Texto completo no disponible
Buscador de jurisprudencia
Nueva búsquedaCASO
Nombre del caso
Re C. (Minors) (Enforcing Foreign Access Order) [1993] 1 FCR 770
Referencia INCADAT
HC/E/UKe 88
Tribunal
Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
High Court (Inglaterra)
Primera Instancia
Estados involucrados
Estados Unidos de América
Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
Fallo
8 September 1992
Definitiva
Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b) | Compromisos | Objeciones del niño a la restitución - art. 13(2) | Derechos de visita - art. 21
-
-
-
-
INCADAT comentario
Excepciones a la restitución
Reino Unido: jurisprudencia de Inglaterra y Gales
Naturaleza y tenor de la oposición
Dificultades en la implementación & aplicación
Compromisos
Derecho de visita/contacto
Protección de los Derechos de Visita
SUMARIO
Sumario disponible en
EN
|
FR
|
ES
Facts
In 1988 the mother became aware that the father was homosexual and that he had contracted AIDS.
On 20 July 1992 the New Hampshire court ordered that the mother co-operate in arranging and effectuating a four-week visit in the United States between the father and the child.
On 10 August 1992 the New Hampshire court dismissed an application by the mother to vary that order. In September 1992 the father issued a summons in the High Court seeking an order that the mother take or send the child to the United States for the purpose of access.
Ruling
Grounds
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
When ordering the mother to co-operate in arrangements for the father to have access in the United States, the American court had found there to be no risk to the child. It had considered the fact that the father was a homosexual, suffered from AIDS, and that his life expectancy was diminished.
Undertakings
The undertaking would be given to the High Court and would also be recorded in the appropriate court in the State of New Hampshire. It would provide that pending the determination of the mother's application to vary the 1985 order, the father should not inform the child either that he had contracted AIDS or that his life expectancy had been substantially diminished.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Rejecting the child's objection, the High Court relied on the fact that the New Hampshire Court had heard his objections at the July hearing but had nevertheless found it appropriate to enforce the 1985 access order.
Rights of Access - Art. 21
Rights of access do not impose any specific duties on the judicial authority of a Contracting State in relation to access and there is no express definition or limitation of the principles on which a court should exercise its discretion: B. v B. (Minors: Enforcement of Access Abroad) [1988] 1 WLR 526, [1988] 1 All ER 652 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 165]. The court nevertheless has a discretion as to whether or not to ensure that the order of the foreign court relating to access is enforced. The court must consider how recently the foreign court made the order. Unless it is clear that the enforcement of the foreign order is contrary to the welfare of the child, the order should be respected.
INCADAT comment
In subsequent cases the English courts have declined to enforce foreign access orders under Article 21. In Re G. (A Minor) (Enforcement of Access Abroad) [1993] Fam 216 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 110], the Court of Appeal affirmed that Article 21 provided for no more than 'executive co-operation in the enforcement of such recognition as the national law allowed'.
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].
Nature and Strength of Objection
Australia
De L. v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) FLC 92-706 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 93].
The supreme Australian jurisdiction, the High Court, advocated a literal interpretation of the term ‘objection'. However, this was subsequently reversed by a legislative amendment, see:
s.111B(1B) of the Family Law Act 1975 inserted by the Family Law Amendment Act 2000.
Article 13(2), as implemented into Australian law by reg. 16(3) of the Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1989, now provides not only that the child must object to a return, but that the objection must show a strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes.
See for example:
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 904].
The issue as to whether a child must specifically object to the State of habitual residence has not been settled, see:
Re F. (Hague Convention: Child's Objections) [2006] FamCA 685 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 864].
Austria
9Ob102/03w, Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), 8/10/2003 [INCADAT: cite HC/E/AT 549].
A mere preference for the State of refuge is not enough to amount to an objection.
Belgium
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, 27/5/2003 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 546].
A mere preference for the State of refuge is not enough to amount to an objection.
Canada
Crnkovich v. Hortensius, [2009] W.D.F.L. 337, 62 R.F.L. (6th) 351, 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 1028].
To prove that a child objects, it must be shown that the child "displayed a strong sense of disagreement to returning to the jurisdiction of his habitual residence. He must be adamant in expressing his objection. The objection cannot be ascertained by simply weighing the pros and cons of the competing jurisdictions, such as in a best interests analysis. It must be something stronger than a mere expression of preference".
United Kingdom - England & Wales
In Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 87] the Court of Appeal held that the return to which a child objects must be an immediate return to the country from which it was wrongfully removed. There is nothing in the provisions of Article 13 to make it appropriate to consider whether the child objects to returning in any circumstances.
In Re M. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 56] it was, however, accepted that an objection to life with the applicant parent may be distinguishable from an objection to life in the former home country.
In Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] Ward L.J. set down a series of questions to assist in determining whether it was appropriate to take a child's objections into account.
These questions where endorsed by the Court of Appeal 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].
For academic commentary see: P. McEleavy ‘Evaluating the Views of Abducted Children: Trends in Appellate Case Law' [2008] Child and Family Law Quarterly, pp. 230-254.
France
Objections based solely on a preference for life in France or life with the abducting parent have not been upheld, see:
CA Grenoble 29/03/2000 M. v. F. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];
TGI Niort 09/01/1995, Procureur de la République c. Y. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 63].
United Kingdom - Scotland
In Urness v. Minto 1994 SC 249 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 79] a broad interpretation was adopted, with the Inner House accepting that a strong preference for remaining with the abducting parent and for life in Scotland implicitly meant an objection to returning to the United States of America.
In W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805] the Inner House, which accepted the Re T. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] gateway test, held that objections relating to welfare matters were only to be dealt with by the authorities in the child's State of habitual residence.
In the subsequent first instance case: M. Petitioner 2005 S.L.T. 2 OH [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 804], Lady Smith noted the division in appellate case law and decided to follow the earlier line of authority as exemplified in Urness v. Minto. She explicitly rejected the Re T. gateway tests.
The judge recorded in her judgment that there would have been an attempt to challenge the Inner House judgment in W. v. W. before the House of Lords but the case had been resolved amicably.
More recently a stricter approach to the objections has been followed, see: C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 962]; upheld on appeal: C v. C. [2008] CSIH 34, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 996].
Switzerland
The highest Swiss court has stressed the importance of children being able to distinguish between issues relating to custody and issues relating to return, see:
5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795];
5P.3/2007 /bnm; Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 894].
A mere preference for life in the State of refuge, even if reasoned, will not satisfy the terms of Article 13(2):
5A.582/2007 Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 986].
For general academic commentary see: R. Schuz ‘Protection or Autonomy -The Child Abduction Experience' in Y. Ronen et al. (eds), The Case for the Child- Towards the Construction of a New Agenda, 271-310 (Intersentia, 2008).
Undertakings
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Protection of Rights of Access
Article 21 has been subjected to varying interpretations. Contracting States favouring a literal interpretation have ruled that the provision does not establish a basis of jurisdiction for courts to intervene in access matters and is focussed on procedural assistance from the relevant Central Authority. Other Contracting States have allowed proceedings to be brought on the basis of Article 21 to give effect to existing access rights or even to create new access rights.
A literal interpretation of the provision has found favour in:
Austria
S. v. S., 25 May 1998, transcript (official translation), Regional civil court at Graz, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 245];
Germany
2 UF 286/97, Oberlandesgericht Bamberg, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 488];
United States of America
Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp. 2d 857, 860-61 (E.D. Pa. 1998). [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 223];
Teijeiro Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1125 (W.D. Mich. 2000);
Janzik v. Schand, 22 November 2000, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 463];
Wiggill v. Janicki, 262 F. Supp. 2d 687, 689 (S.D.W. Va. 2003);
Yi Ly v. Heu, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1011 (D. Minn. 2003);
In re Application of Adams ex. rel. Naik v. Naik, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1030 (N.D. Ill. 2005);
Wiezel v. Wiezel-Tyrnauer, 388 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 828];
Cantor v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2006), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 827].
In Cantor, the only US appellate decision on Article 21, there was a dissenting judgment which found that the US implementing act did provide a jurisdictional basis for federal courts to hear an application with regard to an existing access right.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
In Re G. (A Minor) (Enforcement of Access Abroad) [1993] Fam 216 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 110].
More recently however the English Court of Appeal has suggested that it might be prepared to consider a more permissive interpretation:
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].
Baroness Hale has recommended the elaboration of a procedure whereby the facilitation of rights of access in the United Kingdom under Article 21 could be contemplated at the same time as the return of the child under Article 12:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51[INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
Switzerland
Arrondissement judiciaire I Courterlary-Moutier-La Neuveville (Suisse) 11 October 1999, N° C 99 4313 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 454].
A more permissive interpretation of Article 21 has indeed been adopted elsewhere, see:
United Kingdom - Scotland
Donofrio v. Burrell, 2000 S.L.T. 1051 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 349].
Wider still is the interpretation adopted in New Zealand, see:
Gumbrell v. Jones [2001] NZFLR 593 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 446].
Australia
The position in Australia has evolved in the light of statutory reforms.
Initially a State Central Authority could only apply for an order that was ‘necessary or appropriate to organise or secure the effective exercise of rights of access to a child in Australia', see:
Director-General, Department of Families Youth & Community Care v. Reissner [1999] FamCA 1238, (1999) 25 Fam LR 330, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 278].
Subsequently it acquired the power to initiate proceedings to establish access rights:
State Central Authority & Peddar [2008] FamCA 519, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1107];
State Central Authority & Quang [2009] FamCA 1038, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 1106].