Télécharger le texte complet
EN
Recherche de décisions
Nouvelle rechercheAFFAIRE
Nom de l'affaire
Re R (A Child) [2014] EWHC 2802 (Fam)
Référence INCADAT
HC/E/UKe 1289
Juridiction
Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles
Première instance
États concernés
Japon
Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles
Décision
22 July 2014
Définitif
Résidence habituelle - art. 3 | Droit de garde - art. 3 | Acquiescement - art. 13(1)(a) | Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b) | Opposition de l'enfant au retour - art. 13(2)
Retour ordonné
-
-
INCADAT commentaire
Objectifs et domaine d’application de la Convention
Installation à l'étranger pour une durée limitée
Exceptions au retour
Nature et force de l'opposition
RÉSUMÉ
Résumé disponible en
EN
|
ES
Facts
No consensus was reached about the removal of the child from Japan. Following further mediation, the parents had a disagreement about the mother's wish to take the child to the United Kingdom for a year whilst she took up an academic post.
In late 2013 / early 2014, the father advised the British Embassy in Japan of his opposition to the mother securing a visa for the child. On 31 March 2014, the mother applied to the Tokyo Family Court for a variation of the mediation agreement in order to take the child to Britain for one year.
On the same day, the mother took the child to the United Kingdom. The child arrived without an entry visa. The father was contacted by a UK official as to whether he permitted the child to enter the country. The father gave his consent. He subsequently submitted that this was for a four week visit (the mother had purchased return tickets dated 28 April).
On 1 May, the father filed a return petition with the Japanese and English central authorities. On 20 May, the mother sent an email to the father seeking his consent for the child to remain in the United Kingdom during her stay. On 6 June 2014, the mother issued a second set of proceedings in the Tokyo Family Court seeking sole custody of the child.
Ruling
Grounds
Habitual Residence - Art. 3
The High Court rejected the mother's submission that by the time the return petition was issued the child had become habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
In this it referred, inter alia, to the mother's issuing of substantive proceedings in Japan and the fact the child had entered the United Kingdom under a tourist visa and was entitled to stay for a period of six months.
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
The Court held that as the parents remained married they had joint custody of the child.
Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)
The Court found that the evidence demonstrated unequivocally that the father never acquiesced in the child remaining in the United Kingdom for longer than one month.
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The Court held that the issues raised by the mother were more properly described as the sort of welfare issues and concerns which may fall to be considered by the Tokyo Family Court concerned with determining the future of the child.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
The Court noted that the child did not object to return to Japan, but wanted very much to remain in the United Kingdom temporarily whilst the mother undertook research.
Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy
INCADAT comment
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].
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).