify the Australian authorities that no more family assistance payments should be made;
- cancelling contents insurance;
- selling a family vehicle.

The Court accepted the father's explanations for each of these factors and ruled that the exception of acquiescence had not been made out.

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

Affidavit evidence from the mother and members of the maternal family indicated that the older child objected to being returned to Australia. A counsel for the child was appointed, but she informed the Court that she did not consider the child objected to returning to Australia.

The Court noted that a child could express a view which he or she believed adults close to him or her wished to hear. The Court ruled that the objections exception had not been established.

Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy

Nature of Removal and Retention

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.

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.

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].

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].

Buscador de jurisprudencia

CASO

Nombre del caso

TB v. JPB [Child Abduction] [2012] NZFLR 97

Referencia INCADAT

Tribunal

Estados involucrados

Fallo

INCADAT comentario

Objetivos y ámbito de aplicación del Convenio

Excepciones a la restitución

SUMARIO

Facts

Ruling

Grounds