EN | FR | ES

Buscador de jurisprudencia

Nueva búsqueda

CASO

Texto completo no disponible

Nombre del caso

Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005)

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/USf 808

Tribunal

País

Estados Unidos de América - Competencia Federal

Instancia

Tribunal de Apelaciones

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Australia

Estado requerido

Estados Unidos de América - Competencia Federal

Fallo

Fecha

15 September 2005

Estado

Definitiva

Fundamentos

Residencia habitual - art. 3 | Traslado y retención - arts. 3 y 12 | Consentimiento - art. 13(1)(a) | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b)

Fallo

Apelación concedida, restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

3 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en

-

INCADAT comentario

Objetivos y ámbito de aplicación del Convenio

Residencia habitual
Residencia habitual
¿Puede dejarse a un menor sin residencia habitual?
¿Puede un menor tener más de una residencia habitual?
Mudanza o instalación en el extranjero
Instalación en el extranjero por tiempo indefinido
Instalación en el extranjero por un tiempo limitado

Excepciones a la restitución

Consentimiento
Clasificación del consentimiento
Establecimiento del consentimiento
Consentimiento y supuesto fraude
Consentimiento prospectivo

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR

Facts

The child, a boy, was 4 years old at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. Before travelling to the United States with his mother in September 2003 he had lived with his married parents in various remote parts of Australia and in Ireland.

The last family home in Australia had been on Bathurst Island, part of the Northern Territory. It was common ground between the parents that this was not a suitable environment for the child and that they should move. However, the purpose of mother and child's move to Delaware to stay with the maternal grandmother was the subject of dispute.

Within two weeks of travelling to the United States the mother formed a new relationship and advised the father that she wished to end the marriage. The father's return petition was filed with the District Court of Delaware on 13 May 2004 but it was rejected on the ground that the father had consented to the removal. The father appealed.

Ruling

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

Grounds

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court's findings with regard to the issue of habitual residence to be contradictory. The District Court had accepted that the parents disagreed whether the move to the United States was permanent or merely intended as a first step towards finding a suitable residence for the child outside Australia. It had also found that Australia remained the child's country of habitual residence at the time of removal, and that the parents were undecided about their next residence. At the same time the Court had concluded that there was a settled intention on the part of the parents to leave Australia. The Court of Appeals ruled that this last finding was clearly erroneous as the only uncontradicted evidence of settled intent by the parties was to move away from the harsh circumstances of the Tiwi Islands. There was no settled intention that the existing habitual residence had been abandoned.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had erred in not addressing whether the mother's actions had breached rights of custody held by the father and whether such rights were being actually exercised.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

In holding that the father consented to the removal the District Court had relied on its finding that the parents had agreed it was in the best interests of the child to move to the United States. In rejecting this conclusion the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court had not addressed the nature or scope of the father's consent. Nor had it addressed whether the father consented to or even contemplated his wife's permanent retention of their child in Delaware. It held that in examining a consent defense it was important to consider what the petitioner actually contemplated and agreed to in allowing the child to travel outside its home country. The nature and scope of the petitioner's consent, and any conditions or limitations, should also be taken into account. The fact that a petitioner initially allowed children to travel, and knew their location and how to contact them, did not necessarily constitute consent to removal or retention under the Convention. In the instant case there was no evidence that the father had consented to the child's permanent retention in the United States or to the mother making unilateral decisions regarding the child's future.

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

The District Court had held in the alternative that it would have upheld Article 13(1)(b) as a basis on which to refuse the return of the child. The Court of Appeals held that the facts fell short of demonstrating a clear and grave risk of harm. For the grave harm exception to apply the respondent must cite specific evidence of potential harm to the child upon his return. In this the focus must be on the living situation to which the child would be returned. The living situation prior to the removal or retention might be relevant, but not where as in the present case the family had decided jointly to leave, and from which the petitioner had now relocated (the father had moved to Perth).

INCADAT comment

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.

Can a Child be left without a Habitual Residence?

In early Convention case law there was a clear reluctance on the part of appellate courts to find that a child did not have a habitual residence.  This was because of the concern that such a conclusion would render the instrument inoperable, see:

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re F. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 548 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 40];

Australia
Cooper v. Casey (1995) FLC 92-575 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 104].

However, in more recent years there has been a recognition that situations do exist where it is not possible to regard a child as being habitually resident anywhere:

Australia
D.W. & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2006] FamCA 93, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 870].

In this case the majority accepted that their decision could be said to deny the child of the benefit of the Convention. However, the majority argued that the interests of children generally could be adversely affected if courts were too willing to find that a parent who had attempted a reconciliation in a foreign country, was to be found, together with the child, to have become "habitually resident" in that foreign country.

United Kingdom - England & Wales
W. and B. v. H. (Child Abduction: Surrogacy) [2002] 1 FLR 1008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 470];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Robertson v. Robertson 1998 SLT 468 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 194];

D. v. D. 2002 SC 33 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 351];

New Zealand
S.K. v. K.P. [2005] 3 NZLR 590, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 816];

United States of America
Delvoye v. Lee, 329 F.3d 330 (3rd Cir. 2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 529];

Ferraris v. Alexander, 125 Cal. App. 4th 1417 (2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 797].

Can a Child have more than one Habitual Residence?

Academic commentators have long held that if the factual nature of the connecting factor is to be respected then situations may arise where an individual is habitually resident in more than one place at a particular time, see in particular:

Clive E. M. ‘The Concept of Habitual Residence' Juridical Review (1997), p. 137.

However, the Court of Appeal in England has accepted in the context of divorce jurisdiction that it is possible for an adult to be habitually resident in two places simultaneously, see:

Ikimi v. Ikimi [2001] EWCA Civ 873, [2002] Fam 72.

Courts in Convention proceedings have though held to the view that a child can only have one habitual residence, see for example:

Canada
SS-C c GC, Cour supérieure (Montréal), 15 août 2003, n° 500-04-033270-035, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 916];

Wilson v. Huntley (2005) A.C.W.S.J. 7084; 138 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1107 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 800];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re V. (Abduction: Habitual Residence) [1995] 2 FLR 992, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 45].

In this case where the children's lives alternated between Greece and England the court held that their habitual residence also alternated.  The court ruled out their having concurrent habitual residences in both Greece and England.

United Kingdom - Northern Ireland
Re C.L. (A Minor); J.S. v. C.L., transcript, 25 August 1998, High Court of Northern Ireland, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKn 390];

United States of America
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, (6th Cir. 1993), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 142].

Relocations

Where there is clear evidence of an intention to commence a new life in another State then the existing habitual residence will be lost and a new one acquired.

In common law jurisdictions it is accepted that acquisition may be able to occur within a short period of time, see:

Canada
DeHaan v. Gracia [2004] AJ No.94 (QL), [2004] ABQD 4, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 576];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 2];

Re F. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 548, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 40].

In civil law jurisdictions it has been held that a new habitual residence may be acquired immediately, see:

Switzerland
Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) Décision du 15 novembre 2005, 5P.367/2005 /ast, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/CH 841].

Conditional Relocations 

Where parental agreement as regards relocation is conditional on a future event, should an existing habitual residence be lost immediately upon leaving that country? 

Australia
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia answered this question in the negative and further held that loss may not even follow from the fulfilment of the condition if the parent who aspires to relocate does not clearly commit to the relocation at that time, see:

Kilah & Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] FamCAFC 81, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 995].

However, this ruling was overturned on appeal by the High Court of Australia, which held that an existing habitual residence would be lost if the purpose had a sufficient degree of continuity to be described as settled.  There did not need to be a settled intention to take up ‘long term' residence:

L.K. v. Director-General Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9, (2009) 253 ALR 202, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1012].

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].

Classifying Consent

The classification of consent has given rise to difficulty. Some courts have indeed considered that the issue of consent goes to the wrongfulness of the removal or retention and should therefore be considered within Article 3, see:

Australia
In the Marriage of Regino and Regino v. The Director-General, Department of Families Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-587 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 312];

France
CA Rouen, 9 mars 2006, N°05/04340, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 897];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re O. (Abduction: Consent and Acquiescence) [1997] 1 FLR 924 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 54];

Re P.-J. (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1014].

Although the issue had ostensibly been settled in English case law, that consent was to be considered under Art 13(1) a), neither member of the two judge panel of the Court of Appeal appeared entirely convinced of this position. 

Reference can equally be made to examples where trial courts have not considered the Art 3 - Art 13(1) a) distinction, but where consent, in terms of initially going along with a move, has been treated as relevant to wrongfulness, see:

Canada
F.C. c. P.A., Droit de la famille - 08728, Cour supérieure de Chicoutimi, 28 mars 2008, N°150-04-004667-072, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 969];

Switzerland
U/EU970069, Bezirksgericht Zürich (Zurich District Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 425];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Murphy v. Murphy 1994 GWD 32-1893 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 186].

The case was not considered in terms of the Art 3 - Art 13(1) a) distinction, but given that the father initially went along with the relocation it was held that there would be neither a wrongful removal or retention.

The majority view is now though that consent should be considered in relation to Article 13(1) a), see:

Australia
Director-General, Department of Child Safety v. Stratford [2005] Fam CA 1115, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 830];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 53];

T. v. T. (Abduction: Consent) [1999] 2 FLR 912;

Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267];

Re P. (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [2004] EWCA CIV 971, [2005] Fam. 293, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 591];

Ireland
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 287];

United Kingdom - Scotland
T. v. T. 2004 S.C. 323, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 997];

For a discussion of the issues involved see Beaumont & McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, 1999 at p. 132 et seq.

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.

Consent and Alleged Deception

There are examples of cases where it has been argued that prima facie consent should be vitiated by alleged deception on the part of the abducting parent, see for example:

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267].

The fact that a document consenting to the removal of the children was presented to the mother on a pretext did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was a trap.  The mother was found to have consented.  But the trial judge nevertheless exercised his discretion to make a return order.

Israel
Family Application 2059/07 Ploni v. Almonit, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 940].

Allegation of deception rejected; the father's consent was found to be informed and since it had been relied upon by the mother, the father could not renege on his initial consent to the relocation.

Prospective Consent

There is authority that consent might validly be given to a future removal, see:

Canada
Decision of 4 September 1998 [1998] R.D.F. 701, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 333].

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re L. (Abduction: Future Consent) [2007] EWHC 2181 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 915; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 993].

It was held that the happening of the event must be reasonably ascertainable and there must not have been a material change in the circumstances since the consent was given.

United Kingdom - Scotland
Zenel v. Haddow 1993 SC 612, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 76].

For a criticism of the majority view in Zenel v. Haddow, see:

Case commentary 1993 SCLR 872 at 884, 885;

G. Maher, Consent to Wrongful Child Abduction under the Hague Convention, 1993 SLT 281;

P. Beaumont and P. McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, Oxford, 1999 at pp. 129, 130.