EN | FR | ES

Buscador de jurisprudencia

Nueva búsqueda

CASO

Texto completo no disponible

Nombre del caso

R. v. R. [2006] IESC 7

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/IE 817

Tribunal

País

Irlanda

Instancia

última instancia

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Estados Unidos de América

Estado requerido

Irlanda

Fallo

Fecha

16 February 2006

Estado

Definitiva

Fundamentos

Aceptación posterior - art. 13(1)(a) | Grave riesgo - art. 13(1)(b) | Compromisos | Consentimiento - art. 13(1)(a)

Fallo

Restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2006/S7.html

INCADAT comentario

Excepciones a la restitución

Consentimiento
Clasificación del consentimiento
Establecimiento del consentimiento
Consentimiento y supuesto fraude
Consentimiento prospectivo

Dificultades en la implementación & aplicación

Medidas para facilitar la restitución del menor
Compromisos

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR

Facts

The children were aged 4 1/2 and 2 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. They had lived all of their lives in the United States with their parents. In January 2005 they travelled to Ireland with their mother. The nature of this trip was the subject of dispute between the parents: it was the father's case that it was a very short vacation whilst the mother maintained that it was a permanent relocation.

The father petitioned for the return of the children. On 26 January 2006 the Irish High Court made a return order, subject to undertakings. The mother appealed.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Grounds

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

-

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)


It was noted that in R.K. v. J.K. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [2000] 2 IR 416 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IE 285] the Supreme Court had previously upheld the strict approach set down by the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 82] when considering the grave risk of harm exception. Adhering to this interpretation the Court affirmed that there was no suggestion that the United States courts did not have available to them the appropriate powers or means to protect the mother and children.

Undertakings


The Supreme Court approved of the analysis of the trial judge with regard to undertakings, namely that they should go no further than seeking to achieve a smooth return for the children and their well being in the immediate period after return, pending an application to the courts of their habitual residence. Adhering to this position the trial judge had rejected a request for undertakings which were directed to the long-term solution of the breakdown in the marriage of the parents.

The Supreme Court did though amend the drafting of one of the undertakings made by the father not to pursue or facilitate a prosecution against the mother in the U.S. or elsewhere. In this it was noted that prosecution was a matter within the competence of the US authorities, consequently the undertaking could merely provide that without prejudice to the powers of prosecution of the authorities and courts of the State of M. the father would not make a formal complaint or initiate a prosecution against the mother.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

-

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.

Establishing Consent

Different standards have been applied when it comes to establishing the Article 13(1) a) exception based on consent.

United Kingdom - England & Wales
In an early first instance decision it was held that ordinarily the clear and compelling evidence which was necessary would need to be in writing or at least evidenced by documentary material, see:

Re W. (Abduction: Procedure) [1995] 1 FLR 878, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 37].

This strict view has not been repeated in later first instance English cases, see:

Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 53];

Re K. (Abduction: Consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 55].

In Re K. it was held that while consent must be real, positive and unequivocal, there could be circumstances in which a court could be satisfied that consent had been given, even though not in writing.  Moreover, there could also be cases where consent could be inferred from conduct.

Germany
21 UF 70/01, Oberlandesgericht Köln, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 491].

Convincing evidence is required to establish consent.

Ireland
R. v. R. [2006] IESC 7; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 817].

The Re K. approach was specifically endorsed by the Irish Supreme Court.

The Netherlands
De Directie Preventie, optredend voor haarzelf en namens F. (vader/father) en H. (de moeder/mother) (14 juli 2000, ELRO-nummer: AA6532, Zaaknr.R99/167HR); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NL 318].

Consent need not be for a permanent stay.  The only issue is that there must be consent and that it has been proved convincingly.

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

Consent could be express or tacit.

Switzerland
5P.367/2005 /ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 841];

5P.380/2006 /blb; Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 895];

5P.1999/2006 /blb, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung ) (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 896];

The Swiss Supreme Court has held that with regard to consent and acquiescence, the left behind parent must clearly agree, explicitly or tacitly, to a durable change in the residence of the child.  To this end the burden is on the abducting parent to show factual evidence which would lead to such a belief being plausible.

United States of America
Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 808].

There must be a subjective assessment of what the applicant parent was actually contemplating. Consideration must also be given to the nature and scope of the consent.

Consent and Alleged Deception

There are examples of cases where it has been argued that prima facie consent should be vitiated by alleged deception on the part of the abducting parent, see for example:

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re D. (Abduction: Discretionary Return) [2000] 1 FLR 24, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 267].

The fact that a document consenting to the removal of the children was presented to the mother on a pretext did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was a trap.  The mother was found to have consented.  But the trial judge nevertheless exercised his discretion to make a return order.

Israel
Family Application 2059/07 Ploni v. Almonit, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 940].

Allegation of deception rejected; the father's consent was found to be informed and since it had been relied upon by the mother, the father could not renege on his initial consent to the relocation.

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.

Undertakings

Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.