CASO

Descargar texto completo ES

Nombre del caso

T-202-18

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/CO 1512

Tribunal

País

Colombia

Nombre

Sala Primera de Revisión de la Corte Constitucional

Instancia

última instancia

Juez(ces)

Mda. Diana Farjado Rivera, Mdo. Luis Guillermo Guerrero Pérez, Mdo. Carlos Bernal Pulido

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Estados Unidos de América

Estado requerido

Colombia

Fallo

Fecha

28 May 2018

Estado

Otra

Fundamentos

Finalidad del Convenio - Preámbulo, arts. 1 y 2 | Integración del niño - art. 12(2) | Aceptación posterior - art. 13(1)(a) | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b) | Objeciones del niño a la restitución - art. 13(2)

Fallo

Devolución de la causa al tribunal inferior

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 12(2)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

13(2)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en

-

SINOPSIS

Sinopsis disponible en EN | ES

Retención ilícita de una niña cuando tenía 5 años de edad – nacional de Estados Unidos – padres casados – padre nacional de Estados Unidos – madre nacional de Colombia – ambos padres tenían derechos de custodia en virtud del Convenio – la niña vivió en Estados Unidos hasta el 19 de diciembre de 2015 – la solicitud de restitución se presentó ante la Autoridad Central de Estados Unidos el 13 de junio de 2016 – se ordenó al tribunal inferior dictar una nueva sentencia en el proceso de restitución internacional, teniendo en cuenta la opinión de la niña – cuestiones principales: finalidad del Convenio - Preámbulo, integración del niño, aceptación posterior, art. 13(1)(b) excepción de grave riesgo, objeciones del niño a la restitución - el interés superior del niño consiste en ser restituido a su centro de vida sin dilaciones, salvo que se pruebe una de las causales de excepción – la evaluación de la integración del niño es procedente sólo si transcurrió un año entre la conducta ilícita y la fecha de presentación de la solicitud de restitución internacional – el grave riesgo debe tener una entidad mayor al natural padecimiento que puede ocasionar un cambio de lugar de residencia o a la desarticulación de actual grupo conviviente – la decisión sobre la aplicación de la excepción del art. 13(2) exige considerar la opinión del niño que tiene edad y grado de madurez suficientes.

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | ES

Facts

The child was born on January 8, 2010 in Wellington, United States. Her mother, a Colombian national, and her father, a U.S. national, were married on November 25, 2009.

On December 19, 2015, the child traveled to Colombia with her mother, with a parental authorization valid until January 6, 2016. Once this period expired, the child and her mother did not return to the United States.

On June 13, 2016, the father requested the international return of the child before the U.S. central authority. The request was sent to its Colombian counterpart, which initiated proceedings in order to reach the voluntary return of the child to the United States. On November 10, 2016, they had a psychological interview with the child.

On December 1, 2016, the judicial process of international return began before the Second Family Court of the Bogotá Circuit, which rejected the request based on Art. 13 (1)(a) of the Hague Convention. On July 13, 2017, the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá reversed that decision and ordered the immediate return of the child to the United States.

On July 18, 2017, the mother filed a “tutela” action against the judgment of the Superior Court, which was denied in the first instance by the Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court reversed that decision in second instance, ordering the Superior Court to issue a replacement judgment in the international return process.

Ruling

The Superior Court is ordered to issue, within 10 days of notification of the decision, a new replacement judgment resolving the appeal filed in the international return proceedings, taking into account the voice of the child.

Grounds

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

The Court reaffirmed that the Hague Convention is based on the best interests of the child. Consequently, in matters of international child abduction, unless the party opposing the return proves one of the exceptions listed in the Convention, the best interest of the child is to be returned to his or her place of residence without delay.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

The Court found the assessment of the child's settlement into the new social and family environment inappropriate since, between the time of the wrongful retention (February 2016) and the date in which the international return application was filed before the US central authority (June 2016), the one-year period required by Art. 12 (2) had not elapsed.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The Court held that the payment of educational costs does not imply a tacit consent of the father to the change of the child's habitual residence, but to the fulfillment of the legal duty to provide maintenance and education to the children, in pursuit of contributing to their growth and development in dignified conditions.

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

The Court considered that the evidence provided by the mother was not sufficient to demonstrate that the father consumed psychoactive substances and had anger problems, or that this would imply a serious risk to the child's integrity and development if it were decided to return the girl to the State of her habitual residence. Indeed, it held that a refusal of the return on the basis of the Art. 13(1)(b) exception is only possible if there is a special situation of risk, which is greater than the natural hardship that a change of residence or the dislocation of the current cohabiting group may cause to the child.

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

The Court held that children involved in international return proceedings have the right to be heard in all matters affecting them and to have their views duly taken into account in accordance with their degree of maturity, which is associated with the family, social and cultural environment in which they develop.

It also emphasized that because of the singular purpose of the Hague Convention, the right of the child to be heard does not imply an unrestricted adherence or an unthinking submission to his/her wishes or says. In this sense, the application of the exception of Art. 13(2) would only be possible when there is a genuine opposition of the child, understood as an irreducible repudiation to be returned to the State of his or her habitual residence.

The Court considered that the High Court disregarded the opinion expressed by the child in the administrative interview because of her age (7 years old), disregarding the report of a psychologist of the central authority which showed that the child had a sufficient degree of maturity to have her opinion considered in the international return proceedings. It was understood that this attitude was contrary to the principle of the best interests of the child and the child's right to be heard, thus affecting the right to due process and the fundamental rights of children recognized in international human rights treaties. Therefore, the Court decided that the Superior Court should issue a new ruling considering the child's voice and assessing it in accordance with the technical and appropriate expertise collected during the course of the proceedings, so that the decision on whether or not to apply the exception would be motivated.

Author: Emilia Gortari Wirz