HC/E/CA 728
Canadá
Primera Instancia
Estados Unidos de América
Canadá
2 April 2007
Definitiva
Derechos de custodia - art. 3 | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b) | Cuestiones relativas a la restitución
Restitución denegada
-
-
The child was habitually resident in Texas at the time of his removal to Ontario. When the aunt removed the child, she had an order for sole custody. She failed to give notice of her move as required by the custody order, and she was aware at the time of the removal of the father's application to have her custody order declared void. According to the Ontario court, this factual background was not sufficient to determine whether the removal was "wrongful." For a removal to be wrongful, it must be in breach of "rights of custody."
The father argued that the removal violated the rights of custody of the Texas court. The father relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551 where it was stated that when a court has before it the issue of who should have custody of the child, the court has rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention.
The Ontario court determined that the issue before the Texas court was whether the aunt's custody order was void and not who should have custody of the child. After distinguishing the facts in Thomson v. Thomson, the Ontario court ruled that the Texas court did not therefore have rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention.
The father argued that he acquired rights of custody by operation of law when the aunt's custody order was voided. The Ontario court, having reviewed Texas legislation and case law, agreed that there was a strong presumption in favour of a surviving parent. However, the Ontario court found that the presumption would not have applied here, where the father was a stranger to the child and where the father never applied for custody in Texas.
The Ontario court also noted that the Texas court had awarded sole custody to the aunt on the basis that this was in the best interests of the child. Although the aunt's custody order had been voided, this was solely because the order was made in a defective proceeding. The Ontario court concluded that the father did not have rights of custody at the time of the removal and did not acquire them afterwards.
The child was traumatized by the death of his mother and the various moves he had made subsequent to her death. The child was now settled with his aunt in Ontario. The father was a stranger to the child. There was no evidence that the father would be able to obtain another visa for the US. It was not clear that the father or anyone else would be available to receive physical custody of the child if return were ordered. Under these circumstances, the Ontario court determined that an order for return would place the child at great risk of psychological harm.
The Convention is intended to ensure prompt return of children to the State of their habitual residence. Here, the father sought return of the child to Texas, but he was using Texas simply as a conduit to accomplish his ultimate goal of relocating the child to the Philippines. Because the father had no intention of returning the child to his habitual residence, except as a stop on the way to the Philippines, the Ontario court ruled that the father was not entitled to rely on the Convention.
Article 12 of the Convention does not prescribe the place to which the child should be returned. The drafters wished for the provision to be left sufficiently wide to allow for a return to a State other than that of the child's habitual residence. However, the Preamble makes clear that the general intention is that a return should be to the latter State. Of course a return to the State of habitual residence does not of itself require the child to be placed into the care of the applicant parent or indeed of a State agency; very often the child will remain in the care of the abducting parent pending the determination of the substantive custody case. Furthermore a return need not mean a return to the particular place in the State where the child previously lived.
Courts have taken advantage of the flexibility in the drafting of Article 12 when dealing with return applications, see:
Australia
Murray v. Director, Family Services (1993) FLC 92-416 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 113].
The Full Court suggested that mother and children return to a different part of New Zealand from that where they previously lived in order to avoid danger at the hands of the applicant father.
Israel
G. v. B., 25 April 2007, Court for Family Matters, Beersheva [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 910].
Child ordered to be returned to Belgium, the country where he was to live, although it was not his State of habitual residence prior to the removal.
Where a court considered that the applicant father had no intention of actually remaining in the State of habitual residence with the child, but was actually seeking to bring about a relocation to a non-Convention State, it decided not to make a return order.
Canada
Espiritu v. Bielza, [2007] O.J. No. 1587; 2007 ONCJ 175; 39 R.F.L. (6th) 218; 2007 CarswellOnt 2546, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 728].
For discussion of the drafting of Article 12 see:
P. Beaumont & P. McEleavy The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oxford OUP, 1999.
Courts in an overwhelming majority of Contracting States have accepted that a right of veto over the removal of the child from the jurisdiction amounts to a right of custody for Convention purposes, see:
Australia
In the Marriage of Resina [1991] FamCA 33, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232];
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];
Austria
2 Ob 596/91, OGH, 05 February 1992, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 375];
Canada
Thomson v. Thomson [1994] 3 SCR 551, 6 RFL (4th) 290 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 11].
The Supreme Court did draw a distinction between a non-removal clause in an interim custody order and in a final order. It suggested that were a non-removal clause in a final custody order to be regarded as a custody right for Convention purposes, that could have serious implications for the mobility rights of the primary carer.
Thorne v. Dryden-Hall, (1997) 28 RFL (4th) 297 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 12];
Decision of 15 December 1998, [1999] R.J.Q. 248 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 334];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654, [1989] 2 All ER 465, [1989] 1 FLR 403, [1989] Fam Law 228 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 34];
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880];
France
Ministère Public c. M.B. 79 Rev. crit. 1990, 529, note Y. Lequette [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 62];
Germany
2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, (Federal Constitutional Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];
10 UF 753/01, Oberlandesgericht Dresden, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 486];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Bordera v. Bordera 1995 SLT 1176 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 183];
A.J. v. F.J. [2005] CSIH 36, 2005 1 SC 428 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 803];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Tribunal fédéral suisse, (Swiss Supreme Court), 29 March 1999, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427].
United States of America
In the United States, the Federal Courts of Appeals were divided on the appropriate interpretation to give between 2000 and 2010.
A majority followed the 2nd Circuit in adopting a narrow interpretation, see:
Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir., 2000; cert. den. Oct. 9, 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 313];
Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir 2002) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 493];
Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 157 L. Ed. 2d 732, 124 S. Ct. 805 (2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494];
Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 989].
The 11th Circuit however endorsed the standard international interpretation.
Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 578].
The matter was settled, at least where an applicant parent has a right to decide the child's country of residence, or the court in the State of habitual residence is seeking to protect its own jurisdiction pending further decrees, by the US Supreme Court endorsing the standard international interpretation.
Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 1029].
The standard international interpretation has equally been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights, see:
Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No. 41615/07, 8 January 2009 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1001].
Confirmed by the Grand Chamber: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No 41615/07, 6 July 2010 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1323].
Right to Object to a Removal
Where an individual does not have a right of veto over the removal of a child from the jurisdiction, but merely a right to object and to apply to a court to prevent such a removal, it has been held in several jurisdictions that this is not enough to amount to a custody right for Convention purposes:
Canada
W.(V.) v. S.(D.), 134 DLR 4th 481 (1996), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA17];
Ireland
W.P.P. v. S.R.W. [2001] ILRM 371, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 271];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re V.-B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 261];
S. v. H. (Abduction: Access Rights) [1998] Fam 49 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 36];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Pirrie v. Sawacki 1997 SLT 1160, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 188].
This interpretation has also been upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union:
Case C-400/10 PPU J. McB. v. L.E., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].
The European Court held that to find otherwise would be incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty and with the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, notably those of the sole custodian.
For academic commentary see:
P. Beaumont & P. McEleavy The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oxford, OUP, 1999, p. 75 et seq.;
M. Bailey The Right of a Non-Custodial Parent to an Order for Return of a Child Under the Hague Convention; Canadian Journal of Family Law, 1996, p. 287;
C. Whitman 'Croll v Croll: The Second Circuit Limits 'Custody Rights' Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction' 2001 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 605.