Case Law Search

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).

Article 13(2) does not include a minimum age from which the objections of a child must be ascertained, rather it employs the formula that the child must have ‘attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.'  Nevertheless it was the intention of the drafters that the exception would be primarily directed towards teenagers who were not prepared to go back to their home State.

Undoubtedly influenced by domestic family law practice, different patterns emerged in Contracting States as to the manner in which this exception has been applied.  Moreover those patterns may have evolved in jurisdictions during the life span of the application of the Convention, particularly as greater recognition has been paid to children as legal actors in their own right.  Indeed in the European Union, at least as regards intra-EU abductions, there is now an obligation that a child is given an opportunity to be heard, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or maturity: Council Regulation 2201/2003, Art. 11(2).

The issue of age and maturity is also closely inter-related with the threshold applied to the exception, that is to say the criteria used to determine the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to take a child's objections into account, see for example: Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FLR 192 [INCADAT cite HC/E/UKe 270]; Zaffino v. Zaffino [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite HC/E/UKe 813]; W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805]; White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].

Australia

H.Z. v. State Central Authority [2006] Fam CA 466, INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 876] 

8 year old expressed objections which went beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes, however, in the light of her age and degree of maturity it would not be appropriate to take account of her views.

Director-General, Department of Families, Youth and Community Care v. Thorpe (1997) FLC 92-785 INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 212]

Objections of 9 year old upheld

Germany

4 UF 223/98, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 820]

No fixed age limit.  The 8 year old concerned lacked sufficient maturity.

93 F 178/98 HK, Familengericht Flensburg (Family Court), 18 September 1998, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 325]

Objections of 6 year old gathered, but not upheld. 

Ireland

In the Matter of M. N. (A Child) [2008] IEHC 382, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 992] 

Detailed assessment of the age at which the views of a child should be heard in the light of Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).  Order made that the views of a 6 year old be ascertained.

New Zealand

U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529, INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 472] 

Objections of 7 year old considered, but not upheld.

Switzerland

5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795] 

No minimum age.  Children aged 9 1/2 and 10 ½ heard, but their objections were not upheld.

5P.3/2007 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 894] 

A child would have the requisite maturity if he was able to understand the nature of the return proceedings. It was not possible to give general guidance as to the minimum age from which a child would be able to deal with such an abstract issue. The Court noted however that research in the field of child psychology suggested a child would only be capable of such reasoning from the age of 11 or 12.  The court of appeal had therefore been entitled not to gather the views of children, then aged 9 and 7.

United Kingdom - England & Wales

Re W (Minors) [2010] EWCA 520 Civ, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 1324] 

Objections of siblings aged 8 and almost 6 upheld.

The Court accepted that the objections of a child of 6 falling within the exception would have been outside the contemplation of the drafters.  However, Wilson L.J. held that: "...over the last thirty years the need to take decisions about much younger children not necessarily in accordance with their wishes but at any rate in the light of their wishes has taken hold... ."

United Kingdom - Scotland

N.J.C. v. N.P.C. [2008] CSIH 34, 2008 S.C. 571, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 996] 

Views of 9 ½ year old not gathered; objections of her 15 and 11 year old siblings not upheld.

W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805]

9 year old not of sufficient maturity to have her views considered - decision of trial judge reversed.

United States

Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 585]

No minimum age at which objections of a child can be ascertained.  Objections of 8 year old, within the context of an Art. 13(1)b) assessment, upheld.

Escobar v. Flores 183 Cal. App. 4th 737 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 1026]

No minimum age at which objections of a child can be ascertained.  Objections of 8 year old upheld.

Courts applying Article 13(2) have recognised that it is essential to determine whether the objections of the child concerned have been influenced by the abducting parent. 

Courts in a variety of Contracting States have dismissed claims under Article 13(2) where it is apparent that the child is not expressing personally formed views, see in particular:

Australia
Director General of the Department of Community Services v. N., 19 August 1994, transcript, Family Court of Australia (Sydney) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 231];

Canada
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 754];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 87].

Although not at issue in the case, the Court of Appeal affirmed that little or no weight should be given to objections if the child had been influenced by the abducting parent or some other person.

Finland
Court of Appeal of Helsinki: No. 2933 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FI 863];

France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947].
 
The Court of Appeal of Bordeaux limited the weight to be placed on the objections of the children on the basis that before being interviewed they had had no contact with the applicant parent and had spent a long period of time with the abducting parent. Moreover the allegations of the children had already been considered by the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence.

Germany
4 UF 223/98, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 820];

Hungary
Mezei v. Bíró 23.P.500023/98/5. (27. 03. 1998, Central District Court of Budapest; First Instance); 50.Pkf.23.732/1998/2. 16. 06. 1998., (Capital Court as Appellate Court) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/HU 329];

Israel
Appl. App. Dist. Ct. 672/06, Supreme Court 15 October 2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 885];

United Kingdom - Scotland
A.Q. v. J.Q., 12 December 2001, transcript, Outer House of the Court of Session (Scotland) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 415];

Spain
Auto Audiencia Provincial Nº 133/2006 Pontevedra (Sección 1ª), Recurso de apelación Nº 473/2006 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 887];

Restitución de Menores 534/1997 AA [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 908].

Switzerland
The highest Swiss court has held that the views of children could never be entirely independent; therefore a distinction had to be made between a manipulated objection and an objection, which whilst not entirely autonomous, nevertheless merited consideration, see:

5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795].

United States of America
Robinson v. Robinson, 983 F. Supp. 1339 (D. Colo. 1997) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 128].

In this case the District Court held that it would be unrealistic to expect a caring parent not to influence the child's preference to some extent, therefore the issue to be ascertained was whether the influence was undue.

It has been held in two cases that evidence of parental influence should not be accepted as a justification for not ascertaining the views of children who would otherwise be heard, see:

Germany
2 BvR 1206/98, Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 233];

New Zealand
Winters v. Cowen [2002] NZFLR 927 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 473].

Equally parental influence may not have a material impact on the child's views, see:

United Kingdom - England & Wales
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 did not dismiss the suggestion that the child's views may have been influenced or coloured by immersion in an atmosphere of hostility towards the applicant father, but it was not prepared to give much weight to such suggestions.

In an Israeli case the court found that the child had been brainwashed by his mother and held that his views should therefore be given little weight. Nevertheless, the Court also held that the extreme nature of the child's reactions to the proposed return, which included the threat of suicide, could not be ignored.  The court concluded that the child would face a grave risk of harm if sent back, see:

Family Appeal 1169/99 R. v. L. [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 834].

Where it is established that a child objects to a return and he is of sufficient age and maturity at which it is appropriate to take his views into account, then the Court seised of the case will have a discretion whether or not to make a return order.

Different approaches have been espoused as to the manner in which this discretion should be exercised and the relevant factors that should be taken into consideration.

Australia 
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 904]

The appellate court found that the trial judge had erred in ruling that there had to be 'clear and compelling' reasons to frustrate the objectives of the Convention. The Court recalled that there were permitted exceptions to a mandatory return and where established these exceptions gave rise to a discretion. The relevant factors in the exercise of that discretion would vary according to each case, but would include giving significant weight to the objectives of the Convention in appropriate cases.

United Kingdom - England & Wales
The exercise of the discretion has caused difficulty for the Court of Appeal, in particular the factors to be considered and the weight to be accorded to them.

In the first key case: 

Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 87]

The Court of Appeal held that a court's discretion to refuse the immediate return of a child must be exercised with regard to the overall approach of the Convention, i.e. a child's best interests are furthered by a prompt return, unless there are exceptional circumstances for ordering otherwise.

In Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 60] contrasting views were put forward by two members of the panel.

Balcombe L.J., who was content for there to be a relatively flexible approach to the gateway findings of age and objection, held that the weight to be given to objections would vary with the age of the child, but the policy of the Convention would always be a very weighty factor.

Millet L.J., who advocated a stricter interpretation of the gateway filters, held that if it was appropriate to consider the views of a child then those views should prevail unless there were countervailing factors, which would include the policy of the Convention.

The third member of the panel gave his support to the interpretation of Balcombe L.J.

In Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 270] Ward L.J. took up the interpretation of Millett L.J.

The reasoning of Re. T. was implicitly accepted by a differently constituted Court of Appeal in:

Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428, [2004] 2 FLR 64 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 579].

However, it was rejected in Zaffino v. Zaffino (Abduction: Children's Views) [2005] EWCA Civ 1012; [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 813].

The correct approach to the exercise of judicial discretion in England is now clearly that advanced by Balcombe L.J.

In Zaffino v. Zaffino the Court also held that regard could be paid to welfare considerations in the exercise of the discretion.  In that case, welfare considerations militated in favour of a return.

In Vigreux v. Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630, [2006] 2 FLR 1180 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 829] the Court of Appeal considered how discretion should be exercised in a case governed by the Brussels II a Regulation.  It held that the aims and policy of the Regulation had to be considered in addition to the policy of the Convention.

In Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 901] the Court gave a general consideration to welfare considerations in deciding not to order the return of the 8 year old girl concerned.

The Court also appeared to accept an obiter comment raised in Vigreux v. Michel that there had to be an ‘exceptional' dimension to a case before a Court might consider exercising its discretion against a return order.

Exceptionality was raised in Nyachowe v. Fielder [2007] EWCA Civ 1129, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 964].  There a return order was made notwithstanding the strong objections of an independent 12 year old.  Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the girl had come for a 2 week vacation.

In Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288  [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 937] the House of Lords affirmed that it was wrong to import any test of exceptionality into the exercise of discretion under the Hague Convention. The circumstances in which a return may be refused were themselves exceptions to the general rule. That in itself was sufficient exceptionality. It was neither necessary nor desirable to import an additional gloss into the Convention.

Baroness Hale continued that where a discretion arose from the terms of the Convention itself, the discretion was at large.  In Article 13(2) cases the court would have to consider the nature and strength of the child's objections, the extent to which they were authentically the child's own or the product of the influence of the abducting parent, the extent to which they coincided or were at odds with other considerations which were relevant to the child's welfare, as well as general Convention considerations. The older the child, the greater the weight that objections would likely carry.

New Zealand
The Balcombe / Millett interpretations gave rise to contrasting High Court judgments. The Court of Appeal however voiced its preference for the Balcombe ‘shades of grey' approach in:

White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].

United Kingdom - Scotland
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 963]

When exercising his discretion to make a return order, the trial judge noted that a return order should not be refused unless there were sound reasons for not giving effect to the objects of the Convention.  This was upheld on appeal.  The Inner House of the Court of Session further held that the existence of the Article 13 exceptions did not negate or eliminate the general policy of the Convention that wrongfully removed children should be returned.

Singh v. Singh 1998 SC 68 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 197]

The Court held that the welfare of the child was a general factor which should be taken into account in the exercise of discretion. A court should not limit itself to a consideration of the child's objection and the reasons for it. Nevertheless, the court held that a rule could not be laid down as to whether a child's welfare should be considered broadly or in detail; this was a matter within the discretion of the court concerned.

In W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805] the Inner House held that a balancing exercise had to be carried out, and one of the factors in favour of return was the spirit and purpose of the Convention to allow the court of habitual residence to resolve the custody dispute.

United States of America
De Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279, (10th Cir. 2007), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 903].

In upholding the views of a 14 year old boy the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit paid regard to his best interests but not to the policy of the Convention.

France
An appellate court limited the weight to be placed on the objections of the children on the basis that before being interviewed they had had no contact with the applicant parent and had spent a long period of time with the abducting parent. Moreover the allegations of the children had already been considered by the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence:

CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947].

Australia
De L. v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services (1996) FLC 92-706 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 93].

La máxima instancia de Australia (la High Court) adoptó una interpretación literal del término "objeción". Sin embargo, una reforma legislativa cambió la interpretacion posteriormente. Véase:

Art. 111B(1B) de la Ley de Derecho de Familia de 1975 (Family Law Act 1975) incorporada por la Ley de Reforma de Derecho de Familia de 2000 (Family Law Amendment Act 2000).

El artículo 13(2), incorporado al derecho australiano mediante la reg. 16(3) de las Regulaciones de Derecho de Familia (Sustracción de Menores) de 1989 (Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1989), establece en la actualidad no solo que el menor debe oponerse a la restitución, sino que la objeción debe demostrar un sentimiento fuerte más allá de la mera expresión de una preferencia o simples deseos.

Véanse, por ejemplo:

Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 904].

La cuestión acerca de si un menor debe plantear una objeción expresamente al Estado de residencia habitual no ha sido resuelta. Véase:

Re F. (Hague Convention: Child's Objections) [2006] FamCA 685 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 864].

Austria
9Ob102/03w, Oberster Gerichtshof (tribunal supremo de Austria), 8/10/2003 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AT 549].

Una simple preferencia por el Estado de refugio no basta para constituir una objeción.

Bélgica
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, 27/5/2003 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/BE 546].

Una simple preferencia por el Estado de refugio no basta para constituir una objeción.

Canadá
Crnkovich v. Hortensius, [2009] W.D.F.L. 337, 62 R.F.L. (6th) 351, 2008 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 1028].

Para probar que un menor se opone a la restitución, ha de demostrarse que el menor "expresó un fuerte desacuerdo a regresar al pais de su residencia habitual. Su oposición ha de ser categórica. No puede determinarse simplemente pesando las ventajas y desventajas de los dos Estados en cuestión, como en el caso del análisis de su interés superior. Debe tratarse de algo más fuerte que de una mera expresión de preferencia".

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
En el caso Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 87], el Tribunal de Apelaciones sostuvo que la restitución a la que un menor se opone debe ser una restitución inmediata al país del que fue ilícitamente sustraído. El artículo 13 no contiene disposición alguna que permita considerar si el menor se opone a la restitución en ciertas circunstancias.

En Re M. (A Minor)(Child Abduction) [1994] 1 FLR 390 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 56], se aceptó, sin embargo, que una objeción a la vida con el progenitor solicitante puede distinguirse de una objeción a la vida en el país de origen previo.

En Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 270], Lord Justice Ward planteó una serie de preguntas a fin de ayudar a determinar si es adecuado tener en cuenta las objeciones de un menor.

Estas preguntas fueron respaldadas por el Tribunal de Apelaciones en el marco del caso Re M. (A Child)(Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 901].

Para comentarios académicos ver: P. McEleavy ‘Evaluating the Views of Abducted Children: Trends in Appellate Case Law' [2008] Child and Family Law Quarterly, pp. 230-254.

Francia
Las objeciones basadas exclusivamente en una preferencia por la vida en Francia o la vida con el padre sustractor no fueron admitidas, ver:

CA Grenoble 29/03/2000 M. c. F. [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 274];

TGI Niort 09/01/1995, Procureur de la République c. Y. [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 63].

Reino Unido - Escocia
En el caso Urness v. Minto 1994 SC 249 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs79], se adoptó una interpretación amplia. La Inner House of the Court of Session (tribunal de apelaciones) aceptó que una fuerte preferencia por permanecer con el padre sustractor y por la vida en Escocia implicaba una objeción a la restitución a los Estados Unidos de América.

En W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 805], la Inner House of the Court of Session, que aceptó el criterio inicial de Re T. [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 270], sostuvo que las objeciones relativas a cuestiones de bienestar debían ser tratadas exclusivamente por las autoridades del Estado de residencia habitual del menor.

En el posterior caso de primera instancia: M, Petitioner 2005 S.L.T. 2 OH [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 804], Lady Smith destacó la división en la jurisprudencia de apelación y decidió seguir la línea de autoridad previa ejemplificada en Urness v. Minto. Rechazó expresamente los criterios iniciales de Re T.

La jueza dejó asentado en su sentencia que habría habido un intento de impugnar la sentencia de la Inner House of the Court of Session en W. v. W. ante la Cámara de los Lores pero que el caso se había resuelto en forma amigable.

Más recientemente, se ha seguido un enfoque más estricto en cuanto a las objeciones, ver: C. v. C. [2008] CSOH 42, [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 962]; ratificado en instancia de apelación: C v. C. [2008] CSIH 34, [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 996].

Suiza
El máximo tribunal suizo ha resaltado la importancia de que los menores sean capaces de distinguir entre las cuestiones vinculadas a la custodia y las cuestiones vinculadas a la restitución. Véanse:

5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 795];

5P.3/2007 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 894].

La mera preferencia por la vida en el Estado de refugio, incluso motivada, no satisfará los términos del artículo 13(2):

5A.582/2007, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 986].

Para comentarios académicos generales, véase: 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).

Traducción en curso. - Por favor remítase a la versión inglesa.

Al aplicar el artículo 13(2), los tribunales han reconocido que es fundamental determinar si las objeciones del menor en cuestión se han visto influenciadas por el sustractor.

En distintos Estados contratantes, los tribunales han desestimado alegaciones según lo contemplado en el artículo 13(2) en casos en los que es evidente que el menor no expresa opiniones que se ha formado individualmente. Véanse en particular:

Australia
Director General of the Department of Community Services v. N., 19 August 1994, transcript, Family Court of Australia (Sydney) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 231];

Canadá
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 754];

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 87].

El Tribunal de Apelaciones sostuvo que la importancia de las objeciones debía ser mínima o nula si el menor había sido influenciado por el sustractor o por alguna otra persona, no obstante ello no era tema de debate en dicho caso.

Finlandia
Court of Appeal of Helsinki: No. 2933 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FI 863];

Francia
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 947].

El Tribunal de Apelaciones de Burdeos limitó la importancia que había que conferirle a las objeciones de los menores dado que, antes de la entrevista, no habían tenido contacto con el padre solicitante y habían compartido un largo período con el padre sustractor. Asimismo, las autoridades del Estado de la residencia habitual ya habían considerado las afirmaciones de los menores.

Alemania
4 UF 223/98, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 820];

Hungría
Mezei v. Bíró 23.P.500023/98/5. (27. 03. 1998, Central District Court of Budapest; First Instance); 50.Pkf.23.732/1998/2. 16. 06. 1998., (Capital Court as Appellate Court) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/HU 329];

Israel
Appl. App. Dist. Ct. 672/06, Supreme Court 15 October 2006 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/IL 885];

Reino Unido - Escocia
A.Q. v. J.Q., 12 December 2001, transcript, Outer House of the Court of Session (Scotland) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 415];

España
Auto Audiencia Provincial Nº 133/2006 Pontevedra (Sección 1ª), Recurso de apelación Nº 473/2006 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ES 887];

Restitución de Menores 534/1997 AA [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ES 908].

Suiza
El tribunal de maxima instancia de Suiza sostuvo que las opiniones del menor no pueden ser nunca completamente independientes. Por lo tanto, debe distinguirse entre las objeciones que han sido manipuladas y aquellas que, si bien no completamente autónomas, ameritan ser tenidas en cuenta. Véase:

5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 795];

Estados Unidos de América
Robinson v. Robinson, 983 F. Supp. 1339 (D. Colo. 1997) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 128].

En este caso, el Tribunal de Distrito sostuvo que sería poco realista esperar que un buen padre no influyera en la preferencia de un menor en cierta medida. Por lo tanto, lo que debía determinarse era si dicha influencia resultaba indebida.

En dos casos, se sostuvo que las pruebas de influencia por parte de los padres no debían aceptarse como motivo para no determinar las opiniones de un menor que si no fuera por ello sería escuchado. Véase:

Alemania
2 BvR 1206/98, Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 233];

Nueva Zelanda
Winters v. Cowen [2002] NZFLR 927 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/NZ 473].

Del mismo modo, la influencia de los padres puede no afectar sustancialmente las opiniones del menor. Véase:

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 901].

El Tribunal de Apelaciones no desestimó la proposición de que las opiniones del menor podían verse influenciadas o afectadas por estar inmerso en un ambiente de hostilidad hacia el padre solicitante, pero no estaba dispuesto a otorgarle demasiado peso a dichas proposiciones.

En un caso de Israel, el tribunal determinó que la madre le había lavado el cerebro al menor y sostuvo que, por ende, debía conferirle poca importancia a sus opiniones. Sin embargo, el Tribunal también sostuvo que no podía ignorarse la naturaleza extrema de las reacciones del menor a la restitución propuesta, que incluían la amenaza de suicidio. El tribunal concluyó que, de ser restituido, el menor se vería expuesto a un grave riesgo de daño. Véase:

Family Appeal 1169/99 R. v. L. [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/IL 834].

Cuando se determina que un menor se opone a la restitución y ha alcanzado una edad y un grado de madurez suficientes para que sea apropiado tener en cuenta sus opiniones, el tribunal que entiende en el caso tendrá la facultad discrecional para ordenar la restitución del menor o no hacerlo.

Se han propugnado diferentes enfoques respecto de la manera en la que debe ejercerse esta facultad discrecional y los factores relevantes que deben tenerse en consideración.

Australia
Richards & Director-General, Department of Child Safety [2007] FamCA 65 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 904]

El Tribunal de Apelaciones determinó que el tribunal de primera instancia había cometido un error al decidir que debía haber motivos "claros y convincentes" para frustrar los fines del Convenio. El Tribunal recordó que el Convenio prevé un número limitado que excepciones a la restitución obligatoria y que, cuando son aplicables, el juez dispone de una facultad discrecional. Los factores relevantes en el ejercicio de la facultad discrecional serían distintos según el caso pero abarcarían conferirle un peso significativo a los fines del Convenio en los casos pertinentes.

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
El ejercicio de la facultad discrecional ha resultado problemático para el Tribunal de Apelaciones, en particular, los factores que deben tenerse en cuenta y el peso que debe otorgársele a cada uno de ellos.

En el primer caso clave: 

Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1993] Fam 242 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 87]

El Tribunal de Apelaciones sostuvo que la facultad discrecional de un tribunal para rechazar la restitución inmediata de un menor debe ser ejercida teniendo en cuenta el enfoque global del Convenio, esto es, que el interés superior del menor se promueve mediante la pronta restitución, excepto que existan circunstancias extraordinarias para emitir una orden distinta.

En Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 60] dos miembros de la sala expresaron opiniones encontradas.

Lord Justice Balcombe, que propugnaba un enfoque relativamente flexible respecto de la determinación inicial de edad y objeción a la restitución, sostuvo que la importancia que debía otorgarse a las objeciones variaría según la edad del menor, sin embargo, la política del Convenio siempre sería un factor de mucho peso.

Lord Justice Millet, que defendía una interpretación más estricta de los filtros iniciales, sostuvo que, si correspondía considerar las opiniones del menor, dichas opiniones debían prevalecer, excepto que hubiera factores contrarios del mismo peso, entre ellos la política del Convenio.

El tercer miembro de la sala apoyó la interpretación de Lord Justice Balcombe.

En Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FCR 159 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 270] Lord Justice Ward adoptó la interpretación de Lord Justice Millett.

El razonamiento de Re. T. fue aceptado implícitamente por un Tribunal de Apelaciones integrado por diferentes miembros en:

Re J. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2004] EWCA CIV 428, [2004] 2 FLR 64 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 579].

Sin embargo, fue rechazado en Zaffino v. Zaffino (Abduction: Children's Views) [2005] EWCA Civ 1012; [2006] 1 FLR 410 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 813].

El enfoque actual adecuado para el ejercicio de la facultad discrecional en Inglaterra es claramente el propugnado por Lord Justice Balcombe.

En Zaffino v. Zaffino, el tribunal también sostuvo que debía otorgarse importancia a los factores relativos al bienestar al momento de ejercer la facultad discrecional. En dicho caso, los factores relativos al bienestar favorecían la restitución.

En Vigreux v. Michel [2006] EWCA Civ 630, [2006] 2 FLR 1180 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 829], el Tribunal de Apelaciones consideró cómo debía ejercerse la facultad discrecional en un caso regulado por el Reglamento Bruselas II bis. Se determinó que, además de la política del Convenio, debían tenerse en cuenta los fines y la política del Reglamento.

En Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 901], el Tribunal consideró de manera general los factores relativos al bienestar al decidir no ordenar la restitución de la menor de ocho años involucrada. El Tribunal también pareció aceptar un comentario no determinante del caso Vigreux v. Michel según el cual debía existir una dimensión "excepcional" en un caso antes de que el Tribunal pudiera considerar ejercer su facultad discrecional contra una orden de restitución.

En Nyachowe v. Fielder [2007] EWCA Civ 1129, [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 964], se invocó la excepcionalidad. En dicho caso, se dictó una orden de restitución a pesar de las fuertes objeciones de una menor independiente de doce años de edad. Se puso particular énfasis en el hecho de que la menor había ido de vacaciones por dos semanas.

En Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288  [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 937], la Cámara de los Lores sostuvo que era incorrecto importar criterio de excepcionalidad alguno al ejercicio de la facultad discrecional en virtud del Convenio de La Haya. Las circunstancias en las que podía denegarse la restitución constituían, en sí mismas, excepciones a la regla general. Eso mismo era una excepcionalidad suficiente. No era necesario ni deseable importar glosa adicional alguna al Convenio.

La Baronesa Hale agregó que cuando la facultad discrecional surgía de los términos del Convenio mismo, ésta era amplia. En los casos del artículo 13(2), el tribunal tendría que considerar la naturaleza y la solidez de las objeciones del menor, la medida en la que dichas objeciones eran verdaderamente del menor o el producto de la influencia del progenitor sustractor, la medida en la que coincidían o se contraponían con otras consideraciones relevantes para el bienestar del menor, así como consideraciones generales del Convenio. Cuanto mayor sea el menor, mayor importancia tendrán probablemente sus objeciones.

Nueva Zelanda
Las interpretaciones de Balcombe / Millett dieron lugar a decisiones contradictorias del Tribunal Superior. El Tribunal de Apelaciones, sin embargo, se pronunció a favor del enfoque de ‘gamas de gris' de Balcombe:

White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/NZ 902].

Reino Unido - Escocia
P. v. S., 2002 FamLR 2 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 963]

Al ejercer su facultad discrecional para emitir una orden de restitución, el juez de primera instancia observó que no debía denegarse la orden de restitución excepto cuando hubiera motivos sensatos para no promover los fines del Convenio. Esto fue confirmado por el tribunal de apelaciones (Inner House of the Court of Session), el cual también sostuvo que la existencia de las excepciones del artículo 13 no negaba ni eliminaba la política general del Convenio según la cual deben restituirse los menores sustraídos ilícitamente.

Singh v. Singh 1998 SC 68 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 197]

El Tribunal sostuvo que el bienestar del menor era un factor general que debía ser considerado al ejercer la facultad discrecional. Un tribunal no debe limitarse a considerar la oposición del menor y los motivos por los cuales se opone a la restitución. Sin embargo, el tribunal sostuvo que no podía redactarse una norma respecto de si el bienestar del menor debía considerarse de manera amplia o detallada; éste era un asunto comprendido dentro del alcance de la facultad discrecional del tribunal en cuestión.

En W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 805], el tribunal de apelaciones (Inner House) sostuvo que el ejercicio debía ser equilibrado y que uno de los factores a favor de la restitución era el espíritu y el fin del Convenio de permitirle al tribunal de residencia habitual resolver la controversia relativa a la custodia.

Estados Unidos de América
De Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279, (10th Cir. 2007), [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USf 903]

Al hacer lugar a las opiniones de un menor de catorce años, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Décimo Circuito tomó en consideración su interés superior e hizo caso omiso de la política del Convenio.

Francia
El Tribunal de apelaciones valoró la fuerza probatoria de la oposición de los niños, teniendo en cuenta que los mismos habían estado durante un largo tiempo con el padre sustractor y sin contacto con el padre privado de los niños antes de ser escuchados, observando asimismo que los hechos denunciados por los niños habían sido tenidos en cuenta por las autoridades del Estado de la residencia habitual.

CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 947].