CASO

Texto completo no disponible

Nombre del caso

449/III/97/bufr/mour, Cour d'appel du canton de Berne

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/CH 433

Tribunal

País

Suiza

Nombre

Cour d'appel du canton de Berne (Suiza)

Instancia

Tribunal de Apelaciones

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Estados Unidos de América

Estado requerido

Suiza

Fallo

Fecha

27 January 1998

Estado

-

Fundamentos

Residencia habitual - art. 3 | Derechos de custodia - art. 3 | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b)

Fallo

Apelación desestimada, restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

4 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 26

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

INCADAT comentario

Objetivos y ámbito de aplicación del Convenio

Residencia habitual
Residencia habitual
Instalación en el extranjero por tiempo indefinido
Instalación en el extranjero por un tiempo limitado

Mecanismo de restitución del artículo 12

Derechos de custodia
Ejercicio efectivo de los derechos de custodia

Dificultades en la implementación & aplicación

Cuestiones procesales
Ejecución de órdenes de restitución

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The application concerned a girl born in Taiwan to an American father and Taiwanese mother. She was 3 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. The family initially lived in Taiwan, but prior to a relocation to the United States, the mother moved to Switzerland to live with a new partner, taking the child with her.

During a subsequent visit to the United States by mother and daughter, the father obtained a custody order in his favour. The mother was granted access rights for 3 months a year. The child then remained in the United States with the father. The mother returned to Switzerland where she had a child with her new partner.

In late 1996 the father allowed the child to go to Taiwan with members of the maternal family. He subsequently discovered that the mother intended to take the child from there to Switzerland. He immediately travelled to Taiwan, however this led to him losing his job. He then decided to leave the child with friends in Taiwan while he sought to find new employment in the United States.

In breach of a written undertaking she had made, the mother, during a period of access, took the child to Switzerland and refused to return her to the United States. On 18 July 1997 the father issued return proceedings before a Swiss court, the Gerichtskreis X Thun. That court subsequently ordered the return of the child. The mother appealed.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grounds

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The mother sought to argue that the child was not habitually resident in a Contracting State, the father having left her in Taiwan for an indefinite peiod. The court rejected this argument finding that the father, who had custody of the child, always intended for her to return to the United States once he had found employment. The child's stay in Taiwan was therefore temporary and she retained her habitual residence in the United States.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The court rejected the mother's argument that the father had not been actually exercising his rights of custody at the time of the removal having left the child with friends in Taiwan.

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

There was no grave risk to the child in returning to the United States: although he had several debts, the father had a job and stable situation. Article 13(1)(b) could not be triggered by the fact the child who have to stay in a creche during the day.

INCADAT comment

The return order of 27 January 1998 was never enforced.

There were 3 further court decisions ordering the enforcement of the return order:
- Décision du 5.2.1998 du Gerichtskreis X Thun
- Décision du 4.3.1998 du Gerichtskreis X Thun
- Décision du 3.4.1998 du Gerichtskreis X Thun Z 98 604

To avoid enforcement of the return order the mother hid the child abroad. Subsequently she returned alone, and despite searches the child was not found. At a later date the mother finally agreed to bring the child back into the country and then the parents agreed that the mother was to have custody and the father access.

Habitual Residence

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.

Open-Ended Moves

Where a move is open ended, or potentially open ended, the habitual residence at the time of the move may also be lost and a new one acquired relatively quickly, see:

United Kingdom - England and Wales (Non-Convention case)
Al Habtoor v. Fotheringham [2001] EWCA Civ 186, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 875];

New Zealand
Callaghan v. Thomas [2001] NZFLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 413];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Cameron v. Cameron 1996 SC 17, 1996 SLT 306, 1996 SCLR 25 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 71];

Moran v. Moran 1997 SLT 541 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 74];

United States of America
Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2006), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 879].

Time Limited Moves

Where a move abroad is time limited, even if it is for an extended period of time, there has been acceptance in certain Contracting States that the existing habitual residence can be maintained throughout, see:

Denmark
Ø.L.K., 5. April 2002, 16. afdeling, B-409-02 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DK 520];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H. (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2000] 2 FLR 294; [2000] 3 FCR 412 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 478];

United States of America
Morris v. Morris, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Colo., Aug. 30, 1999) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 306];

Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 301].

However, where a move was to endure for two years the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a change of habitual residence occurred shortly after the move, see:

Whiting v. Krassner 391 F.3d 540 (3rd Cir. 2004) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 778].

In an English first instance decision it was held that a child had acquired a habitual residence in Germany after five months even though the family had only moved there for a six month secondment, see:

Re R. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [2003] EWHC 1968 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 580].

The Court of Appeal of China (Hong Kong SAR) found that a 21 month move led to a change in habitual residence:

B.L.W. v. B.W.L. [2007] 2 HKLRD 193, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 975].

Actual Exercise

Courts in a variety of Contracting States have afforded a wide interpretation to what amounts to the actual exercise of rights of custody, see:

Australia
Director General, Department of Community Services Central Authority v. J.C. and J.C. and T.C. (1996) FLC 92-717 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 68];

Austria
8Ob121/03g, Oberster Gerichtshof, 30/10/2003 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 548];

Belgium
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles 6/3/2003 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 545];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re W. (Abduction: Procedure) [1995] 1 FLR 878, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 37];

France
Ministère Public c. M.B. Cour d'Appel at Aix en Provence (6e Ch.) 23 March 1989, 79 Rev. crit. 1990, 529 note Y. Lequette [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 62];

CA Amiens 4 mars 1998, n° 5704759 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];

CA Aix en Provence 8/10/2002, L. v. Ministère Public, Mme B et Mesdemoiselles L (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];

Germany
11 UF 121/03, Oberlandesgericht Hamm, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 822];

21 UF 70/01, Oberlandesgericht Köln, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 491];

New Zealand
The Chief Executive of the Department for Courts for R. v. P., 20 September 1999, Court of Appeal of New Zealand [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 304];

United Kingdom - Scotland
O. v. O. 2002 SC 430 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 507].

In the above case the Court of Session stated that it might be going too far to suggest, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had done in Friedrich v Friedrich that only clear and unequivocal acts of abandonment might constitute failure to exercise custody rights. However, Friedrich was fully approved of in a later Court of Session judgment, see:

S. v S., 2003 SLT 344 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 577].

This interpretation was confirmed by the Inner House of the Court of Session (appellate court) in:

AJ. V. FJ. 2005 CSIH 36, 2005 1 S.C. 428 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 803].

Switzerland
K. v. K., Tribunal cantonal de Horgen [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CZ 299];

449/III/97/bufr/mour, Cour d'appel du canton de Berne, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 433];

5A_479/2007/frs, Tribunal fédéral, IIè cour civile, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953];

United States of America
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 82];

Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 394 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2004), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 779];

Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 1029].

See generally Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E., 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p. 84 et seq.

Enforcement of Return Orders

Where an abducting parent does not comply voluntarily the implementation of a return order will require coercive measures to be taken.  The introduction of such measures may give rise to legal and practical difficulties for the applicant.  Indeed, even where ultimately successful significant delays may result before the child's future can be adjudicated upon in the State of habitual residence.  In some extreme cases the delays encountered may be of such length that it may no longer be appropriate for a return order to be made.


Work of the Hague Conference

Considerable attention has been paid to the issue of enforcement at the Special Commissions convened to review the operation of the Hague Convention.

In the Conclusions of the Fourth Review Special Commission in March 2001 it was noted:

"Methods and speed of enforcement

3.9        Delays in enforcement of return orders, or their non-enforcement, in certain Contracting States are matters of serious concern. The Special Commission calls upon Contracting States to enforce return orders promptly and effectively.

3.10        It should be made possible for courts, when making return orders, to include provisions to ensure that the order leads to the prompt and effective return of the child.

3.11        Efforts should be made by Central Authorities, or by other competent authorities, to track the outcome of return orders and to determine in each case whether enforcement is delayed or not achieved."

See: < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" and "Conclusions and Recommendations".

In preparation for the Fifth Review Special Commission in November 2006 the Permanent Bureau prepared a report entitled: "Enforcement of Orders Made Under the 1980 Convention - Towards Principles of Good Practice", Prel. Doc. No 7 of October 2006, (available on the Hague Conference website at < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" then "Preliminary Documents").

The 2006 Special Commission encouraged support for the principles of good practice set out in the report which will serve moreover as a future Guide to Good Practice on Enforcement Issues, see: < www.hcch.net >, under "Child Abduction Section" then "Special Commission meetings on the practical operation of the Convention" then "Conclusions and Recommendations" then "Special Commission of October-November 2006"


European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)

The ECrtHR has in recent years paid particular attention to the issue of the enforcement of return orders under the Hague Convention.  On several occasions it has found Contracting States to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention have failed in their positive obligations to take all the measures that could reasonably be expected to enforce a return order.  This failure has in turn led to a breach of the applicant parent's right to respect for their family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), see:

Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, No. 31679/96, (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 7, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 336];

Sylvester v. Austria, Nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 17, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 502];

H.N. v. Poland, No. 77710/01, (2005) 45 EHRR 1054, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 811];

Karadžic v. Croatia, No. 35030/04, (2005) 44 EHRR 896, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 819];

P.P. v. Poland, No. 8677/03, 8 January 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 941].

The Court will have regard to the circumstances of the case and the action taken by the national authorities.  A delay of 8 months between the delivery of a return order and enforcement was held not to have constituted a breach of the left behind parent's right to family life in:

Couderc v. Czech Republic, 31 January 2001, No. 54429/00, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 859].

The Court has dismissed challenges by parents who have argued that enforcement measures, including coercive steps, have interfered with their right to a family life, see:

Paradis v. Germany, 15 May 2003, No. 4783/03, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 860];

A.B. v. Poland, No. 33878/96, 20 November 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 943];

Maumousseau and Washington v. France, No. 39388/05, 6 December 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 942].

The positive obligation to act when faced with the enforcement of a custody order in a non-Hague Convention child abduction case was upheld in:

Bajrami v. Albania, 12 December 2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 898].

However, where an applicant parent has contributed to delay this will be a relevant consideration, see as regards the enforcement of a custody order following upon an abduction:

Ancel v. Turkey, No. 28514/04, 17 February 2009, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1015].


Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that the immediate enforcement of a return order whilst a final legal challenge was still pending did not breach Articles 8, 17, 19 or 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact), see:

Case 11.676, X et Z v. Argentina, 3 October 2000, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report n°71/00, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 772].


Case Law on Enforcement

The following are examples of cases where a return order was made but enforcement was resisted:

Belgium
Cour de cassation 30/10/2008, C.G. c. B.S., N° de rôle: C.06.0619.F, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 750];

Canada
H.D. et N.C. c. H.F.C., Cour d'appel (Montréal), 15 mai 2000, N° 500-09-009601-006 (500-04-021679-007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 915];

Switzerland
427/01/1998, 49/III/97/bufr/mour, Cour d'appel du canton de Berne (Suisse); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 433];

5P.160/2001/min, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 423];

5P.454/2000/ZBE/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 786];

5P.115/2006/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 840].

Enforcement may equally be rendered impossible because of the reaction of the children concerned, see:

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re B. (Children) (Abduction: New Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 531; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 420];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Cameron v. Cameron (No. 3) 1997 SCLR 192; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 112];

Spain
Auto Juzgado de Familia Nº 6 de Zaragoza (España), Expediente Nº 1233/95-B; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 899].


Enforcement of Return Orders Pending Appeal

For examples of cases where return orders have been enforced notwithstanding an appeal being pending see:

Argentina
Case 11.676, X et Z v. Argentina, 3 October 2000, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report n° 11/00 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 772].

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that the immediate enforcement of a return order whilst a final legal challenge was still pending did not breach Articles 8, 17, 19 or 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact).

Spain
Sentencia nº 120/2002 (Sala Primera); Número de Registro 129/1999. Recurso de amparo [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 907];

United States of America
Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491 (4th Cir. Va., 2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494].

In Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 461] while it is not clear whether the petition was lodged prior to the return being executed, the appeal was nevertheless allowed to proceed.

However, in Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 909] an appeal was not allowed to proceed once the child was returned to the State of habitual residence.

In the European Union where following the entry into force of the Brussels IIa Regulation there is now an obligation that abductions cases be dealt with in a six week time frame, the European Commission has suggested that to guarantee compliance return orders might be enforced pending appeal, see Practice Guide for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.