CASE

No full text available

Case Name

CA Paris, 11 décembre 2012, No de RG 12/13919

INCADAT reference

HC/E/FR 1186

Court

Country

FRANCE

Name

Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 1, chambre 1

Level

Appellate Court

Judge(s)
Acquaviva (président); Chadeville (présidente, magistrat déléguée à la protection de l'enfance), Guihal (conseillère)

States involved

Requesting State

SPAIN

Requested State

FRANCE

Decision

Date

11 December 2012

Status

Subject to appeal

Grounds

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Order

Appeal allowed, return refused

HC article(s) Considered

12

HC article(s) Relied Upon

12

Other provisions
Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
Authorities | Cases referred to

-

Published in

-

INCADAT comment

Exceptions to Return

Settlement of the child
Settlement of the Child
Commencement of Convention Proceedings

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | FR | ES

Facts

The case concerned a child born in 2007 in Spain to married parents. The child had lived in Spain with its Moroccan mother and Italian father since birth and until 2010. In February 2010, the mother took the child to Morocco to introduce it to her family, then, in August 2010, she moved to France without the father's consent.

On 11 May 2012, the French Public Prosecutor's Office brought action against the mother for a return of the child to Spain. On 21 June 2012, a court at first instance found that the removal had been wrongful and ordered the child's return to Spain. The mother appealed against that decision.

Ruling

Appeal allowed, return refused. The child was settled in its new environment.

Grounds

Rights of Custody - Art. 3


The Court of Appeal found that the mother had travelled to France without the father's consent and that no court ruling had organised the spouses' separation. It concluded accordingly that the child's removal was wrongful, and pointed out that the mother did not deny it.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)


The Court of Appeal noted that in accordance with Article 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, "if more than a year has elapsed between the removal [...] and the commencement of proceedings before the judicial authority of the State where the child is, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment".

It stated that it was demonstrated that the mother had expressed her intent to retain the child in France against the father's wishes no later than November 2010. Yet return proceedings against her had commenced only in May 2012. The Court of Appeal deduced that Article 12 should be applied, "regardless of the date when [the father had] applied to the Spanish authorities".

The Court of Appeal added that it was demonstrated that the child had been registered in kindergarten in France since the beginning of the school year in 2010, that it was involved in extra-curricular activities locally, spoke French without difficulty, had friends and seemed well-balanced and thriving in its new environment. The Court of Appeal accordingly considered that it had settled in its new environment.

Author of the summary: Aude Fiorini

INCADAT comment

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.

Commencement of Convention Proceedings

For the purposes of Art 12(1) the obligation on Contracting States to return children ‘forthwith' exists where less than 12 months has elapsed between the wrongful removal / retention and ‘the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority' in the Contracting State of refuge.

Courts in several Contracting States have considered the issue of the precise date of the commencement of such proceedings and have concluded that it is not enough for the purposes of Article 12(1) for the return application to have been filed with the relevant Central Authority in the State of refuge, rather civil return proceedings must have been initiated.  In this it has been noted that the reference to administrative authorities in Art 12 refers to States where administrative tribunals have jurisdiction for return petitions.

Canada
V.B.M. v. D.L.J. [2004] N.J. No. 321; 2004 NLCA 56 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 592].

United States of America
Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F. Supp. 413 (E.D. Mich. 1997) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 105].

The issue has been accepted without argument in both England & Wales and Scotland:

Re M. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1996] 1 FLR 315, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 21];

Perrin v. Perrin 1994 SC 45, 1995 SLT 81, 1993 SCLR 949, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 108].