Descargar texto completo
ES
Buscador de jurisprudencia
Nueva búsquedaCASO
Nombre del caso
L. E. A. C. s/ Restitución Internacional
Referencia INCADAT
HC/E/CL 1522
Tribunal
Chile
Juzgado de Familia de Antofagasta
Primera Instancia
Evelyn Montenegro Urrutia
Estados involucrados
Argentina
Chile
Fallo
28 May 2016
Definitiva
Derechos de custodia - art. 3 | Residencia habitual - art. 3 | Integración del niño - art. 12(2) | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b) | Objeciones del niño a la restitución - art. 13(2) | Cuestiones procesales |
Restitución denegada
-
-
-
SINOPSIS
Sinopsis disponible en
EN
|
ES
Supuesta retención ilícita de niño cuando tenía 9 años de edad – nacional de Argentina – padres no casados – padre nacional de Argentina – madre nacional de Argentina – el niño vivió en Argentina hasta noviembre de 2014 – la solicitud de restitución se presentó ante los tribunales de Chile el 22 de abril de 2016 – restitución denegada – cuestiones principales: residencia habitual, derechos de custodia, integración del niño, art. 13(1)(b) excepción de grave riesgo, objeciones del niño a la restitución, cuestiones procesales – la residencia habitual del niño anterior al desplazamiento se encontraba en Argentina – la madre tenía derechos de custodia en virtud del Convenio, por lo que la retención no fue ilícita y el padre carecía de legitimación activa para solicitar la restitución internacional – transcurrieron más de dos años desde que el niño ingresó a Chile hasta que se presentó la solicitud de restitución internacional y el niño se encontraba arraigado al nuevo ambiente – la restitución exponía al niño a un riesgo cierto de poner en peligro su integridad física y psicológica, por haber sido él y su madre víctimas de violencia intrafamiliar – el niño manifestó abiertamente su deseo de no regresar a la Argentina.
SUMARIO
Sumario disponible en
EN
|
ES
Facts
The case concerned a boy who was around 9 years old, born in October 2006 in the Province of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. On 6 August 2014, the parents appeared before the family court of Ushuaia, Province of Tierra del Fuego, where they agreed that the mother would have custody of the child and the eldest daughter of the couple, who was 16 years old. The court ordered a wide visitation schedule in favour of the father. Also, on 12 November 2014, the parents issued a travel authorisation through a notarised public deed, where they authorised each other to travel with their children across the country and abroad until they become of age, and to request and process their permanent or temporary stay in the country of destiny.
In November 2014, the boy travelled to Antofagasta, Chile, with his mother and his sister to spend the holidays there. Said trip was authorised by the father and it was arranged that they would return to Argentina in January 2015. This, however, did not happen and the mother told the father it was her intention to stay in Chile with their children.
On 22 April 2016, the father requested the international return of the child before the family court of Antofagasta, Chile.
Ruling
Return refused. Retention was not wrongful.
Grounds
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
The Court held that, under Argentine law, the mother had the custody rights pursuant to the provisions of Art. 5 of the Convention and section 264 subsection 5 of the Argentine Civil Code. In the opinion of the Court, the applicable law establishes that legal custody, in the case of children born out of wedlock, with non-cohabiting parents, belongs to the parent who was given custody by agreement or through legal proceedings. Thus, given that in this case it had been agreed that the mother would have custody of the child, it was decided that there was no wrongful retention and that the father had no standing to request the international return of the child
Habitual Residence - Art. 3
The Court held that the habitual residence of the child before the removal was in Argentina.
Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
After hearing the child and assessing the evidence (witness statements and certificate of registered student status), the Court held that the child was well settled in the new environment in Antofagasta, Chile, where he was living since November 2014. For that purpose, it considered that the return request had been filed over two years after the child had entered Chile.
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Based on the evidence (psycho-pedagogical report, expert report, record of the preventive hearing on protection), the Court concluded that it was not advisable for the child to return to the Argentine Republic accompanied by his father due to true risk of jeopardising his physical and psychological integrity because the mother and the child had been victims of family violence.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
The Court held that the exception to Article 13(2) of the Convention was merited given that the child openly stated his wish not to go back to Argentina during the in-camera hearing.
Procedural Matters
A month elapsed from the filing of the request before the Family Court of Antofagasta until the rendering of the decision.
The child was heard in an in-camera hearing, in the presence of the guardian ad litem and a conciliation counsellor appointed by the court.
The case was resolved by applying Record No. 205-2015, amending the Order on the Procedure Applicable to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, issued by the Supreme Court of Chile.