HC/E/AT 378
Austria
Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)
última instancia
España
Austria
17 May 1990
Definitiva
Integración del niño - art. 12(2)
-
-
-
The return proceedings were issued 18 months after the alleged wrongful removal. The court noted that during this time the child had lived with her mother in the home of the maternal grandparents. The court ruled that from the perspective of a 2 ½ year old child, 18 months was a very substantial experience of childhood and the mother had succeeded in demonstrating that the child was now settled in her new environment in Austria within the terms of Article 12.
Where it is established that a child objects to a return and he is of sufficient age and maturity at which it is appropriate to take his views into account, then the Court seised of the case will have a discretion whether or not to make a return order.
Different approaches have been espoused as to the manner in which this discretion should be exercised and the relevant factors that should be taken into consideration.
Australia
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 904]
The appellate court found that the trial judge had erred in ruling that there had to be 'clear and compelling' reasons to frustrate the objectives of the Convention. The Court recalled that there were permitted exceptions to a mandatory return and where established these exceptions gave rise to a discretion. The relevant factors in the exercise of that discretion would vary according to each case, but would include giving significant weight to the objectives of the Convention in appropriate cases.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
The exercise of the discretion has caused difficulty for the Court of Appeal, in particular the factors to be considered and the weight to be accorded to them.
In the first key case:
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 87]
The Court of Appeal held that a court's discretion to refuse the immediate return of a child must be exercised with regard to the overall approach of the Convention, i.e. a child's best interests are furthered by a prompt return, unless there are exceptional circumstances for ordering otherwise.
In Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 60] contrasting views were put forward by two members of the panel.
Balcombe L.J., who was content for there to be a relatively flexible approach to the gateway findings of age and objection, held that the weight to be given to objections would vary with the age of the child, but the policy of the Convention would always be a very weighty factor.
Millet L.J., who advocated a stricter interpretation of the gateway filters, held that if it was appropriate to consider the views of a child then those views should prevail unless there were countervailing factors, which would include the policy of the Convention.
The third member of the panel gave his support to the interpretation of Balcombe L.J.
In Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] Ward L.J. took up the interpretation of Millett L.J.
The reasoning of Re. T. was implicitly accepted by a differently constituted Court of Appeal in:
Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428, [2004] 2 FLR 64 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 579].
However, it was rejected in Zaffino v. Zaffino (Abduction: Children's Views) [2005] EWCA Civ 1012; [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 813].
The correct approach to the exercise of judicial discretion in England is now clearly that advanced by Balcombe L.J.
In Zaffino v. Zaffino the Court also held that regard could be paid to welfare considerations in the exercise of the discretion. In that case, welfare considerations militated in favour of a return.
In Vigreux v. Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630, [2006] 2 FLR 1180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 829] the Court of Appeal considered how discretion should be exercised in a case governed by the Brussels II a Regulation. It held that the aims and policy of the Regulation had to be considered in addition to the policy of the Convention.
In 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 gave a general consideration to welfare considerations in deciding not to order the return of the 8 year old girl concerned.
The Court also appeared to accept an obiter comment raised in Vigreux v. Michel that there had to be an ‘exceptional' dimension to a case before a Court might consider exercising its discretion against a return order.
Exceptionality was raised in Nyachowe v. Fielder [2007] EWCA Civ 1129, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 964]. There a return order was made notwithstanding the strong objections of an independent 12 year old. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the girl had come for a 2 week vacation.
In Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937] the House of Lords affirmed that it was wrong to import any test of exceptionality into the exercise of discretion under the Hague Convention. The circumstances in which a return may be refused were themselves exceptions to the general rule. That in itself was sufficient exceptionality. It was neither necessary nor desirable to import an additional gloss into the Convention.
Baroness Hale continued that where a discretion arose from the terms of the Convention itself, the discretion was at large. In Article 13(2) cases the court would have to consider the nature and strength of the child's objections, the extent to which they were authentically the child's own or the product of the influence of the abducting parent, the extent to which they coincided or were at odds with other considerations which were relevant to the child's welfare, as well as general Convention considerations. The older the child, the greater the weight that objections would likely carry.
New Zealand
The Balcombe / Millett interpretations gave rise to contrasting High Court judgments. The Court of Appeal however voiced its preference for the Balcombe ‘shades of grey' approach in:
White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].
United Kingdom - Scotland
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 963]
When exercising his discretion to make a return order, the trial judge noted that a return order should not be refused unless there were sound reasons for not giving effect to the objects of the Convention. This was upheld on appeal. The Inner House of the Court of Session further held that the existence of the Article 13 exceptions did not negate or eliminate the general policy of the Convention that wrongfully removed children should be returned.
Singh v. Singh 1998 SC 68 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 197]
The Court held that the welfare of the child was a general factor which should be taken into account in the exercise of discretion. A court should not limit itself to a consideration of the child's objection and the reasons for it. Nevertheless, the court held that a rule could not be laid down as to whether a child's welfare should be considered broadly or in detail; this was a matter within the discretion of the court concerned.
In W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805] the Inner House held that a balancing exercise had to be carried out, and one of the factors in favour of return was the spirit and purpose of the Convention to allow the court of habitual residence to resolve the custody dispute.
United States of America
De Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279, (10th Cir. 2007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 903].
In upholding the views of a 14 year old boy the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit paid regard to his best interests but not to the policy of the Convention.
France
An appellate court 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:
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947].
Unlike the Article 13 exceptions, Article 12(2) does not expressly afford courts a discretion to make a return order if settlement is established. Where this issue has arisen for consideration the majority judicial view has nevertheless been to apply the provision as if a discretion does exist, but this has arisen in different ways.
Australia
The matter has not been conclusively decided but there would appear to be appellate support for inferring a discretion, reference has been made to English and Scottish case law, see:
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care v. Moore, (1999) FLC 92-841 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 276].
United Kingdom - England & Wales
English case law initially favoured inferring that a Convention based discretion existed by virtue of Article 18, see:
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1991] 2 FLR 1, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 163];
Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA CIV 1330, [2005] 1 FLR 169 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 598].
However, this interpretation was expressly rejected in the House of Lords decision Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937]. A majority of the panel held that the construction of Article 12(2) left the matter open that there was an inherent discretion where settlement was established. It was pointed out that Article 18 did not confer any new power to order the return of a child under the Convention, rather it contemplated powers conferred by domestic law.
Ireland
In accepting the existence of a discretion reference was made to early English authority and Article 18.
P. v. B. (No. 2) (Child Abduction: Delay) [1999] 4 IR 185; [1999] 2 ILRM 401 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 391].
New Zealand
A discretion derives from the domestic legislation implementing the Convention, see:
Secretary for Justice (as the NZ Central Authority on behalf of T.J) v. H.J. [2006] NZSC 97, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 882].
United Kingdom - Scotland
Whilst the matter was not explored in any detail, settlement not being established, there was a suggestion that a discretion would exist, with reference being made to Article 18.
Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 107].
There have been a few decisions in which no discretion was found to attach to Article 12(2), these include:
Australia
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232], - subsequently questioned;
State Central Authority v. C.R. [2005] Fam CA 1050 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 824];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re C. (Abduction: Settlement) [2004] EWHC 1245, [2005] 1 FLR 127, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 596] - subsequently overruled;
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 825];
Canada (Québec)
Droit de la Famille 2785, Cour d'appel de Montréal, 5 décembre 1997, No 500-09-005532-973 , [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 653].
Article 18 not being included in the act implementing the Convention in Quebec, it is understood that courts do not possess a discretionary power where settlement is established.
For academic commentary on the use of discretion where settlement is established, see:
Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E. 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p. 204 et seq.;
R. Schuz, ‘In Search of a Settled Interpretation of Article 12(2) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention' [2008] Child and Family Law Quarterly.