EN | FR | ES

Buscador de jurisprudencia

Nueva búsqueda

CASO

Descargar texto completo EN

Nombre del caso

Re B. (Abduction: Article 13 Defence) [1997] 2 FLR 573

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/UKe 177

Tribunal

País

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales

Nombre

High Court (Inglaterra)

Instancia

Primera Instancia

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Estados Unidos de América

Estado requerido

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales

Fallo

Fecha

4 February 1997

Estado

Definitiva

Fundamentos

Consentimiento - art. 13(1)(a) | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b)

Fallo

Restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

3 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 19

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

13(1)(a)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en
http://www.hcch.net/incadat/fullcase/0177.htm

INCADAT comentario

Excepciones a la restitución

Cuestiones generales
Carácter limitado de las excepciones
Consentimiento
Establecimiento del consentimiento
Grave riesgo de daño
Reino Unido: jurisprudencia de Inglaterra y Gales

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The children, two boys, were 11 and 5 3/4 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. They had lived in the United States for the majority of their lives. The parents were married and had joint rights of custody. In June 1996 the mother took the boys to England for a vacation. They returned to the United States on 30 July 1996.

The parents then agreed that they would separate and that the mother could return to England with the younger child for three months. He was to be brought back by 19 November 1996.

In September 1996 the mother informed the father that she would not return. On 29 November 1996 the father applied for the return of the child.

Ruling

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had not been met to show that the father had consented.

Grounds

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

While there was evidence to suggest that the father knew the mother would not be returning, from the result of: conversations, the purchase of one-way tickets, the amount of luggage taken, the rental of property in England and indeed the father's delay in initiating proceedings, such evidence was equivocal and did not meet the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to establish consent.

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

It would defeat the policy of the Convention to allow a parent to create a psychological situation and then rely on it to prove a grave risk.

INCADAT comment

Limited Nature of the Exceptions

Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.

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.

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].