Télécharger le texte complet
EN
Recherche de décisions
Nouvelle rechercheAFFAIRE
Nom de l'affaire
KG v. CB & others (748/11) [2012] ZASCA 17
Référence INCADAT
HC/E/ZA 1248
Juridiction
Afrique du Sud
Instance Suprême
États concernés
Royaume-Uni
Afrique du Sud
Décision
22 March 2012
Définitif
Droit de garde - art. 3 | Consentement - art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescement - art. 13(1)(a) | Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b) | Engagements | Questions procédurales
Recours rejeté, retour ordonné
Loi sur les enfants de 2005 (Afrique du Sud); Constitution dela République d'Afrique du Sud de 1996
-
INCADAT commentaire
Mécanisme de retour
La notion de droit de garde au sens de la Convention
Exceptions au retour
Enlèvements par le parent ayant la responsabilité principale de l'enfant
Difficultés financières
Mise en œuvre & difficultés d’application
Assurer un retour sans danger / Ordonnances miroir
Frais
RÉSUMÉ
Résumé disponible en
EN
Facts
On 31 January 2008, the mother was granted an interim residence order in respect of the child. Allegations were made against the father that he was a risk to the child; these were dismissed. On 31 October 2008, the father's application for residence and contact was consolidated with the mother's application for leave to remove the child to South Africa.
On 10 February 2009, an interim care order was made in respect of the child because of concerns surrounding the mother's new partner. The latter had received a criminal conviction for domestic violence, but the mother nevertheless resumed the relationship.
On 14 February 2009, the mother unilaterally removed the child to South Africa. The father and Essex County Council started proceedings under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (the Council later dropped out of the proceedings, following the expiry of the interim care order).
On 14 July 2010, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the return of the child. The mother appealed.
Ruling
Grounds
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
The Court noted that despite some initial uncertainty, there was now much authority from a number of Contracting States which established that, for the purposes of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, a parent's (or other person's) right to prevent the removal of a child from the relevant jurisdiction, or at least to withhold consent to such removal, was a right to determine where the child was to live and therefore fell within the scope of "rights of custody" for the purposes of the Convention.
Therefore, a custodian parent who removed a child without the consent of the other parent (or the leave of the court) would commit a breach of "rights of custody" of the other parent within the meaning of the Convention and hence the removal would be wrongful. The Court noted that as a matter of English law, the father had parental responsibility and his consent (or court permission) was required for the removal of the child from the jurisdiction. The Court also found that the father was actually exercising his rights of custody.
Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)
The Court found that the father's conduct was entirely inconsistent with either consent or acquiescence in the permanent removal of the child to South Africa.
Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)
The Court found that the father's conduct was entirely inconsistent with either consent or acquiescence in the permanent removal of the child to South Africa.
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The Court reviewed South African and foreign case law on Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. It noted that courts in other Contracting States had given a restrictive interpretation to the exception to prevent it being used as a substitution for a best interests determination.
The Court held that in Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ZA 309] and Pennello v. Pennello 2004 (3) SA 117, the question whether South African courts should follow the stringent tests set by courts in other countries had been left open. The Court held that the correct approach was that adopted by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Re E (Children) (Wrongful Removal: Exceptions to Return).
In the latter case, it had been held that there was no need for Article 13(1)(b) to be narrowly construed as it was by its very terms of restricted application. The risk to the child must be grave and guidance could be sought from the third limb of the exception, an intolerable situation, for this implied a situation which the particular child, in the particular circumstances of the case, should not be expected to tolerate.
The Court recalled that a return under the Convention did not mean a return to the applicant parent. It added: "The situation which the child will face on return depends crucially on the protective measures which the court can put into place to ensure that the child will not have to face a harmful situation when he or she returns to the country of habitual residence".
The Court accepted that a return would be difficult for the child, but held that she would be insulated from harm by the protective measures put in place.
Undertakings
The Court required the mother to make a notification within one week as to whether she would accompany the child to England. If that occurred, the father was to institute proceedings in England to obtain an order (safe harbour order) dealing with, inter alia, the withdrawal of any criminal proceedings against the mother, provision of accommodation, maintenance and expenses, transport costs and contact.
If the mother was not to accompany the child, then the South African Central Authority was authorized to make such arrangements as necessary to ensure the child was safely returned.
Procedural Matters
The Court criticized the delays which had occurred throughout the case.
No order was made as to costs
Authors of the summary: Peter McEleavy and Erika du Plessis (Office of the Chief Family Advocate, South Africa)
INCADAT comment
What is a Right of Custody for Convention Purposes?
Courts in an overwhelming majority of Contracting States have accepted that a right of veto over the removal of the child from the jurisdiction amounts to a right of custody for Convention purposes, see:
Australia
In the Marriage of Resina [1991] FamCA 33, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232];
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 294];
Austria
2 Ob 596/91, OGH, 05 February 1992, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 375];
Canada
Thomson v. Thomson [1994] 3 SCR 551, 6 RFL (4th) 290 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 11].
The Supreme Court did draw a distinction between a non-removal clause in an interim custody order and in a final order. It suggested that were a non-removal clause in a final custody order to be regarded as a custody right for Convention purposes, that could have serious implications for the mobility rights of the primary carer.
Thorne v. Dryden-Hall, (1997) 28 RFL (4th) 297 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 12];
Decision of 15 December 1998, [1999] R.J.Q. 248 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 334];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654, [1989] 2 All ER 465, [1989] 1 FLR 403, [1989] Fam Law 228 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 34];
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880];
France
Ministère Public c. M.B. 79 Rev. crit. 1990, 529, note Y. Lequette [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 62];
Germany
2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, (Federal Constitutional Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];
10 UF 753/01, Oberlandesgericht Dresden, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 486];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Bordera v. Bordera 1995 SLT 1176 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 183];
A.J. v. F.J. [2005] CSIH 36, 2005 1 SC 428 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 803];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Tribunal fédéral suisse, (Swiss Supreme Court), 29 March 1999, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427].
United States of America
In the United States, the Federal Courts of Appeals were divided on the appropriate interpretation to give between 2000 and 2010.
A majority followed the 2nd Circuit in adopting a narrow interpretation, see:
Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir., 2000; cert. den. Oct. 9, 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 313];
Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir 2002) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 493];
Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 157 L. Ed. 2d 732, 124 S. Ct. 805 (2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494];
Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 989].
The 11th Circuit however endorsed the standard international interpretation.
Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 578].
The matter was settled, at least where an applicant parent has a right to decide the child's country of residence, or the court in the State of habitual residence is seeking to protect its own jurisdiction pending further decrees, by the US Supreme Court endorsing the standard international interpretation.
Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 1029].
The standard international interpretation has equally been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights, see:
Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No. 41615/07, 8 January 2009 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1001].
Confirmed by the Grand Chamber: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No 41615/07, 6 July 2010 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1323].
Right to Object to a Removal
Where an individual does not have a right of veto over the removal of a child from the jurisdiction, but merely a right to object and to apply to a court to prevent such a removal, it has been held in several jurisdictions that this is not enough to amount to a custody right for Convention purposes:
Canada
W.(V.) v. S.(D.), 134 DLR 4th 481 (1996), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA17];
Ireland
W.P.P. v. S.R.W. [2001] ILRM 371, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 271];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re V.-B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 261];
S. v. H. (Abduction: Access Rights) [1998] Fam 49 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 36];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Pirrie v. Sawacki 1997 SLT 1160, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 188].
This interpretation has also been upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union:
Case C-400/10 PPU J. McB. v. L.E., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].
The European Court held that to find otherwise would be incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty and with the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, notably those of the sole custodian.
For academic commentary see:
P. Beaumont & P. McEleavy The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oxford, OUP, 1999, p. 75 et seq.;
M. Bailey The Right of a Non-Custodial Parent to an Order for Return of a Child Under the Hague Convention; Canadian Journal of Family Law, 1996, p. 287;
C. Whitman 'Croll v Croll: The Second Circuit Limits 'Custody Rights' Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction' 2001 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 605.
Primary Carer Abductions
The issue of how to respond when a taking parent who is a primary carer threatens not to accompany a child back to the State of habitual residence if a return order is made, is a controversial one.
There are examples from many Contracting States where courts have taken a very strict approach so that, other than in exceptional situations, the Article 13(1)(b) exception has not been upheld where the non-return argument has been raised, see:
Austria
4Ob1523/96, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AT 561]
Canada
M.G. v. R.F., 2002 R.J.Q. 2132 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 762]
N.P. v. A.B.P., 1999 R.D.F. 38 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 764]
In this case, a non-return order was made since the facts were exceptional. There had been a genuine threat to the mother, which had put her quite obviously and rightfully in fear for her safety if she returned to Israel. The mother was taken to Israel on false pretences, sold to the Russian Mafia and re-sold to the father who forced her into prostitution. She was locked in, beaten by the father, raped and threatened. The mother was genuinely in a state of fear and could not be expected to return to Israel. It would be wholly inappropriate to send the child back without his mother to a father who had been buying and selling women and running a prostitution business.
United Kingdom - England and Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 34]
Re C. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 269]
However, in a more recent English Court of Appeal judgment, the C. v. C. approach has been refined:
Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2002] 3 FCR 43, [2002] EWCA Civ 908 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 469]
In this case, it was ruled that a mother's refusal to return was capable of amounting to a defence because the refusal was not an act of unreasonableness, but came about as a result of an illness she was suffering from. It may be noted, however, that a return order was nevertheless still made. In this context reference may also be made to the decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Re E. (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27, [2012] 1 A.C. 144 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1068] and Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2012] UKSC 10, [2012] 2 A.C. 257 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1147], in which it was accepted that the anxieties of a respondent mother about return, which were not based upon objective risk to her but nevertheless were of such intensity as to be likely, in the event of a return, to destabilise her parenting of the child to the point at which the child's situation would become intolerable, could in principle meet the threshold of the Article 13(1)(b) exception.
Germany
Oberlandesgericht Dresden, 10 UF 753/01, 21 January 2002 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 486]
Oberlandesgericht Köln, 21 UF 70/01, 12 April 2001 [INCADAT: HC/E/DE 491]
Previously a much more liberal interpretation had been adopted:
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 17 UF 260/98, 25 November 1998 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 323]
Switzerland
5P_71/2003/min, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 27 mars 2003 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 788]
5P_65/2002/bnm, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 11 avril 2002 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 789]
5P_367/2005/ast, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 15 novembre 2005 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 841]
5A_285/2007/frs, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 16 août 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 955]
5A_479/2012, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 13 juillet 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1179]
New Zealand
K.S. v. L.S. [2003] 3 NZLR 837 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 770]
United Kingdom - Scotland
McCarthy v. McCarthy [1994] SLT 743 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 26]
United States of America
Panazatou v. Pantazatos, No. FA 96071351S (Conn. Super. Ct., 1997) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USs 97]
In other Contracting States, the approach taken with regard to non-return arguments has varied:
Australia
In Australia, early Convention case law exhibited a very strict approach adopted with regard to non-return arguments, see:
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 294]
Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 293]
In State Central Authority v. Ardito, 20 October 1997 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 283], the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne did find the grave risk of harm exception to be established where the mother would not return, but in this case the mother had been denied entry into the United States of America, the child's State of habitual residence.
Following the judgment of the High Court of Australia (the highest court in the Australian judicial system) in the joint appeals DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority; J.L.M. v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 346, 347], greater attention has been focused on the post-return situation facing abducted children.
In the context of a primary-carer taking parent refusing to return to the child's State of habitual residence see: Director General, Department of Families v. RSP. [2003] FamCA 623 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 544].
France
In French case law, a permissive approach to Article 13(1)(b) has been replaced with a much more restrictive interpretation. For examples of the initial approach, see:
Cass. Civ 1ère 12. 7. 1994, S. c. S.. See Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 103]
Cass. Civ 1ère, 22 juin 1999, No de RG 98-17902 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 498]
And for examples of the stricter interpretation, see:
Cass Civ 1ère, 25 janvier 2005, No de RG 02-17411 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 708]
CA Agen, 1 décembre 2011, No de RG 11/01437 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/FR 1172]
Israel
In Israeli case law there are contrasting examples of the judicial response to non-return arguments:
Civil Appeal 4391/96 Ro v. Ro [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 832]
in contrast with:
Family Appeal 621/04 D.Y v. D.R [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 833]
Poland
Decision of the Supreme Court, 7 October 1998, I CKN 745/98 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 700]
The Supreme Court noted that it would not be in the child's best interests if she were deprived of her mother's care, were the latter to choose to remain in Poland. However, it equally affirmed that if the child were to stay in Poland it would not be in her interests to be deprived of the care of her father. For these reasons, the Court concluded that it could not be assumed that ordering the return of the child would place her in an intolerable situation.
Decision of the Supreme Court, 1 December 1999, I CKN 992/99 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 701]
The Supreme Court specified that the frequently used argument of the child's potential separation from the taking parent, did not, in principle, justify the application of the exception. It held that where there were no objective obstacles to the return of a taking parent, then it could be assumed that the taking parent considered his own interest to be more important than those of the child.
The Court added that a taking parent's fear of being held criminally liable was not an objective obstacle to return, as the taking parent should have been aware of the consequences of his actions. The situation with regard to infants was however more complicated. The Court held that the special bond between mother and baby only made their separation possible in exceptional cases, and this was so even if there were no objective obstacles to the mother's return to the State of habitual residence. The Court held that where the mother of an infant refused to return, whatever the reason, then the return order should be refused on the basis of Article 13(1)(b). On the facts, return was ordered.
Uruguay
Solicitud conforme al Convenio de La Haya sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional de Menores - Casación, IUE 9999-68/2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UY 1185]
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
There are decisions of the ECrtHR which have endorsed a strict approach with regard to the compatibility of Hague Convention exceptions and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some of these cases have considered arguments relevant to the issue of grave risk of harm, including where an abductor has indicated an unwillingness to accompany the returning child, see:
Ilker Ensar Uyanık c. Turquie (Application No 60328/09) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1169]
In this case, the ECrtHR upheld a challenge by the left-behind father that the refusal of the Turkish courts to return his child led to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The ECrtHR stated that whilst very young age was a criterion to be taken into account to determine the child's interest in an abduction case, it could not be considered by itself a sufficient ground, in relation to the requirements of the Hague Convention, to justify dismissal of a return application.
Recourse has been had to expert evidence to assist in ascertaining the potential consequences of the child being separated from the taking parent
Maumousseau and Washington v. France (Application No 39388/05) of 6 December 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 942]
Lipowsky and McCormack v. Germany (Application No 26755/10) of 18 January 2011 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1201]
MR and LR v. Estonia (Application No 13420/12) of 15 May 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1177]
However, it must equally be noted that since the Grand Chamber ruling in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, there are examples of a less strict approach being followed. The latter ruling had emphasised the best interests of the individual abducted child in the context of an application for return and the ascertainment of whether the domestic courts had conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation as well as a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, see:
Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (Application No 41615/07), Grand Chamber, of 6 July 2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1323]
X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09) of 13 December 2011 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1146]; and Grand Chamber ruling X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09), Grand Chamber [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1234]
B. v. Belgium (Application No 4320/11) of 10 July 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1171]
In this case, a majority found that the return of a child to the United States of America would lead to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The decision-making process of the Belgian Appellate Court as regards Article 13(1)(b) was held not to have met the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 of the ECHR. The two dissenting judges noted, however, that the danger referred to in Article 13 should not consist only of the separation of the child from the taking parent.
(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)
Economic Factors
Article 13(1)(b) and Economic Factors
There are many examples, from a broad range of Contracting States, where courts have declined to uphold the Article 13(1)(b) exception where it has been argued that the taking parent (and hence the children) would be placed in a difficult financial situation were a return order to be made.
Australia
Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 293]
The fact that the mother could not accompany the child to England for financial reasons or otherwise was no reason for non-compliance with the clear obligation that rests upon the Australian courts under the terms of the Convention.
Canada
Y.D. v. J.B. [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que. C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 369]
Financial weakness was not a valid reason for refusing to return a child. The Court stated: "The signatories to the Convention did not have in mind the protection of children of well-off parents only, leaving exposed and incapable of applying for the return of a wrongfully removed child the parent without wealth whose child was so abducted."
France
CA Lyon, 19 septembre 2011, No de RG 11/02919 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 1168]
The existence of more favourable living conditions in France could not be taken into consideration.
Germany
7 UF 39/99, Oberlandesgericht Bamberg [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 821]
New Zealand
K.M.A. v. Secretary for Justice [2007] NZFLR 891 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 1118]
Financial hardship was not proven on the facts; moreover, the Court of Appeal considered it most unlikely that the Australian authorities would not provide some form of special financial and legal assistance, if required.
United Kingdom - England and Wales
In early case law, the Court of Appeal repeatedly rejected arguments that economic factors could justify finding the existence of an intolerable situation for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b).
Re A. (Minors) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1992] Fam 106 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 48]
In this case, the court decided that dependency on State benefits cannot be said in itself to constitute an intolerable situation.
B. v. B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 32, [1993] 2 All ER 144, [1993] 1 FLR 238, [1993] Fam Law 198 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 10]
In this case, it was said that inadequate housing / financial circumstances did not prevent return.
Re M. (Abduction: Undertakings) [1995] 1 FLR 1021 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 20]
The Court suggested that the exception might be established were young children to be left homeless, and without recourse to State benefits. However, to be dependent on Israeli State benefits, or English State benefits, could not be said to constitute an intolerable situation.
United Kingdom - Scotland
Starr v. Starr, 1999 SLT 335 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 195]
IGR, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 208 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 1154]
Switzerland
5A_285/2007/frs, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 16 août 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 955]
Zimbabwe
Secretary For Justice v. Parker 1999 (2) ZLR 400 (H) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ZW 340]
There are some examples where courts have placed emphasis on the financial circumstances (or accommodation arrangements) that a child / abductor would face, in deciding whether or not to make a return order:
Australia
Harris v. Harris [2010] FamCAFC 221 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 1119]
The financially precarious position in which the mother would find herself were a return order to be made was a relevant consideration in the making of a non-return order.
France
CA Paris, 13 avril 2012, No de RG 12/0617 [INCADAT Reference : HC/E/FR 1189]
In this case, inadequate housing was a relevant factor in the consideration of a non-return order.
Netherlands
De directie Preventie, optredend voor zichzelf en namens Y (de vader /the father) against X (de moeder/ the mother) (7 February 2001, ELRO nr.AA9851 Zaaknr:813-H-00) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NL 314]
In this case, financial circumstances were a relevant factor in the consideration of a non-return order.
United Kingdom - Scotland
C. v. C. 2003 S.L.T. 793 [INCADAT Reference : HC/E/UKs 998]
An example where financial circumstances did lead to a non-return order being made.
A, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 215, 2012 S.L.T. 370 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 1153]
In this case, adequate accommodation and financial support were relevant factors in the consideration of a non-return order.
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy (Application No 14737/09) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1152]
The ECrtHR, in finding that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the return of a child from Latvia to Italy, noted that the Italian courts exercising their powers under the Brussels IIa Regulation, had overlooked the fact that it was not financially viable for the mother to return with the child: she spoke no Italian and was virtually unemployable.
(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)
Safe Return / Mirror Orders
A practice has arisen in a number of Contracting States for return orders to be made subject to compliance with certain specified requirements or undertakings. To ensure that such protective measures are enforceable, the applicant may be required to have these measures registered in identical or equivalent terms in the child's State of habitual residence. These replica orders are commonly referred to as ‘safe return' or ‘mirror orders'.
Return orders have been made subject to the enactment of safe return /mirror orders in the following jurisdictions:
Australia
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 294];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re W. (Abduction: Domestic Violence) [2004] EWHC 1247, [2004] 2 FLR 499 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ UKe 599];
Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 842, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Central Authority v. H. 2008 (1) SA 49 (SCA) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 900].
A request by the English High Court for protective measures ancillary to an order for international contact to be registered in the State of visitation was upheld by the Panama Second Court of Childhood and Adolescence, see:
Ruling Nº393-05-F, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/PA 872].
A request that a return order be made subject to the implementation of mirror orders was turned down in:
Israel
Family Application 8743/07 Y.D.G. v T.G., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 983].
The Jerusalem Family Court ruled that since accusations against the father had not been upheld there was no basis to impose conditions to ensure the children's safety, other than deposit of money to secure the father's undertaking that they could live in his apartment. There was no need to obtain a mirror order from the US courts as the delay in so doing would harm the children.
Costs
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.