AFFAIRE

Texte complet non disponible

Nom de l'affaire

Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten), decision of 12 September 2001, Case number 7624-2000

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/SE 447

Juridiction

Pays

Suède

Nom

Cour Administrative Suprême de Suède (Regeringsrätten)

Degré

Instance Suprême

États concernés

État requérant

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles

État requis

Suède

Décision

Date

12 September 2001

Statut

Définitif

Motifs

Résidence habituelle - art. 3

Décision

Recours rejeté, retour refusé

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

3

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif

3

Autres dispositions

-

Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

INCADAT commentaire

Objectifs et domaine d’application de la Convention

Résidence habituelle
Résidence habituelle

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The child, a boy, was 5 years of age at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. He had lived in both Sweden and England. The parents were not married but had joint rights of custody. The child lived in Sweden until April 1999 when his mother unilaterally took him to England. In May 1999 she decided to stay there permanently.

In the spring of 2000 the parents agreed that the child would stay with his father in Sweden from May until August 2000 and then return to England. However, the child was not returned in accordance with the agreement. On 20 September the mother initiated return proceedings in a Swedish County Court (Länsrätten i Västmanlands län). On 18 October the Court ordered the return of the child.

The father appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeals in Stockholm. On 3 November that Court allowed the appeal and refused to order the return of the child, finding the child to be habitually resident in Sweden. The mother appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the relevant date.

Grounds

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Whether a retention is wrongful or not is to be determined in accordance with the law of the State of the child's habitual residence at the time of the alleged wrongful retention. In this case the retention was not considered wrongful since the child's place of habitual residence was deemed to be in Sweden at that time, i.e. the state where he was alleged to be wrongfully retained. The Court referred to a previous decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (RÅ 1995 ref 99), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/SE 448] which stated that it was possible for a child to acquire a habitual residence in a country to which it had been wrongfully removed if the child had lived there for a significant period of time and had adjusted to its new environment. However, in this case the Court did not find that the conditions existed which would have led to the change of the child's habitual residence from Sweden to England following his removal in 1999. It was indisputable that the father had not acquiesced in this removal, therefore the child's place of habitual residence was still in Sweden at this point. He had been born there and had lived there all of his life. It was irrelevant that the father had not initiated return proceedings under the Convention. Judge Wennerström dissented. In this he placed weight on the fact that the father merely enjoyed rights of access and that he had not initiated return proceedings. He concluded that the child had acquired a habitual residence in England. Consequently the retention was wrongful in the sense of the Convention.

INCADAT comment

For other judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden dealing with the concept of habitual residence see:

RÅ 1995 ref 99, Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) (Sweden), decision of 20 December 1995, case number 4936-1995 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/SE 448].

RÅ 1996 ref 52, J. v. J., 9 May 1996, Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/SE 80].

See generally the commentary in: J Schiratzki, "Friends at Odds - Construing Habitual Residence for Children in Sweden and the United States", International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (2001), 297 - 326.

Habitual Residence

The interpretation of the central concept of habitual residence (Preamble, Art. 3, Art. 4) has proved increasingly problematic in recent years with divergent interpretations emerging in different jurisdictions. There is a lack of uniformity as to whether in determining habitual residence the emphasis should be exclusively on the child, with regard paid to the intentions of the child's care givers, or primarily on the intentions of the care givers. At least partly as a result, habitual residence may appear a very flexible connecting factor in some Contracting States yet much more rigid and reflective of long term residence in others.

Any assessment of the interpretation of habitual residence is further complicated by the fact that cases focusing on the concept may concern very different factual situations. For example habitual residence may arise for consideration following a permanent relocation, or a more tentative move, albeit one which is open-ended or potentially open-ended, or indeed the move may be for a clearly defined period of time.

General Trends:

United States Federal Appellate case law may be taken as an example of the full range of interpretations which exist with regard to habitual residence.

Child Centred Focus

The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has advocated strongly for a child centred approach in the determination of habitual residence:

Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 125 ALR Fed. 703 (6th Cir. 1993) (6th Cir. 1993) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 142]

Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/US 935].

See also:

Villalta v. Massie, No. 4:99cv312-RH (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 1999) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 221].

Combined Child's Connection / Parental Intention Focus

The United States Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 8th Circuits, have espoused a child centred approach but with reference equally paid to the parents' present shared intentions.

The key judgment is that of Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 83].

See also:

Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 530];

Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2006) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 879].

In the latter case a distinction was drawn between the situation of very young children, where particular weight was placed on parental intention(see for example: Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 808]) and that of older children where the impact of parental intention was more limited.

Parental Intention Focus

The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 301] has been highly influential in providing that there should ordinarily be a settled intention to abandon an existing habitual residence before a child can acquire a new one.

This interpretation has been endorsed and built upon in other Federal appellate decisions so that where there was not a shared intention on the part of the parents as to the purpose of the move this led to an existing habitual residence being retained, even though the child had been away from that jurisdiction for an extended period of time. See for example:

Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 777]: United States habitual residence retained after 8 months of an intended 4 year stay in Germany;

Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 780]: United States habitual residence retained during 32 month stay in Mexico;

Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 176 F. Supp.2d 1045 (E.D. Wash. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 482]: United States habitual residence retained during 27 month stay in Greece.

The Mozes approach has also been approved of by the Federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd and 7th Circuits:

Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 776];

Koch v. Koch, 450 F.3d 703 (2006 7th Cir.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 878].

It should be noted that within the Mozes approach the 9th Circuit did acknowledge that given enough time and positive experience, a child's life could become so firmly embedded in the new country as to make it habitually resident there notwithstanding lingering parental intentions to the contrary.

Other Jurisdictions

There are variations of approach in other jurisdictions:

Austria
The Supreme Court of Austria has ruled that a period of residence of more than six months in a State will ordinarily be characterized as habitual residence, and even if it takes place against the will of the custodian of the child (since it concerns a factual determination of the centre of life).

8Ob121/03g, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AT 548].

Canada
In the Province of Quebec, a child centred focus is adopted:

In Droit de la famille 3713, No 500-09-010031-003 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 651], the Cour d'appel de Montréal held that the determination of the habitual residence of a child was a purely factual issue to be decided in the light of the circumstances of the case with regard to the reality of the child's life, rather than that of his parents. The actual period of residence must have endured for a continuous and not insignificant period of time; the child must have a real and active link to the place, but there is no minimum period of residence which is specified.

Germany
A child centred, factual approach is also evident in German case law:

2 UF 115/02, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 944].

This has led to the Federal Constitutional Court accepting that a habitual residence may be acquired notwithstanding the child having been wrongfully removed to the new State of residence:

Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 1206/98, 29. Oktober 1998  [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 233].

The Constitutional Court upheld the finding of the Higher Regional Court that the children had acquired a habitual residence in France, notwithstanding the nature of their removal there. This was because habitual residence was a factual concept and during their nine months there, the children had become integrated into the local environment.

Israel
Alternative approaches have been adopted when determining the habitual residence of children. On occasion, strong emphasis has been placed on parental intentions. See:

Family Appeal 1026/05 Ploni v. Almonit [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/Il 865];

Family Application 042721/06 G.K. v Y.K. [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/Il 939].

However, reference has been made to a more child centred approach in other cases. See:

decision of the Supreme Court in C.A. 7206/03, Gabai v. Gabai, P.D. 51(2)241;

FamA 130/08 H v H [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/Il 922].

New Zealand
In contrast to the Mozes approach the requirement of a settled intention to abandon an existing habitual residence was specifically rejected by a majority of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. See

S.K. v. K.P. [2005] 3 NZLR 590 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 816].

Switzerland
A child centred, factual approach is evident in Swiss case law:

5P.367/2005/ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 841].

United Kingdom
The standard approach is to consider the settled intention of the child's carers in conjunction with the factual reality of the child's life.

Re J. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562, [1990] 2 All ER 961, [1990] 2 FLR 450, sub nom C. v. S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 2]. For academic commentary on the different models of interpretation given to habitual residence. See:

R. Schuz, "Habitual Residence of Children under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Theory and Practice", Child and Family Law Quarterly Vol 13, No. 1, 2001, p. 1;

R. Schuz, "Policy Considerations in Determining Habitual Residence of a Child and the Relevance of Context", Journal of Transnational Law and Policy Vol. 11, 2001, p. 101.