HC/E/ES 1256
Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
última instancia
Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
España
15 January 2014
-
Residencia habitual - art. 3 | Objeciones del niño a la restitución - art. 13(2)
-
-
The primary issue for the Court was whether regard could be paid to the state of mind of an adolescent child, who had resided in a place under the care of one parent, in determining the child's habitual residence. The Court noted that pursuant to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it was required to search for some integration on the part of the child in a social and family environment in the suggested state of habitual residence: Case C 523/07, A. [2099] E.C.R. I-2805 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1000] and Case C-497/10 PPU) Mercredi v Chaffe [2012] Fam 22 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1044] as adopted by the Supreme Court in A v A and another (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) [2013] UKSC 60, [2013] 3 W.L.R. 761 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1233] and In re L (A Child) (Habitual Residence) [2013] UKSC 75, [2013] 3 W.L.R. 1597 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1237].
The Court held that where a child of any age goes lawfully to reside with a parent in a state in which that parent is habitually resident, it would be highly unusual for the child not to acquire habitual residence there too. However, it continued that in highly unusual cases there must be room for a different conclusion and the requirement of "some integration", as referred to in the CJEU case law, created room for this perfectly.
The Court held that where a child is older, in particular an adolescent or one with the maturity of an adolescent, and perhaps also where the older child's residence with the parent proves to be of short duration, the inquiry into the child's integration in the new environment must encompass more than the surface features of his / her life there. The Court noted that the child's mind may possibly have been in a state of rebellious turmoil about the chosen home, which would be inconsistent with any significant degree of integration there.
The Court further clarified that it was the child's state of mind during the period of residence with the parent which was relevant, as opposed to his / her "wishes", "views" or "intentions".
The Court rejected a submission that it should substitute a conclusion that the eldest child remained habitually resident in England on 5 January 2013, and remitted the matter to the High Court. In the light of this conclusion, the Court then held that the finding of habitual residence in respect of the younger siblings should also be set aside for re-consideration. Although the latter issue was finely balanced, it was appropriate because were the High Court to conclude that the eldest child had never lost her English habitual residence, it would need to consider whether its conclusion could sit easily alongside a conclusion that the three boys had acquired a habitual residence in Spain.
Lady Hale, with whom Lord Sumption agreed, delivered a partly dissenting judgment, notably as to the age at which the state of mind of children should be capable of being relevant to the determination of habitual residence. She stated (at [58]): "The logic which makes an adolescent's state of mind relevant applies equally to the younger children, although of course the answer to the factual question may be different in their case." In this she referred to the CJEU case law on the habitual residence of children.
She held that it would be wrong to overlay the essentially factual questions of whether residence had acquired the necessary degree of stability and quality, insofar as there was a sufficient degree of integration into a social and family environment in the country in question, with a rule that the perceptions of younger children were irrelevant. The approach of the CJEU was child centred. Lady Hale stated (at [62]): "Each child is an individual with his own experiences and his own perceptions. These are not necessarily determined by the decisions of his parents, although sometimes these will leave him with no choice but to buckle down and get on with it." She further added (at [64]) that it was "not a question of the parents' determining the habitual residence of their children. It is a question of the impact of the parental decisions about where they and the children will live upon the factual question of where the children habitually reside". Lady Hale would have allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the trial judge's decision that the three older children were habitually resident in Spain on the relevant date.
The Supreme Court further considered whether the trial judge had erred in exercising his discretion to decline to make the eldest child a party to the proceedings. The Court noted that the best interests of the child were the threshold criterion in deciding whether to make a child a party to proceedings: Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.16.2. The Court noted (at [48]) that "[t]he intrusion of the children into the forensic arena, which enables a number of them to adopt a directly confrontational stance towards the applicant parent, can prove very damaging to family relationships even in the long term and definitely affects their interests".
It accepted however that in both inquiries into settlement and habitual residence an older child may be able to contribute relevant evidence not easily given by either of the parents, namely about his / her state of mind during the period in question. The Court affirmed that it should not become routine to join as parties to Convention proceedings children whose habitual residence in the requesting state was in issue.
Nevertheless, the Court concluded that in the light of the unusual features of the case, the eldest child should have been granted party status and that the Court of Appeal should have allowed her appeal. It noted that this would give the trial judge a wide discretion to determine the extent of the role which the child should play in the proceedings. The Court then reflected on how the trial judge might have acted, had he accorded the child party status. It also drew attention to evidence that issues about a child's habitual residence in Convention proceedings were relatively rare.
Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy
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.
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].