Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
Mercredi v. Chaffe [2011] EWCA Civ. 272
INCADAT reference
HC/E/FR 1064
Court
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES
Court of Appeal
Appellate Court
Thorpe & Elias L.JJ.
States involved
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES
FRANCE
Decision
17 March 2011
Final
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
-
Arts 8, 15, 19 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
Re S. (A Minor) (Custody: Habitual Residence] [1998] AC 750; C-400/10 PPU J.McB.v. LE.
INCADAT comment
Article 12 Return Mechanism
Article 15 Decision or Determination
Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law
Brussels II a Regulation
Aims & Scope of the Convention
Habitual Residence
Nature of Removal and Retention
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
|
ES
Facts
On Friday 9 October 2009, having learnt of the child's departure, the father made an application by telephone to the duty High Court judge in England, who immediately made a location order. On 12 October the father filed applications, inter alia, for parental responsibility, shared residence and access. That day the High Court made an order requiring the mother to return the child to England; the mother did not have notice of the application and therefore was neither present nor represented.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) subsequently considered that the English judicial authorities found themselves to be seised for the purposes of Article 16 of Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003) on 12 October 2009 at the latest. On 28 October 2009 the mother brought proceedings in Réunion for sole parental responsibility.
On 18 December 2009 the father brought return proceedings in Réunion for the return of the child under the 1980 Hague Convention. On 15 March 2010 that application was dismissed on the basis that he did not have rights of custody.
The father's English proceedings came to trial in April 2010. On 15 April the High Court held that: it had become seised when the father telephoned the duty judge; from that time, it had rights of custody in respect of the child; the father also acquired such rights, orders having been made in his favour; and the child was still habitually resident in England at the time the court and the father acquired custodial rights.
The father subsequently missed the time limit to appeal against the dismissal of his Convention return application. On 23 June 2010 the mother was awarded sole parental responsibility in the Réunion proceedings. On 12 July 2010 the mother filed an appeal against the decisions of the High Court. On 8 October 2010 the Court of Appeal made an order requesting a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on several questions. This was under the fast track PPU (procédure préjudicielle d'urgence) mechanism.
The CJEU held that:
"1. The concept of "habitual residence", for the purposes of Articles 8 and 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that such residence corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment.
To that end, where the situation concerned is that of an infant who has been staying with her mother only a few days in a Member State - other than that of her habitual residence - to which she has been removed, the factors which must be taken into consideration include, first, the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay in the territory of that Member State and for the mother's move to that State and, second, with particular reference to the child's age, the mother's geographic and family origins and the family and social connections which the mother and child have with that Member State.
It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances of fact specific to each individual case. If the application of the above mentioned tests were, in the case in the main proceedings, to lead to the conclusion that the child's habitual residence cannot be established, which court has jurisdiction would have to be determined on the basis of the criterion of the child's presence, under Article 13 of the Regulation.
2. Judgments of a court of a Member State which refuse to order the prompt return of a child under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction to the jurisdiction of a court of another Member State and which concern parental responsibility for that child have no effect on judgments which have to be delivered in that other Member State in proceedings relating to parental responsibility which were brought earlier and are still pending in that other Member State. "
In the light of the preliminary ruling the Court of Appeal determined the mother's appeal.
Ruling
Grounds
Habitual Residence - Art. 3
It was submitted on behalf of the mother that the trial judge had applied the wrong test in determining the child's habitual residence, namely by relying on House of Lords authority rather than the case law of the CJEU. This argument was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Thorpe L.J. held that it was immaterial that the trial judge had looked to the date of 9 October rather than 12 October. Furthermore, whilst the trial judge had not explicitly referred to the case law of the Court of Justice he was deemed to have set a reliable course, having paid regard to considerations that were pointed up by the two decisions of the European Court on the habitual residence of children.
Thorpe L.J. did though question the trial judge's assertion that the mother must show not only the loss of the child's English habitual residence, but the acquisition of a habitual residence in France. Thorpe L.J. noted (para. 51): "the abandonment of habitual residence in State A may leave the child in limbo for an appreciable period before habitual residence is acquired in another state."
This disagreement did not however impact on the issue of the child's habitual residence in mid October, which remained in England and Wales.
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12
The Court of Appeal accepted previous authority that a lawful removal could become a wrongful retention if a return order, made by the court of the child's habitual residence, was not complied with.
However, Thorpe L.J. held that the first instance judges involved in the application had erred in instinctively treating the present case as one of child abduction. He noted (para. 57): "Whatever may have been the mother's moral responsibility on the 7th October she exercised her right of freedom of movement with her baby. There was no restriction on her right to relocate."
Article 15 Decision or Determination
In the High Court proceedings of 15 April 2010 the trial judge made an Art 15 decision or determination that the mother's actions were wrongful. Relying on the previous authority of A. v. B. (Abduction: Rights of Custody: Declaration of Wrongful Removal) [2008] EWHC 2524 (Fam.); [2009] 1 F.L.R. 1253 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1056] the trial judge held that he had the authority, and indeed that it was necessary for an English court to have jurisdiction, to make such a declaration in the absence of an express request from a foreign court where a parent had removed a child unilaterally from the jurisdiction.
The actions of the trial judge in this regard were criticised by the Court of Appeal panel. In this both members of the Court drew attention to the fact that the Convention return application had already been dismissed by the French court when the declaration was made, and there was the possibility of an appeal of the French order.
Furthermore, no request for a declaration had been made by the French authorities. Thorpe L.J. held that (para. 63): "As a matter of comity and the collaboration of courts within the European Union the London judge had an obligation to support the proper conclusions of the French court or, at the least, not to enter into a litigation strategy to undermine the order."
Procedural Matters
Thorpe L.J. held that there should have been communication between the relevant first instance judges to discuss the issue of jurisdiction.
Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
In allowing the appeal Thorpe L.J. sought to draw a distinction between the different applications brought by the father. He held that the October proceedings were no longer live by the time the father had issued his originating summons in wardship on 26 January 2010. On the latter date the child was no longer habitually resident in England and Wales.
Moreover, the mother's application in Reunion on 28 October had probably seised the French courts first for the purposes of the lis alibi pendens rule of Article 19 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003. The other member of the Court of Appeal panel, Elias L.J., disagreed with this approach (para. 98): "I have doubts whether the way in which the father's case was pursued procedurally ought to determine the Article 19 question."
He held that to focus on the procedural evolution of the case was unduly formalistic. He added: "It seems to me that there is a strong case for saying that the state first seised of the dispute should determine the jurisdiction issue irrespective of the specific nature of the applications made in the domestic courts, provided at least that essentially the court is dealing at all times with the same underlying dispute."
Both members of the Court of Appeal did though agree that the trial judge should have exercised his discretion under Article 15 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 to transfer jurisdiction to the French courts.
Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy
INCADAT comment
Article 15 Decision or Determination
The Role and Interpretation of Article 15
Article 15 is an innovative mechanism which reflects the cooperation which is central to the 1980 Hague Convention. It provides that the authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to making a return order, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the child's State of habitual residence a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination.
Scope of the Article 15 Decision or Determination Mechanism
Common law jurisdictions are divided as to the role to be played by the Article 15 mechanism, in particular whether the court in the child's State of habitual residence should make a finding as to the wrongfulness of the removal or retention, or, whether it should limit its decision to the extent to which the applicant possesses custody rights under its own law. This division cannot be dissociated from the autonomous nature of custody rights for Convention purposes as well as that of 'wrongfulness' i.e. when rights of custody are to be deemed to have been breached.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
The Court of Appeal favoured a very strict position with regard to the scope of Article 15:
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 809].
The Court held that where the question for determination in the requested State turned on a point of autonomous Convention law (e.g. wrongfulness) then it would be difficult to envisage any circumstances in which an Article 15 request would be worthwhile.
Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 866].
This position was however reversed by the House of Lords in the Deak case:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
Whilst there was unanimity as to the utility and binding nature of a ruling of a foreign court as to the content of the rights held by an applicant, Baroness Hale, with whom Lord Hope and Lord Brown agreed, further specified that the foreign court would additionally be much better placed than the English court to understand the true meaning and effect of its own laws in Convention terms.
New Zealand
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] NZFLR 433 (NZ CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 1018].
A majority in the Court of Appeal, approving of the position adopted by the English Court of Appeal in Hunter v. Morrow, held that a court seised of an Article 15 decision or determination should restrict itself to reporting on matters of national law and not stray into the classification of a removal as being wrongful or not; the latter was exclusively a matter for the court in the State of refuge in the light of its assessment of the autonomous law of the Convention.
Status of an Article 15 Decision or Determination
The status to be accorded to an Article 15 decision or determination has equally generated controversy, in particular the extent to which a foreign ruling should be determinative as regards the existence, or inexistence, of custody rights and in relation to the issue of wrongfulness.
Australia
In the Marriage of R. v. R., 22 May 1991, transcript, Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Perth), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];
The court noted that a decision or determination under Article 15 was persuasive only and that it was ultimately a matter for the French courts to decide whether there had been a wrongful removal.
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].
The Court of Appeal held that an Article 15 decision or determination was not binding and it rejected the determination of wrongfulness made by the New Zealand High Court: M. v. H. [Custody] [2006] NZFLR 623 (HC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1021]. In so doing it noted that New Zealand courts did not recognise the sharp distinction between rights of custody and rights of access which had been accepted in the United Kingdom.
Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 866].
The Court of Appeal declined to accept the finding of the Romanian courts that the father did not have rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention.
This position was however reversed by the House of Lords in the Deak case:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
The House of Lords held unanimously that where an Article 15 decision or determination was sought the ruling of the foreign court as to the content of the rights held by the applicant must be treated as conclusive, save in exceptional cases where, for example, the ruling had been obtained by fraud or in breach of the rules of natural justice. Such circumstances were absent in the present case, therefore the trial court and the Court of Appeal had erred in disregarding the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and in allowing fresh evidence to be adduced.
As regards the characterisation of the parent's rights, Baroness Hale, with whom Lord Hope and Lord Brown agreed, held that it would only be where this was clearly out of line with the international understanding of the Convention's terms, as might well have been the case in Hunter v. Murrow, should the court in the requested state decline to follow it. For his part Lord Brown affirmed that the determination of content and classification by the foreign court should almost invariably be treated as conclusive.
Switzerland
5A_479/2007/frs, Tribunal fédéral, IIè cour civile, 17 octobre 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953].
The Swiss supreme court held that a finding on custody rights would in principle bind the authorities in the requested State. As regards an Article 15 decision or determination, the court noted that commentators were divided as to the effect in the requested State and it declined to make a finding on the issue.
Practical Implications of Seeking an Article 15 Decision or Determination
Recourse to the Article 15 mechanism will inevitably lead to delay in the conduct of a return petition, particularly should there happen to be an appeal against the original determination by the authorities in the State of habitual residence. See for example:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].
This practical reality has in turn generated a wide range of judicial views.
In Re D. a variety of opinions were canvassed. Lord Carswell affirmed that resort to the procedure should be kept to a minimum. Lord Brown noted that it would only be used on rare occasions. Lord Hope counselled against seeking perfection in ascertaining whether a removal or retention was wrongful, rather a balance had to be struck between acting on too little information and searching for too much. Baroness Hale noted that when a country first acceded to the Convention Article 15 might be useful in cases of doubt to obtain an authoritative ruling on the content and effect of the local law.
New Zealand
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] NZFLR 433 (NZ CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 1018].
The majority in the Court of Appeal, suggested that Article 15 requests should only rarely be made as between Australia and New Zealand, given the similarities of the legal systems.
Alternatives to Seeking an Article 15 Decision or Determination
Whilst courts may simply wish to determine the foreign law in the light of the available information, an alternative is to seek expert evidence. Experience in England and Wales has shown that this is far from fool-proof and does not necessarily result in time being saved, see:
Re F. (A Child) (Abduction: Refusal to Order Summary Return) [2009] EWCA Civ 416, [2009] 2 F.L.R. 1023, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1020].
In the latter case Thorpe L.J. suggested that greater recourse could be made to the European Judicial Network, through the International Family Law Office at the Royal Courts of Justice. Pragmatic advice could be offered as to the best route to follow in a particular case: whether to go for a single joint expert; whether to go for an Article 15 decision or determination; or whether to go for an opinion from the liaison judge as to the law of his own country, an opinion that would not be binding but which would perhaps help the parties and the trial court to see the weight, or want of weight, in the challenge to the plaintiff's ability to cross the Article 3 threshold.
Brussels II a Regulation
The application of the 1980 Hague Convention within the Member States of the European Union (Denmark excepted) has been amended following the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, see:
Affaire C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] ECR I 5271 [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 987];
Affaire C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1327].
The Hague Convention remains the primary tool to combat child abductions within the European Union but its operation has been fine tuned.
An autonomous EU definition of ‘rights of custody' has been adopted: Article 2(9) of the Brussels II a Regulation, which is essentially the same as that found in Article 5 a) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. There is equally an EU formula for determining the wrongfulness of a removal or retention: Article 2(11) of the Regulation. The latter embodies the key elements of Article 3 of the Convention, but adds an explanation as to the joint exercise of custody rights, an explanation which accords with international case law.
See: Case C-400/10 PPU J Mc.B. v. L.E, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].
Of greater significance is Article 11 of the Brussels II a Regulation.
Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires that when applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention that the child is given the opportunity to be heard during the proceedings, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or degree of maturity.
This obligation has led to a realignment in judicial practice in England, see:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880] where Baroness Hale noted that the reform would lead to children being heard more frequently in Hague cases than had hitherto happened.
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 of Appeal endorsed the suggestion by Baroness Hale that the requirement under the Brussels II a Regulation to ascertain the views of children of sufficient age of maturity was not restricted to intra-European Community cases of child abduction, but was a principle of universal application.
Article 11(3) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires Convention proceedings to be dealt with within 6 weeks.
Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 931]
Thorpe LJ held that this extended to appeal hearings and as such recommended that applications for permission to appeal should be made directly to the trial judge and that the normal 21 day period for lodging a notice of appeal should be restricted.
Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation provides that the return of a child cannot be refused under Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his return.
Cases in which reliance has been placed on Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation to make a return order include:
France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947];
CA Paris 15 février 2007 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 979].
The relevant protection was found not to exist, leading to a non-return order being made, in:
CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 717].
The most notable element of Article 11 is the new mechanism which is now applied where a non-return order is made on the basis of Article 13. This allows the authorities in the State of the child's habitual residence to rule on whether the child should be sent back notwithstanding the non-return order. If a subsequent return order is made under Article 11(7) of the Regulation, and is certified by the issuing judge, then it will be automatically enforceable in the State of refuge and all other EU-Member States.
Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Granted:
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [2007] 1 FLR 1923 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 883]
Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Refused:
Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 930].
The CJEU has ruled that a subsequent return order does not have to be a final order for custody:
Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1328].
In this case it was further held that the enforcement of a return order cannot be refused as a result of a change of circumstances. Such a change must be raised before the competent court in the Member State of origin.
Furthermore abducting parents may not seek to subvert the deterrent effect of Council Regulation 2201/2003 in seeking to obtain provisional measures to prevent the enforcement of a custody order aimed at securing the return of an abducted child:
Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].
For academic commentary on the new EU regime see:
P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.
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.
Nature of Removal and Retention
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
Hechos
El caso es acerca de un niño que nació en Inglaterra en agosto de 2009, hijo de una madre francesa del departamento de ultramar de la isla Reunión y de un padre británico. Los padres no estaban casados y se separaron una semana después del nacimiento del niño. El 7 de octubre de 2009, la madre se llevó al niño a la isla Reunión. En ese momento, el padre no tenía derecho a la tenencia del niño en virtud de la legislación inglesa.
El viernes 9 de octubre de 2009, tras enterarse de la partida del niño, el padre presentó una solicitud telefónicamente al juez de turno del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Inglaterra, que dictó inmediatamente una orden de localización. El 12 de octubre, el padre presentó, entre otras, solicitudes de responsabilidad parental, residencia compartida y derecho de visita. Ese mismo día, el Tribunal Superior dictó una orden en la que se exigía a la madre que devolviera al niño a Inglaterra. No se notificó la solicitud a la madre y, por tanto, esta no estuvo presente ni representada.
Posteriormente, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) consideró que las autoridades judiciales inglesas se encontraban en situación de embargo a efectos del artículo 16 del Reglamento Bruselas II a (Reglamento (CE) N.º 2201/2003 del Consejo de 27 de noviembre de 2003) con fecha no posterior al 12 de octubre de 2009. El 28 de octubre de 2009, la madre presentó una demanda de responsabilidad parental exclusiva en la isla Reunión.
El 18 de diciembre de 2009, el padre presentó en Reunión una solicitud de restitución del niño en virtud del Convenio de La Haya de 1980. El 15 de marzo de 2010 se desestimó esta solicitud ya que no tenía derecho a la tenencia.
La causa inglesa del padre llegó a juicio en abril de 2010. El 15 de abril, el Tribunal Superior de Justicia declaró: que se había apoderado de la niña cuando el padre llamó por teléfono al juez de turno; a partir de ese momento, tenía derechos de tenencia de la niña; que el padre también adquirió tales derechos, al haberse dictado órdenes a su favor y que la niña seguía teniendo su residencia habitual en Inglaterra en el momento en que el tribunal y el padre adquirieron los derechos de tenencia.
Posteriormente, el padre excedió el plazo para apelar la desestimación de su solicitud de restitución en virtud del Convenio. El 23 de junio de 2010 se concedió a la madre la responsabilidad parental exclusiva en el proceso de la isla Reunión. El 12 de julio de 2010, la madre interpuso un recurso de apelación contra las decisiones del Tribunal Superior. El 8 de octubre de 2010, el Tribunal de Segunda Instancia dictó un auto en el que solicitaba al TJUE que resolviera varias cuestiones prejudiciales. Esto fue en el marco del mecanismo de la vía rápida PPU, por sus siglas en francés (procédure préjudicielle d'urgence).
El TJUE sostuvo que:
"1. El concepto de ‘residencia habitual’, a efectos de los artículos 8 y 10 del Reglamento (CE) N.º 2201/2003 del Consejo de 27 de noviembre de 2003, relativo a la competencia, el reconocimiento y al cumplimiento de las resoluciones judiciales en materia matrimonial y de responsabilidad parental, por el que se deroga el Reglamento (CE) N.º 1347/2000, debe interpretarse en el sentido según el cual esa residencia corresponde al lugar que refleja cierto grado de integración del niño en un entorno social y familiar.
A tal efecto, cuando la situación en cuestión concierne a un lactante que ha permanecido con su madre solo algunos días en un Estado miembro (distinto del de su residencia habitual) al que fue trasladado, se deben considerar los siguientes elementos: por una parte, la duración, la regularidad, las condiciones y los motivos de la permanencia en el territorio de ese Estado miembro y del traslado de la madre a ese Estado y, por otra parte, sobre todo la edad del niño, los orígenes geográficos y familiares de la madre y los vínculos familiares y sociales que la madre y el niño tienen en ese Estado miembro.
Corresponde al órgano jurisdiccional nacional determinar la residencia habitual del niño, en función de todas las circunstancias de hecho propias de cada caso concreto. Si la aplicación de los citados criterios llevara, en el caso del proceso principal, a la conclusión de que no puede establecerse la residencia habitual del niño, habría que determinar cuál es el órgano jurisdiccional competente sobre la base del criterio de la comparecencia del niño, en virtud del artículo 13 del Reglamento.
2. Las resoluciones de un órgano jurisdiccional de un Estado miembro por las que se deniega la restitución sin demora de un niño, en virtud del Convenio de La Haya de 25 de octubre de 1980 sobre los aspectos civiles de la sustracción internacional de menores, a la competencia de un órgano jurisdiccional de otro Estado miembro, y que se refieren a la responsabilidad parental de dicho niño, no tienen efecto sobre las resoluciones que deben dictarse en ese otro Estado miembro en el marco de un proceso relativo a la responsabilidad parental que se haya iniciado con anterioridad y que siga pendiente en ese otro Estado miembro."
En vista de la decisión prejudicial, el Tribunal de Segunda Instancia examinó la apelación de la madre.
Fallo
Se concedió la apelación y se ordenó la transferencia del proceso a Francia en virtud del Artículo 15 del Reglamento Bruselas II a (Reglamento (CE) N.º 2201/2003 del Consejo de 27 de noviembre de 2003).
Fundamentos
Residencia habitual - art. 3
En nombre de la madre se alegó que el juez de primera instancia había aplicado un criterio erróneo al determinar la residencia habitual del niño, concretamente al basarse en la autoridad de la Cámara de los Lores y no en la jurisprudencia del TJUE. El Tribunal de Segunda Instancia desestimó este argumento.
Thorpe L.J. sostuvo que era irrelevante que el juez de primera instancia se hubiera basado en la fecha del 9 de octubre en lugar de la del 12 de octubre. Además, aunque el juez de primera instancia no se había referido explícitamente a la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia, se consideró que había seguido un razonamiento válido, al haber tenido en cuenta las consideraciones señaladas por las dos decisiones del Tribunal Europeo sobre la residencia habitual de los niños.
Sin embargo, Thorpe L.J. cuestionó la aseveración del juez de primera instancia de que la madre debía demostrar no solo la pérdida de la residencia habitual inglesa del niño, sino la adquisición de una residencia habitual en Francia. Thorpe L.J. señaló (párrafo 51): "el abandono de la residencia habitual en el Estado A puede dejar al niño en un estado de limbo durante un período considerable antes de que se adquiera la residencia habitual en otro Estado".
No obstante, este desacuerdo no repercutió en la cuestión de la residencia habitual del niño a mediados de octubre, que seguía estando en Inglaterra y Gales.
Traslado y retención - arts. 3 y 12
El Tribunal de Segunda Instancia aceptó el criterio anterior de que un traslado legítimo podía convertirse en una retención ilícita si no se cumplía una orden de restitución dictada por el tribunal de la residencia habitual del niño.
Sin embargo, Thorpe L.J. sostuvo que los jueces de primera instancia que intervinieron en la solicitud se habían equivocado al tratar instintivamente este caso como uno de sustracción de menores. Señaló (párrafo 57): " Independientemente de la responsabilidad moral de la madre, el 7 de octubre ejerció su derecho a la libertad de desplazamiento con su bebé. No existía ninguna restricción a su derecho de traslado".
Decisión o certificación según el artículo 15
En el proceso del Tribunal Superior del 15 de abril de 2010, el juez de primera instancia tomó una decisión o determinación en virtud del artículo 15 de que las acciones de la madre eran ilícitas. En base a la autoridad anterior de A. v. B. (Abduction: Rights of Custody: Declaration of Wrongful Removal) [2008] EWHC 2524 (Fam.); [2009] 1 F.L.R. 1253 [Referencia en INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 1056] el juez de primera instancia sostuvo que tenía la autoridad y que de hecho era necesario que un tribunal inglés fuera competente, para hacer tal declaración en ausencia de una solicitud expresa de un tribunal extranjero cuando un padre había retirado a un niño unilateralmente de la jurisdicción.
El panel del Tribunal de Segunda Instancia criticó las acciones del juez de primera instancia al respecto. Al hacerlo, ambos miembros del Tribunal llamaron la atención sobre el hecho de que la solicitud de restitución del Convenio ya había sido desestimada por el tribunal francés cuando se hizo la declaración, y existía la posibilidad de apelar la orden francesa.
Además, las autoridades francesas no habían presentado ninguna solicitud de declaración. Thorpe L.J. sostuvo que (párrafo 63): "por una cuestión de cortesía y de colaboración de los tribunales de la Unión Europea, el juez de Londres tenía la obligación de apoyar las resoluciones adecuadas del tribunal francés o, al menos, abstenerse de entrar en una estrategia de litigio para socavar la orden".
Cuestiones procesales
Thorpe L.J. sostuvo que debería haber fluido la comunicación entre los jueces de primera instancia correspondientes para discutir la cuestión de la jurisdicción.
Reglamento Bruselas II bis Reglamento (CE) No 2201/2003 del Consejo
Al conceder la apelación, Thorpe L.J. trató de establecer una distinción entre las diferentes solicitudes que había presentado el padre. Sostuvo que el proceso de octubre ya no estaba activo en el momento en que el padre había emitido su citación originaria en la tutela el 26 de enero de 2010. En esta última fecha, el niño ya no tenía su residencia habitual en Inglaterra y Gales.
Además, la solicitud de la madre en Isla Reunión, el 28 de octubre, probablemente había llegado primero a los tribunales franceses a efectos de la norma de litispendencia del artículo 19 del Reglamento (CE) N.º 2201/2003 del Consejo. El otro miembro de la sala del Tribunal de Segunda Instancia, Elias L.J., se mostró en contra de este razonamiento (párrafo 98): "tengo dudas de que la forma en que se tramitó el caso del padre desde el punto de vista del proceso deba determinar la cuestión del artículo 19".
Sostuvo que centrarse en la evolución procesal del caso era excesivamente formalista. Asimismo, agregó: "me parece que hay un sólido fundamento para afirmar que el Estado que conoció primero del litigio debe determinar la cuestión de la competencia independientemente de la naturaleza específica de las solicitudes presentadas en los tribunales nacionales, siempre que, al menos, el tribunal esté tratando en todo momento el mismo litigio subyacente."
Sin embargo, ambos miembros del Tribunal de Segunda Instancia estuvieron de acuerdo en que el juez de primera instancia debería haber ejercido su facultad discrecional en virtud del artículo 15 del Reglamento (CE) N.º 2201/2003 del Consejo para transferir la competencia a los tribunales franceses.
Comentario INCADAT
Declaración del artículo 15
Preparación del análisis de jurisprudencia de INCADAT en curso.
Reglamento Bruselas II bis
La aplicación del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 entre los Estados Miembro de la Unión Europea (excepto Dinamarca) ha sido reformada como consecuencia de la entrada en vigor del Reglamento del Consejo (CE) N° 2201/2003 de 27 de noviembre de 2003 relativo a la competencia y el reconocimiento y la ejecución de sentencias en materia de matrimonio y responsabilidad parental, que revocara el Reglamento (CE) N° 1347/2000, ver:
Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/ 987];
Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].
El Convenio de la Haya continúa siendo la herramienta primaria para combatir las sustracciones de menores dentro de la Unión Europea pero su funcionamiento ha sido finamente ajustado.
El Artículo 11(2) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis exige que cuando se apliquen los Artículos 12 y 13 del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 se le otorgue al menor la oportunidad de ser oído durante el proceso, excepto que esto parezca inadecuado teniendo en cuenta su edad o grado de madurez.
Esta obligación ha llevado a un realineamiento de la práctica judicial en Inglaterra, ver:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 880] donde la Baronesa Hale observó que la reforma llevaría a que se oyera a los menores con mayor frecuencia en los casos en virtud del Convenio de La Haya de la que había ocurrido hasta ese entonces.
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 901]
El Tribunal de Apelaciones reafirmó la sugerencia de la Baronesa Hale de que el requerimiento establecido por el Reglamento de Bruselas II de averiguar la opinión de los niños de edad y madurez suficiente no estaba restringido a los casos de sustracción de niños de la Comunidad Europea, sino que era un principio de aplicación universal.
El Artículo 11(3) del Reglamento de Bruselas II a requiere que los procedimientos se lleven a cabo dentro de las 6 semanas.
Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 931].
Thorpe LJ sostuvo que esto se extendía a las audiencias de apelación y en tal sentido recomendó que las solicitudes de apelación fueran realizadas directamente ante el juez de primera instancia y que se restringiera el período habitual de 21 días para correr el traslado de la apelación.
El Artículo 11(4) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis dispone que no se puede denegar la restitución de un menor en virtud del Artículo 13(1) b) del Convenio de la Haya si se establece que se han realizado arreglos adecuados a fin de asegurar la protección del menor después de su restitución.
Entre los casos en los que se ha invocado el Artículo 11(4) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis para expedir una orden de restitución se encuentran los siguientes:
Francia
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 947]
CA Paris 15 février 2007 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 979]
Se entendió que no existía protección relevante, lo que condujo a que se decidiera una orden de no restitución, en:
CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 717].
El elemento más notorio del Artículo 11 es el nuevo mecanismo que se aplica actualmente cuando se expide una orden de no restitución sobre la base del Artículo 13. Esto permite a las autoridades del Estado de residencia habitual del menor resolver si el menor debería ser enviado de regreso a pesar de la orden de no restitución. Si se expide una orden de restitución posterior en virtud del Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento, y el juez que la expide la certifica, entonces será automáticamente ejecutable en el Estado de refugio y todos los demás Estados Miembro de la CE.
Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Orden de Restitución Otorgada:
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 883]
Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Orden de Restitución Denegada:
Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 930]
Para comentarios académicos respecto del nuevo régimen de la UE, ver:
P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.
Residencia habitual
La interpretación del concepto central de residencia habitual (Preámbulo, art. 3, art. 4) ha demostrado ser cada vez más problemática en años recientes con interpretaciones divergentes que surgen de distintos Estados contratantes. No hay uniformidad respecto de si al momento de determinar la residencia habitual el énfasis debe estar sobre el niño exclusivamente, prestando atención a las intenciones de las personas a cargo del cuidado del menor, o si debe estar primordialmente en las intenciones de las personas a cargo del cuidado del menor. Al menos en parte como resultado, la residencia habitual puede parecer constituir un factor de conexión muy flexible en algunos Estados contratantes y mucho más rígido y reflejo de la residencia a largo plazo en otros.
La valoración de la interpretación de residencia habitual se torna aún más complicada por el hecho de que los casos que se concentran en el concepto pueden involucrar situaciones fácticas muy diversas. A modo de ejemplo, la residencia habitual puede tener que considerarse como consecuencia de una mudanza permanente, o una mudanza más tentativa, aunque tenga una duración indefinida o potencialmente indefinida, o la mudanza pueda ser, de hecho, por un plazo de tiempo definido.
Tendencias generales:
La jurisprudencia de los tribunales federales de apelación de los Estados Unidos de América puede tomarse como ejemplo de la amplia gama de interpretaciones existentes en lo que respecta a la residencia habitual.
Enfoque centrado en el menor
El Tribunal Federal de Apelaciones de los Estados Unidos de América del 6º Circuito ha apoyado firmemente el enfoque centrado en el menor en la determinación de la residencia habitual.
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F. 2d 1396, 125 ALR Fed. 703 (6th Cir. 1993), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/Ee/USF 142];
Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/US 935].
Veáse también:
Villalta v. Massie, No. 4:99cv312-RH (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 1999) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 221].
Enfoque combinado: conexión del menor / intención de los padres
Los Tribunales Federales de Apelaciones de los Estados Unidos de América de los 3º y 8º Circuitos han adoptado un enfoque centrado en el menor pero que igualmente tiene en cuenta las intenciones compartidas de los padres.
El fallo clave es el del caso: Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 83].
Veánse también:
Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003), [Referencai INCADAT: HC/E/USf 530];
Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2006), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 879].
En este último asunto se estableció una distinción entre las situaciones que involucran a niños muy pequeños, en las cuales se atribuye especial importancia a las intenciones de los padres (véase por ejemplo: Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 808]) y aquellas que involucran a niños más mayores, donde el impacto de las intenciones de los padres ya es más limitado.
Enfoque centrado en la intención de los padres
El fallo del Tribunal Federal de Apelaciones de los Estados Unidos de América del 9º Circuito en Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 301] ha sido altamente influyente al disponer que, por lo general, debería haber una intención establecida de abandonar una residencia habitual antes de que un menor pueda adquirir una nueva.
Esta interpretación ha sido adoptada y desarrollada en otras sentencias de tribunales federales de apelación, de modo tal que la ausencia de intención compartida de los padres respecto del objeto de la mudanza derivó en la conservación de la residencia habitual vigente, aunque el menor hubiera estado fuera de dicho Estado durante un período de tiempo extenso. Véanse por ejemplo:
Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 2004) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 777]: Conservación de la residencia habitual en los Estados Unidos luego de 8 meses de una estadía intencional de cuatro años en Alemania;
Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247, 1253 (11th Cir. 2004) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 780]: Conservación de la residencia habitual en los Estados Unidos durante una estadía de 32 meses en México;
Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 176 F. Supp.2d 1045 (E.D. Wash. 2001), [Referencai INCADAT: HC/E/USf 482]: conservación de la residencia habitual en los Estados Unidos durante una estadía de 27 meses en Grecia;
El enfoque en el asunto Mozes ha sido aprobado asimismo por el Tribunal Federal de Apelaciones de los Circuitos 2º y 7º:
Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2005), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 776];
Koch v. Koch, 450 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.2006), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 878].
Con respecto al enfoque aplicado en el asunto Mozes, cabe destacar que el 9º Circuito sí reconoció que, con tiempo suficiente y una experiencia positiva, la vida de un menor podría integrarse tan firmemente en el nuevo país de manera de pasar a tener residencia habitual allí sin perjuicio de las intenciones en contrario que pudieren tener los padres.
Otros Estados
Hay diferencias en los enfoques que adoptan otros Estados.
Austria
La Corte Suprema de Austria ha establecido que un periodo de residencia superior a seis meses en un Estado será considerado generalmente residencia habitual, aún en el caso en que sea contra la voluntad de la persona que se encarga del cuidado del niño (ya que se trata de una determinación fáctica del centro de su vida).
8Ob121/03g, Oberster Gerichtshof [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AT 548].
Canadá
En la Provincia de Quebec se adopta un enfoque centrado en el menor:
En el asunto Droit de la famille 3713, N° 500-09-010031-003 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 651], el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Montreal sostuvo que la determinación de la residencia habitual de un menor es una cuestión puramente fáctica que debe resolverse a la luz de las circunstancias del caso, teniendo en cuenta la realidad de la vida del menor, más que a la de sus padres. El plazo de residencia efectiva debe ser por un período de tiempo significativo e ininterrumpido y el menor debe tener un vínculo real y activo con el lugar. Sin embargo, no se establece un período de residencia mínimo.
Alemania
En la jurisprudencia alemana se evidencia asimismo un enfoque fáctico centrado en la vida del menor:
2 UF 115/02, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 944].
Esto condujo a que el Tribunal Federal Constitucional aceptara que la residencia habitual se puede adquirir sin perjuicio de que el niño haya sido trasladado de forma ilícita al nuevo Estado de residencia:
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 1206/98, 29. Oktober 1998 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 233].
El Tribunal Constitucional confirmó la decisión del Tribunal Regional de Apelaciones por la que se estableció que los niños habían adquirido residencia habitual en Francia, sin perjuicio de la naturaleza de su traslado a ese lugar. La fundamentación consistió en que la residencia habitual es un concepto fáctico y que durante los nueve meses que estuvieron allí, los niños se integraron al entorno local.
Israel
En este país se adoptaron enfoques alternativos para determinar la residencia habitual del niño. Algunas veces se ha puesto bastante atención en las intenciones de los padres. Véanse:
Family Appeal 1026/05 Ploni v. Almonit [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/Il 865];
Family Application 042721/06 G.K. v Y.K. [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/Il 939].
No obstante, en otros casos se ha hecho referencia a un enfoque más centrado en el menor. Véase:
decisión de la Corte Suprema en C.A. 7206/03, Gabai v. Gabai, P.D. 51(2)241;
FamA 130/08 H v H [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/Il 922].
Nueva Zelanda
Asimismo, cabe destacar que, a diferencia del enfoque adoptado en Mozes, la mayoría de los miembros del Tribunal de Apelaciones de Nueva Zelanda rechazó expresamente la idea de que para adquirir una nueva residencia habitual se deba tener una intención establecida de abandonar la residencia habitual vigente. Véase:
S.K. v K.P. [2005] 3 NZLR 590, [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/NZ 816].
Suiza
En la jurisprudencia suiza se puede ver un enfoque fáctico centrado en la vida del menor:
5P.367/2005/ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 841].
Reino Unido
El enfoque estándar consiste en considerar la intención establecida de las personas que se encargan del cuidado del menor en consonancia con la realidad fáctica de la vida de aquel.
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) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 2].
Para una opinión doctrinaria acerca de los diferentes enfoques sobre el concepto de residencia habitual en los países del common law, véanse:
R. Schuz, Habitual Residence of Children under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Theory and Practice, Child and Family Law Quarterly Vol 13 1 (2001) 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, 101 (2001).
Carácter del traslado y retención
En curso de elaboración.