EN | FR | ES
| Login

Case Law Search

New search

CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

NF v. MC (17845/2012)

INCADAT reference

HC/E/ZA 1249

Court

Country

SOUTH AFRICA

Name

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Level

First Instance

Judge(s)
Cloete AJ

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Requested State

SOUTH AFRICA

Decision

Date

27 November 2012

Status

Final

Grounds

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Order

Application dismissed

HC article(s) Considered

3 13(1)(a)

HC article(s) Relied Upon

3 13(1)(a)

Other provisions
Children's Act, 2005 (South Africa); Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Authorities | Cases referred to
Pennello v. Pennello (Chief Family Advocate as Amicus Curiae) 2004 (3) SA 117 (SCA); Smith v. Smith 2001 (3) SA 845 (SCA); G Sonderup v. Tondelli and Another 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC); KG v. CB 2012 (4) SA 136 (SCA).
Published in
http://www.justice.gov.za/hague/caselaw/2012_NFvMC.pdf

INCADAT comment

Exceptions to Return

Consent
Classifying Consent
Prospective Consent

Implementation & Application Issues

Procedural Matters
Costs

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | ES

Facts

The proceedings related to a child born in the United States of America on 10 May 2012 to an American father and South African mother. The parents had married in April 2011 and shared custody rights in respect of the child.

On 28 June 2012, the mother took the child to South Africa for an agreed stay. The length of the stay was the subject of dispute between the parents. The mother needed to apply for a new visa in order to take up employment in the United States of America. She also needed assistance with care for the child who had a serious medical condition.

The father visited the family on 18 August 2012. On 21 August, the father was served with divorce proceedings. On his return to the United States of America, the father issued his own divorce proceedings and filed a request for the return of the child.

Ruling

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no express agreement that the child would return to the United States of America on 29 December 2012.

Grounds

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

-

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)


See above, Removal & Retention

Procedural Matters


Costs were awarded to the mother (the Court declined to make a punitive costs order).

Authors of the summary: Peter McEleavy and Erika du Plessis (Office of the Chief Family Advocate, South Africa)

INCADAT comment

Classifying Consent

The classification of consent has given rise to difficulty. Some courts have indeed considered that the issue of consent goes to the wrongfulness of the removal or retention and should therefore be considered within Article 3, see:

Australia
In the Marriage of Regino and Regino v. The Director-General, Department of Families Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-587 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 312];

France
CA Rouen, 9 mars 2006, N°05/04340, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 897];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re O. (Abduction: Consent and Acquiescence) [1997] 1 FLR 924 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 54];

Re P.-J. (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1014].

Although the issue had ostensibly been settled in English case law, that consent was to be considered under Art 13(1) a), neither member of the two judge panel of the Court of Appeal appeared entirely convinced of this position. 

Reference can equally be made to examples where trial courts have not considered the Art 3 - Art 13(1) a) distinction, but where consent, in terms of initially going along with a move, has been treated as relevant to wrongfulness, see:

Canada
F.C. c. P.A., Droit de la famille - 08728, Cour supérieure de Chicoutimi, 28 mars 2008, N°150-04-004667-072, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 969];

Switzerland
U/EU970069, Bezirksgericht Zürich (Zurich District Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 425];

United Kingdom - Scotland
Murphy v. Murphy 1994 GWD 32-1893 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 186].

The case was not considered in terms of the Art 3 - Art 13(1) a) distinction, but given that the father initially went along with the relocation it was held that there would be neither a wrongful removal or retention.

The majority view is now though that consent should be considered in relation to Article 13(1) a), see:

Australia
Director-General, Department of Child Safety v. Stratford [2005] Fam CA 1115, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 830];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 53];

T. v. T. (Abduction: Consent) [1999] 2 FLR 912;

Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267];

Re P. (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [2004] EWCA CIV 971, [2005] Fam. 293, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 591];

Ireland
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 287];

United Kingdom - Scotland
T. v. T. 2004 S.C. 323, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 997];

For a discussion of the issues involved see Beaumont & McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, 1999 at p. 132 et seq.

Prospective Consent

There is authority that consent might validly be given to a future removal, see:

Canada
Decision of 4 September 1998 [1998] R.D.F. 701, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 333].

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re L. (Abduction: Future Consent) [2007] EWHC 2181 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 915; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 993].

It was held that the happening of the event must be reasonably ascertainable and there must not have been a material change in the circumstances since the consent was given.

United Kingdom - Scotland
Zenel v. Haddow 1993 SC 612, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 76].

For a criticism of the majority view in Zenel v. Haddow, see:

Case commentary 1993 SCLR 872 at 884, 885;

G. Maher, Consent to Wrongful Child Abduction under the Hague Convention, 1993 SLT 281;

P. Beaumont and P. McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, Oxford, 1999 at pp. 129, 130.

Costs

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.

Hechos

El caso versa sobre una niña nacida en Estados Unidos de América el 10 de mayo de 2012, de padre estadounidense y madre sudafricana. Los padres habían contraído matrimonio en abril de 2011 y compartían los derechos de custodia con respecto a la niña. 

El 28 de junio de 2012, la madre llevó a la niña a Sudáfrica para una estadía consensuada. La duración de la estadía fue causa de conflicto entre los padres. La madre necesitaba solicitar una nueva visa para tomar un empleo en Estados Unidos de América. También necesitaba asistencia con el cuidado de la niña, quien tenía una condición médica grave. 

El padre visitó a la familia el 18 de agosto de 2012. El 21 de agosto, el padre recibió papeles de divorcio. Cuando volvió a Estados Unidos de América, el padre comenzó su propio proceso de divorcio y solicitó la restitución de la niña.  

Fallo

Solicitud desestimada. La retención no fue ilícita ya que no había un acuerdo expreso de que la niña regresaría a Estados Unidos de América el 29 de diciembre de 2012. 

Fundamentos

Traslado y retención - arts. 3 y 12

-

Consentimiento - art. 13(1)(a)

Ver arriba: Traslado y retención. 

Cuestiones procesales

Se otorgaron costas a la madre (el Tribunal se negó a emitir una orden de costos punitivos).  

Autores del sumario: Peter McEleavy y Erika du Plessis (Oficina del Principal defensor de familia, Sudáfrica) 

Comentario INCADAT

Clasificación del consentimiento

La clasificación del consentimiento ha traído dificultades. Algunos tribunales efectivamente han considerado que la cuestión del consentimiento hace a la ilicitud del traslado o la retención y por lo tanto debería considerarse en el marco del artículo 3. Véanse:

Australia
In the Marriage of Regino and Regino v. The Director-General, Department of Families Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Central Authority (1995) FLC 92-587 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 312];

Francia
CA Rouen, 9 mars 2006, N°05/04340 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 897];

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
Re O. (Abduction: Consent and Acquiescence) [1997] 1 FLR 924 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 54].

Re P.-J. (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 1014].

Aunque la jurisprudencia inglesa había establecido claramente que el consentimiento debía ser considerado a la luz del artículo 13(1) a), ninguno de los miembros de las 2 salas del Tribunal de Apelaciones parecía estar enteramente convencido de esta posición.

Del mismo modo, puede hacerse referencia a ejemplos donde los jueces de primera instancia no consideraron la distinción del artículo 13(1) a), pero en los que el consentimiento, en términos de una conformidad inicial con la medida, se ha considerado relevante para la determinacion de la ilicitud. Véanse:

Canadá
F.C. c. P.A., Droit de la famille - 08728, Cour supérieure de Chicoutimi, 28 mars 2008, N°150-04-004667-072 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 969];

Suiza
U/EU970069, Bezirksgericht Zürich (Zurich District Court) [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/CH 425]

Reino Unido - Escocia
Murphy v. Murphy 1994 GWD 32-1893 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 186].

El caso no fue considerado a la luz de la distinción de los artículos 3 y 13(1) a), pero dado que el padre había consentido el traslado, se entendió que no había habido ilicitud.

La opinión de la mayoría es ahora, sin embargo, que se debería considerar el consentimiento con relación al artículo 13(1) a). Véanse:

Australia
Director-General, Department of Child Safety v. Stratford [2005] Fam CA 1115 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 830];

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414 [Referncia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 53];

T. v. T. (Abduction: Consent) [1999] 2 FLR 912;

Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 267];

Re P. (A Child) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [2004] EWCA CIV 971, [2005] Fam. 293 [Referncia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 591];

Irlanda
B.B. v. J.B. [1998] 1 ILRM 136; sub nom B. v. B. (Child Abduction) [1998] 1 IR 299 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/IE 287].

Reino Unido - Escocia
T. v. T. 2004 S.C. 323 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 997];

Para una discusión sobre estas cuestiones, ver Beaumont y McEleavy, Convenio de La Haya sobre la Sustracción Internacional de Menores, OUP, 1999 p. 132 ss.

Consentimiento prospectivo

Existe jurisprudencia en la que se consideró que se puede consentir de manera válida un futuro traslado. Véanse:

Canadá
Decision of 4 September 1998 [1998] R.D.F. 701 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 333].

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
Re L. (Abduction: Future Consent) [2007] EWHC 2181 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 915; [Referencita INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 993].

Se sostuvo que el acaecimiento de un acontecimiento debe ser razonablemente determinable y no debe haber habido un cambio material en las circunstancias desde que se prestó el consentimiento.

Reino Unido - Escocia
Zenel v. Haddow 1993 SC 612 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 76].

Para una crítica de la opinión de la mayoría en Zenel v. Haddow, véanse:

Comentario del caso 1993 SCLR 872 at 884, 885;

G. Maher, Consent to Wrongful Child Abduction under the Hague Convention, 1993 SLT 281;

P. Beaumont and P. McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, OUP, Oxford, 1999, pp. 129, 130.

Costos

Resumen INCADAT en curso de preparación.