Texte complet non disponible
Recherche de décisions
Nouvelle rechercheAFFAIRE
Nom de l'affaire
CA Paris, 27 octobre 2005, No de RG 05/15032
Référence INCADAT
HC/E/FR 814
Juridiction
France
Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France)
Deuxième Instance
États concernés
États-Unis d'Amérique
France
Décision
27 October 2005
Définitif
Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b) | Opposition de l'enfant au retour - art. 13(2) | Intégration de l'enfant - art. 12(2)
Recours accueilli, retour refusé
-
-
-
INCADAT commentaire
Exceptions au retour
Impact de la Convention sur la fratrie, les demi-frères et les demi-sœurs
Nature et force de l'opposition
Intégration de l'enfant
Pouvoir d'ordonner le retour nonobstant l'intégration
RÉSUMÉ
Résumé disponible en
EN
|
FR
Facts
On 29 June 2005 the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris ruled that the removal was wrongful and ordered the return of the child. The mother appealed.
Ruling
Grounds
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
The mother sought to invoke the grave risk of harm exception by arguing that: the father had taken drugs; the father's new partner had behaved inappropriately towards the child's step-brother; a return would separate the child from her step-brother and that a return would prevent the child from seeing her mother.
The Cour d'appel rejected these arguments and a request for a psychological evaluation of the child, finding that; the step-brother's accusations of drug taking by the father lacked detail and did not rebut the results of blood tests done on the father in March 2003; and that the allegations of seduction by the father's new partner had no relevance to the abducted child and her return.
Settlement of the child - Art. 12(2)
The Cour d'appel noted that Article 12(2) was applicable to the application, more than 12 months having elaspsed between the removal and the initiation of proceedings.
In evaluating the child's settlement consideration was given to the fact she had commenced her third year of schooling in France, she was performing well and in a discussion with a school psychologist she affirmed that she wished to continue with her studies in France and to stay with her mother.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child's views were gathered and these confirmed to the Court that she was now settled in her new environment. The Court thereby ruled that the best interests of the child required that she not be returned to the United States.
Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
The Cour d'appel noted that Article 12(2) was applicable to the application, more than 12 months having elaspsed between the removal and the initiation of proceedings. In evaluating the child's settlement consideration was given to the fact she had commenced her third year of schooling in France, she was performing well and in a discussion with a school psychologist she affirmed that she wished to continue with her studies in France and to stay with her mother. Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child's views were gathered and these confirmed to the Court that she was now settled in her new environment. The Court thereby ruled that the best interests of the child required that she not be returned to the United States.
INCADAT comment
The Cour de cassation confirmed the decision on 12 December 2006 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 892].
The Cour d'appel relied directly on Article 12(2) of the UN Convention as justification for ascertaining the views of the child, rather than considering her objections within the separate Hague Convention exception of Article 13(2). In this the Court was clearly influenced by the decision of the supreme civil jurisdiction in France, the Cour de Cassation, in its decision of 18 May 2005: Cass Civ 1ère 18/05/2005 (Arrêt n° 891, pourvoi n° 02-20.613). In this judgment the Cour de Cassation departed from previous rulings in finding that Article 12(2) of the UN Convention was self-executing and could thereby be relied on to allow children to intervene directly in private law proceedings in France.
The approach of the Cour d'Appel in considering the views of the child in assessing the issue of settlement does moreover mirror that adopted by the English High Court in the case of : Re C (Abduction: Settlement)(No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 815].
Impact of Convention Proceedings on Siblings and Step-Siblings
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
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).
Settlement of the Child
A uniform interpretation has not emerged with regard to the concept of settlement; in particular whether it should be construed literally or rather in accordance with the policy objectives of the Convention. In jurisdictions favouring the latter approach the burden of proof on the abducting parent is clearly greater and the exception is more difficult to establish.
Jurisdictions in which a heavy burden of proof has been attached to the establishment of settlement include:
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re N. (Minors) (Abduction) [1991] 1 FLR 413 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 106]
In this case it was held that settlement is more than mere adjustment to surroundings. It involves a physical element of relating to, being established in, a community and an environment. It also has an emotional constituent denoting security and stability.
Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA CIV 1330, [2005] 1 FLR 169 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 598]
For academic criticism of Re N. see:
Collins L. et al., Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 14th Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2006, paragraph 19-121.
However, it may be noted that a more recent development in England has been the adoption of a child-centric assessment of settlement by the House of Lords in Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937]. This ruling may impact on the previous case law.
However there was no apparent weakening of the standard in the non-Convention case Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 842, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649,[INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982].
United Kingdom - Scotland
Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 107]
For Article 12(2) to be activated the interest of the child in not being uprooted must be so cogent that it outweighs the primary purpose of the Convention, namely the return of the child to the proper jurisdiction so that the child's future may be determined in the appropriate place.
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 963]
A settled situation was one which could reasonably be relied upon to last as matters stood and did not contain indications that it was likely to change radically or to fall apart. There had therefore to be some projection into the future.
C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 962]
United States of America
In re Interest of Zarate, No. 96 C 50394 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 1996) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 134]
A literal interpretation of the concept of settlement has been favoured in:
Australia
Director-General, Department of Community Services v. M. and C. and the Child Representative (1998) FLC 92-829 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 291];
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 825].
The impact of the divergent interpretations is arguably most marked where very young children are concerned.
It has been held that settlement is to be considered from the perspective of a young child in:
Austria
7Ob573/90 Oberster Gerichtshof, 17/05/1990 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 378];
Australia
Secretary, Attorney-General's Department v. T.S. (2001) FLC 93-063 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 823];
State Central Authority v. C.R [2005] Fam CA 1050 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 824];
Israel
Family Application 000111/07 Ploni v. Almonit, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 938];
Monaco
R 6136; M. Le Procureur Général contre M. H. K., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/MC 510];
Switzerland
Präsidium des Bezirksgerichts St. Gallen (District Court of St. Gallen) (Switzerland), decision of 8 September 1998, 4 PZ 98-0217/0532N, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 431].
A child-centric approach has also been adopted in several significant appellate decisions with regard to older children, with emphasis placed on the children's views.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937];
France
CA Paris 27 Octobre 2005, 05/15032, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814];
Québec
Droit de la Famille 2785, Cour d'appel de Montréal, 5 December 1997, No 500-09-005532-973 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 653].
In contrast, a more objective assessment was favoured in the United States decision:
David S. v. Zamira S., 151 Misc. 2d 630, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Fam. Ct. 1991) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 208]
The children, aged 3 and 1 1/2, had not established significant ties to their community in Brooklyn; they were not involved in school, extra-curricular, community, religious or social activities which children of an older age would be.
Discretion to make a Return Order where Settlement is established
Unlike the Article 13 exceptions, Article 12(2) does not expressly afford courts a discretion to make a return order if settlement is established. Where this issue has arisen for consideration the majority judicial view has nevertheless been to apply the provision as if a discretion does exist, but this has arisen in different ways.
Australia
The matter has not been conclusively decided but there would appear to be appellate support for inferring a discretion, reference has been made to English and Scottish case law, see:
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care v. Moore, (1999) FLC 92-841 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 276].
United Kingdom - England & Wales
English case law initially favoured inferring that a Convention based discretion existed by virtue of Article 18, see:
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1991] 2 FLR 1, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 163];
Cannon v. Cannon [2004] EWCA CIV 1330, [2005] 1 FLR 169 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 598].
However, this interpretation was expressly rejected in the House of Lords decision Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937]. A majority of the panel held that the construction of Article 12(2) left the matter open that there was an inherent discretion where settlement was established. It was pointed out that Article 18 did not confer any new power to order the return of a child under the Convention, rather it contemplated powers conferred by domestic law.
Ireland
In accepting the existence of a discretion reference was made to early English authority and Article 18.
P. v. B. (No. 2) (Child Abduction: Delay) [1999] 4 IR 185; [1999] 2 ILRM 401 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 391].
New Zealand
A discretion derives from the domestic legislation implementing the Convention, see:
Secretary for Justice (as the NZ Central Authority on behalf of T.J) v. H.J. [2006] NZSC 97, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 882].
United Kingdom - Scotland
Whilst the matter was not explored in any detail, settlement not being established, there was a suggestion that a discretion would exist, with reference being made to Article 18.
Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 107].
There have been a few decisions in which no discretion was found to attach to Article 12(2), these include:
Australia
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232], - subsequently questioned;
State Central Authority v. C.R. [2005] Fam CA 1050 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 824];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re C. (Abduction: Settlement) [2004] EWHC 1245, [2005] 1 FLR 127, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 596] - subsequently overruled;
China - (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
A.C. v. P.C. [2004] HKMP 1238 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HK 825];
Canada (Québec)
Droit de la Famille 2785, Cour d'appel de Montréal, 5 décembre 1997, No 500-09-005532-973 , [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 653].
Article 18 not being included in the act implementing the Convention in Quebec, it is understood that courts do not possess a discretionary power where settlement is established.
For academic commentary on the use of discretion where settlement is established, see:
Beaumont P.R. and McEleavy P.E. 'The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction' OUP, Oxford, 1999 at p. 204 et seq.;
R. Schuz, ‘In Search of a Settled Interpretation of Article 12(2) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention' [2008] Child and Family Law Quarterly.