INCADAT | Re Y (A Child) (Abduction: Undertakings Given for Return of Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 129, [2013] 2 F.L.R. 649

CASE

No full text available

Case Name

Re Y (A Child) (Abduction: Undertakings Given for Return of Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 129, [2013] 2 F.L.R. 649

INCADAT reference

HC/E/UKe 1252

Court

Country

UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES

Name

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Level

Appellate Court

Judge(s)

Thorpe, Longmore, McCombe L.JJ.

States involved

Requesting State

CYPRUS

Requested State

UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES

Decision

Date

22 January 2013

Status

Final

Grounds

Undertakings

Order

Appeal dismissed, return ordered subject to undertakings

HC article(s) Considered

13(1)(b)

HC article(s) Relied Upon

Other provisions

Authorities | Cases referred to

Published in

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed112226

INCADAT comment

Implementation & Application Issues

Measures to Facilitate the Return of Children

Safe Return / Mirror Orders

Undertakings

Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law

1996 Hague Child Protection Convention

SUMMARY

Summary available in |

Facts

The proceedings concerned a child who was aged 4 ½ at the date of the appeal. She was born to Cypriot parents and lived in Cyprus. She was removed by the mother and taken to England.

The father petitioned for the return of the child.

At trial, the mother argued that she would be at risk of domestic violence, and that the child would be at risk of abuse at the hands of her father if sent back. The Family Division of the High Court concluded however that the mother's assertion was better investigated in Cyprus. On 3 December 2012, the High Court ordered the return of the child, subject to protective measures. The latter were reflected in 11 undertakings which preceded the order of the Court providing for the return of the child.

The lawyers for the parents were subsequently unable to reach agreement as to whether the High Court order should require the father to seek, from the competent court in Cyprus, a specific determination of recognition of the order of 3 December.

Counsel for the father submitted that the undertakings would be recognised by operation of law pursuant to Art. 23 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. In the absence of agreement, the issue was put to the trial judge, who decided in favour of the father.

The mother appealed the trial judge's finding on the issue of recognition.

The appeal was then put on hold as the father sought recognition of the order.

On 7 December, the Family Court of Limassol ordered the "registration and / or recognition and / or execution" of the order of 3 December 2012.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed and return ordered, subject to undertakings.

Grounds

Undertakings

Following communication between the Office of the Head of International Family Justice for England and Wales and the Hague Network judge for Cyprus, in which the latter declined to express a view on the enforceability of the undertakings, the mother's lawyers questioned the effectiveness of the order of the Family Court of Limassol recognising the High Court order of 3 December 2012. The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, ruling that the Network judge had correctly noted that it was not for him to give legal advice as to the law of Cyprus.

The mother sought permission to introduce fresh evidence from a Cypriot law firm. The firm's advice provided, inter alia, that the English undertakings would not be binding on the father in Cyprus and that they should be replaced with a court order.

It was submitted for the mother that the mechanisms of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention would only be effective if the protective measures were expressed by the State ordering return in the form of concrete orders. This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Thorpe L.J. held that the term "measures", for the purpose of the 1996 Hague Convention, was to be construed broadly rather than narrowly. He continued: "For a common law jurisdiction such as England and Wales, to say that undertakings are not to be classed as measures would be erroneous and devoid of practical sense. Those who negotiated this Convention would by the date of its arrival have been very familiar with the wide use of undertakings amongst the 40 or perhaps 50 jurisdictions that were then operating the 1980 Convention".

He added that the whole purpose of the 1996 Convention was to support and supplement the effective operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, insofar as undertakings were concerned. It was unthinkable that the 1996 Convention would have the effect of diminishing rather than fortifying the effect of undertakings and their use.

The mother's appeal was dismissed.

Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy

INCADAT comment

Safe Return / Mirror Orders

A practice has arisen in a number of Contracting States for return orders to be made subject to compliance with certain specified requirements or undertakings. To ensure that such protective measures are enforceable, the applicant may be required to have these measures registered in identical or equivalent terms in the child's State of habitual residence. These replica orders are commonly referred to as ‘safe return' or ‘mirror orders'.

Return orders have been made subject to the enactment of safe return /mirror orders in the following jurisdictions:

Australia
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 294];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re W. (Abduction: Domestic Violence) [2004] EWHC 1247, [2004] 2 FLR 499 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ UKe 599];

Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 842, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982];

South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];

Central Authority v. H. 2008 (1) SA 49 (SCA) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 900].

A request by the English High Court for protective measures ancillary to an order for international contact to be registered in the State of visitation was upheld by the Panama Second Court of Childhood and Adolescence, see:

Ruling Nº393-05-F, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/PA 872].

A request that a return order be made subject to the implementation of mirror orders was turned down in:

Israel
Family Application 8743/07 Y.D.G. v T.G., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 983].

The Jerusalem Family Court ruled that since accusations against the father had not been upheld there was no basis to impose conditions to ensure the children's safety, other than deposit of money to secure the father's undertaking that they could live in his apartment. There was no need to obtain a mirror order from the US courts as the delay in so doing would harm the children.

Undertakings

Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.

1996 Hague Child Protection Convention

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.

Faits

Traduction en cours - veuillez vous référer à la version anglaise.

Dispositif

Recours rejeté, retour ordonné sujet à des engagements.

Motifs

Engagements

Commentaire INCADAT

Assurer un retour sans danger / Ordonnances miroir

Une pratique s'est fait jour dans un certain nombre d'États contractants dans lesquels l'ordonnance de retour est prononcée sous réserve du respect de certaines exigences ou de certains engagements. Afin de s'assurer que ces mesures de protection sont susceptibles d'être exécutées, il peut être exigé du demandeur qu'il fasse enregistrer ces mesures en des termes identiques ou équivalents auprès des autorités de l'État de la résidence habituelle de l'enfant. Ces décisions sont généralement décrites comme des ordonnances « assurant le retour sans danger de l'enfant » ou « ordonnances miroir ».

Des ordonnances de retour ont été rendues par les juridictions suivantes sous réserve du prononcé d'une ordonnance assurant le retour sans danger de l'enfant ou d'une ordonnance miroir :

Australie
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/AU 294] ;

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles
Re W. (Abduction: Domestic Violence) [2004] EWHC 1247, [2004] 2 FLR 499 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ UKe 599] ;

Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 842, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/UKe 982] ;

Afrique du Sud
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC) [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ZA 309] ;

Central Authority v. Houwert [2007] SCA 88 (RSA); [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ZA 900].

Une demande déposée par la High Court anglaise concernant des mesures de protection prises dans le cadre d'une décision relative aux termes d'un droit de visite international et enregistrées dans l'État où les périodes de visite devaient se dérouler a été reprise et prolongée au Panama dans la décision :

Ruling Nº393-05-F [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/PA 872].

Une demande sollicitant le retour d'un enfant sous réserve qu'une ordonnance miroir soit rendue dans l'État d'origine fut rejetée par les juridictions israéliennes dans Family Application 8743/07 Y.D.G. v. T.G., [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/IL 983], les accusations formulées à l'encontre du père ayant été déclarées sans fondement.

Engagements

Analyse de la jurisprudence de la base de données INCADAT en cours de préparation.

Convention de La Haye de 1996

Résumé INCADAT en cours de préparation.

Case Law Search

CASE

Case Name

Re Y (A Child) (Abduction: Undertakings Given for Return of Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 129, [2013] 2 F.L.R. 649

INCADAT reference

Court

States involved

Decision

INCADAT comment

Implementation & Application Issues

Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law

SUMMARY

Facts

Ruling

Grounds

Undertakings

INCADAT comment

Safe Return / Mirror Orders

Undertakings

1996 Hague Child Protection Convention

Faits

Dispositif

Motifs

Engagements

Commentaire INCADAT

Assurer un retour sans danger / Ordonnances miroir

Engagements

Convention de La Haye de 1996