Télécharger le texte complet
EN
Recherche de décisions
Nouvelle rechercheAFFAIRE
Nom de l'affaire
T.B. v. J.B. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2001] 2 FLR 515
Référence INCADAT
HC/E/UKe 419
Juridiction
Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles
Court of Appeal (Angleterre)
Deuxième Instance
États concernés
Nouvelle-Zélande
Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles
Décision
19 December 2000
Confirmé par l'instance supérieure
Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b) | Opposition de l'enfant au retour - art. 13(2)
Recours accueilli, retour ordonné
-
-
INCADAT commentaire
Exceptions au retour
Nature limitée des exceptions
Impact de la Convention sur la fratrie, les demi-frères et les demi-sœurs
Enlèvements par le parent ayant la responsabilité principale de l'enfant
Jurisprudence du Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles
Nature et force de l'opposition
Réactions extrêmes à une ordonnance de retour
Exercice d'un pouvoir discrétionnaire
Mise en œuvre & difficultés d’application
Exécution de l'ordonnance de retour
RÉSUMÉ
Résumé disponible en
EN
|
FR
|
ES
Facts
After an incident in 1991 the eldest child refused to have further contact with her father. The father never had contact with the youngest child, indeed at one stage he wished to be reassured as to his paternity. Only the middle child had regular contact, of about 4 weeks each year, with his father.
The mother remarried in 1994 and later that year gave birth to another child. The second marriage ended in early 1997. The mother alleged that her second husband mistreated both her and the children. In March 2000 the mother travelled to England with all 4 children. She did not obtain the permission of either father, or of the court. Initially it was her intention to stay until December 2000, although this subsequently changed.
On 30 May the father of the 3 children of the first marriage issued a return application.
On 27 July the children were interviewed by a court welfare officer. He reported that the eldest child objected to a return and was of sufficient maturity. The middle child was also of sufficient maturity but was confused at having to choose between his parents, while the youngest child clearly objected, but his maturity was more difficult to assess.
On 1 August the mother was seen by a consultant psychiatrist who found her to be suffering from mild to moderate depression and stated that this would become more profound if she were to return.
On 27 October the High Court ruled that the removal of the children had been wrongful, but it found that a grave risk of an intolerable situation had been proved in accordance with Article 13(1)(b) and it exercised its discretion not to order the return of the children. In reaching this finding the trial judge accepted the mother's evidence as to the second husband's treatment towards her, the fact that she might cease to be able to cope were she to go back and the fact that the children were dependent upon her coping.
He found that the children would be in an intolerable situation if the mother's ability to care faltered and indeed that they could consequently suffer physical and or psychological harm. The objections of the eldest child were rejected because of her misapprehension that a return was linked to a renewal of a relationship with her biological father. The father appealed.
Ruling
Grounds
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The first judgment was given by Hale L.J. In it she dissented from the position adopted by her two fellow judges. She noted that primary carers who had fled from abuse and maltreatment should not be expected to go back to such an environment if this would have a seriously detrimental effect upon the children. She held that the trial judge had had sufficient evidence to find that the grave risk exception had been made out and that it would require more than a protection order in New Zealand to protect the children. On the issue of discretion she considered it likely the New Zealand courts would accede to an application by the mother to relocate with the children. The majority accepted however that the trial judge had been correct in finding that Article 13(1)(b) could include a situation where a primary carer’s health deteriorated and affected her ability to care for her children. However, it held that the trial judge had erred in not taking into account measures the mother could reasonably have been expected to take in New Zealand to protect herself and the children from the second husband. For this reason the Court of Appeal re-evaluated the gravity of the risk of harm and concluded that the protective steps that could be taken were such that a grave risk of harm could not be said to exist. The majority recognised that there had been a change in the profile of abductors since the Convention had been concluded in 1980. But, it pointed out that no modifications had been made to the instrument as a result and consequently the Convention should be applied as it stood, in accordance with the established jurisprudence. The majority noted that following their finding the issue of discretion did not arise, but they expressed concern as to the desirability of forming a view as to the attitude of the New Zealand courts to an application by the mother to relocate with the children. The majority further drew attention to the desirability of having the same court deal with all matters in dispute between the mother and the first father.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
The majority held that given the eldest child was now 14 ½ it was important that her wishes be respected as far as possible. However, it concluded that since the girl’s brothers were to return so should she. In this attention was drawn to the closeness of the siblings, the girl’s source of strength to her mother, and the mother’s acknowledgement that she would not know how to cope without her daughter. In the light of this information the majority ruled that it would in fact be in the girl’s best interest to return to New Zealand also.
INCADAT comment
The mother subsequently applied for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Leave was refused. The mother then applied for the order of 19 December to be set aside. It was argued that her reluctance to return on 19 December had been transformed into a psychological inability to return. This argument was rejected, see: Re B. (Children)(Abduction: New Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 531 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 420].
Nevertheless the return order was not enforced. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal on 25 April, officers of the High Court (the Tipstaff) went to escort the children to the airport. However, the children physically resisted these attempts. In a further hearing before the Court of Appeal Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss stated that the return order had become impossible to implement; see report in The Times, 18 May 2001.
Limited Nature of the Exceptions
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Impact of Convention Proceedings on Siblings and Step-Siblings
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
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)
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).
Extreme Reaction to a Return Order
In a certain number of cases the reaction of children to a proposed return to the State of habitual residence goes beyond a mere objection and may manifest itself in physical opposition to being sent back or the threat of suicide. There have also been examples of an abducting parent threatening to commit suicide if forced to return to the child's State of habitual residence.
Physical Resistance
There are several examples of cases where the views of the children concerned were not gathered or were initially not acted upon and this resulted in the children taking steps to prevent the return order being enforced; in each case the return order was subsequently overturned or dismissed, see:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re M. (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 56];
The children attempted to open the door of the aircraft taking them back to Australia as it taxied for take off at London's Heathrow airport.
Re H.B. (Abduction: Children's Objections) [1998] 1 FLR 422 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 167];
The younger of two siblings, a girl aged 12, refused to board a plane to take her back to Denmark. Ironically, the older brother had only been made subject to the return order to ensure the siblings would not be separated.
Re B. (Children) (Abduction: New Evidence) [2001] 2 FCR 531 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 420];
The children attacked the court officers sent to take them to Heathrow airport for their flight back to New Zealand.
Australia
Re F. (Hague Convention: Child's Objections) [2006] FamCA 685, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 864];
An 11 year old boy resisted attempts to place him on a plane to the United States of America.
Threat of Suicide
Where it is alleged at trial that the child or abducting parent will commit suicide if forced to return, it is for the court seized to decide on the veracity of the claim in the light of the available evidence and the circumstances of the case.
The issue of course may not always be raised, as happened in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region case S. v. S. [1998] 2 HKC 316, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 234] where after a return order was made the mother killed her child and then committed suicide.
Threat of Suicide - Child
Evidence that the child concerned had threatened to commit suicide was central to a non-return order being made in the following cases:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re R. (A Minor Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 59].
Israel
Evidence that a child had previously made a suicide attempt in the State of habitual residence was not accepted as justifying a non-return order in:
Family Appeal 1169/99 R. v. L. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 834].
A submission that a child would commit suicide was not accepted as justifying a non-return order in:
B. v. G., Supreme Court 8 April 2008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 923].
Australia
Commissioner, Western Australia Police v. Dormann, JP (1997) FLC 92-766 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 213].
Threat of Suicide - Abducting parent
Evidence that the abducting parent may commit suicide if forced to return to the child's State of habitual residence has been upheld as creating a situation where the child concerned would be at a grave risk of harm and should not therefore be sent back, see:
Australia
J.L.M. v. Director-General NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 347];
Director-General, Department of Families v. RSP [2003] FamCA 623 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 544].
Illness
New Zealand
Secretary for Justice v. C., ex parte H., 28/04/2000, transcript, District Court at Otahuhu [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 534].
The latter meeting, during which the child's counsel was present, terminated when the boy became unwell and vomited as a result of the judge mentioning the possibility of a return to Australia.
Exercise of Discretion
Where it is established that a child objects to a return and he is of sufficient age and maturity at which it is appropriate to take his views into account, then the Court seised of the case will have a discretion whether or not to make a return order.
Different approaches have been espoused as to the manner in which this discretion should be exercised and the relevant factors that should be taken into consideration.
Australia
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 904]
The appellate court found that the trial judge had erred in ruling that there had to be 'clear and compelling' reasons to frustrate the objectives of the Convention. The Court recalled that there were permitted exceptions to a mandatory return and where established these exceptions gave rise to a discretion. The relevant factors in the exercise of that discretion would vary according to each case, but would include giving significant weight to the objectives of the Convention in appropriate cases.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
The exercise of the discretion has caused difficulty for the Court of Appeal, in particular the factors to be considered and the weight to be accorded to them.
In the first key case:
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 87]
The Court of Appeal held that a court's discretion to refuse the immediate return of a child must be exercised with regard to the overall approach of the Convention, i.e. a child's best interests are furthered by a prompt return, unless there are exceptional circumstances for ordering otherwise.
In Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 60] contrasting views were put forward by two members of the panel.
Balcombe L.J., who was content for there to be a relatively flexible approach to the gateway findings of age and objection, held that the weight to be given to objections would vary with the age of the child, but the policy of the Convention would always be a very weighty factor.
Millet L.J., who advocated a stricter interpretation of the gateway filters, held that if it was appropriate to consider the views of a child then those views should prevail unless there were countervailing factors, which would include the policy of the Convention.
The third member of the panel gave his support to the interpretation of Balcombe L.J.
In Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] Ward L.J. took up the interpretation of Millett L.J.
The reasoning of Re. T. was implicitly accepted by a differently constituted Court of Appeal in:
Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428, [2004] 2 FLR 64 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 579].
However, it was rejected in Zaffino v. Zaffino (Abduction: Children's Views) [2005] EWCA Civ 1012; [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 813].
The correct approach to the exercise of judicial discretion in England is now clearly that advanced by Balcombe L.J.
In Zaffino v. Zaffino the Court also held that regard could be paid to welfare considerations in the exercise of the discretion. In that case, welfare considerations militated in favour of a return.
In Vigreux v. Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630, [2006] 2 FLR 1180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 829] the Court of Appeal considered how discretion should be exercised in a case governed by the Brussels II a Regulation. It held that the aims and policy of the Regulation had to be considered in addition to the policy of the Convention.
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] the Court gave a general consideration to welfare considerations in deciding not to order the return of the 8 year old girl concerned.
The Court also appeared to accept an obiter comment raised in Vigreux v. Michel that there had to be an ‘exceptional' dimension to a case before a Court might consider exercising its discretion against a return order.
Exceptionality was raised in Nyachowe v. Fielder [2007] EWCA Civ 1129, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 964]. There a return order was made notwithstanding the strong objections of an independent 12 year old. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the girl had come for a 2 week vacation.
In Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937] the House of Lords affirmed that it was wrong to import any test of exceptionality into the exercise of discretion under the Hague Convention. The circumstances in which a return may be refused were themselves exceptions to the general rule. That in itself was sufficient exceptionality. It was neither necessary nor desirable to import an additional gloss into the Convention.
Baroness Hale continued that where a discretion arose from the terms of the Convention itself, the discretion was at large. In Article 13(2) cases the court would have to consider the nature and strength of the child's objections, the extent to which they were authentically the child's own or the product of the influence of the abducting parent, the extent to which they coincided or were at odds with other considerations which were relevant to the child's welfare, as well as general Convention considerations. The older the child, the greater the weight that objections would likely carry.
New Zealand
The Balcombe / Millett interpretations gave rise to contrasting High Court judgments. The Court of Appeal however voiced its preference for the Balcombe ‘shades of grey' approach in:
White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].
United Kingdom - Scotland
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 963]
When exercising his discretion to make a return order, the trial judge noted that a return order should not be refused unless there were sound reasons for not giving effect to the objects of the Convention. This was upheld on appeal. The Inner House of the Court of Session further held that the existence of the Article 13 exceptions did not negate or eliminate the general policy of the Convention that wrongfully removed children should be returned.
Singh v. Singh 1998 SC 68 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 197]
The Court held that the welfare of the child was a general factor which should be taken into account in the exercise of discretion. A court should not limit itself to a consideration of the child's objection and the reasons for it. Nevertheless, the court held that a rule could not be laid down as to whether a child's welfare should be considered broadly or in detail; this was a matter within the discretion of the court concerned.
In W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805] the Inner House held that a balancing exercise had to be carried out, and one of the factors in favour of return was the spirit and purpose of the Convention to allow the court of habitual residence to resolve the custody dispute.
United States of America
De Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279, (10th Cir. 2007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 903].
In upholding the views of a 14 year old boy the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit paid regard to his best interests but not to the policy of the Convention.
France
An appellate court limited the weight to be placed on the objections of the children on the basis that before being interviewed they had had no contact with the applicant parent and had spent a long period of time with the abducting parent. Moreover the allegations of the children had already been considered by the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence:
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947].
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.