Recherche de décisions

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Separate Representation:
Bennett J. noted that under s. 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 there had to be exceptional circumstances to justify an order for the independent representation of a child's interests. The role of such a lawyer is to form an independent view, based on available evidence, of what is in the best interests of the children and then act in the light of those best interests.

The independent children's lawyer is not a legal representative retained by the children and he cannot be bound by instructions from the children, although any views expressed by the children must be fully put before the court. The independent children's lawyer is required to deal impartially with the parties. He must also take steps to minimise for the children the trauma associated with proceedings and to facilitate an agreed resolution of matters in issue in the proceedings to the extent that it is in the best interests of the children to do so.

Bennett J. found that there were a number of features which took the case out of the ordinary and therefore ordered that an independent lawyer be appointed. He noted that "Many of the matters to be considered (pursuant to s 60CC) were matters upon which the requesting parent could or should provide evidence and yet he was not a party to the proceedings"; the lawyer could and should play a valuable role in obtaining and testing evidence as regards the nature of contact, particularly as the respondent mother was likely to be unrepresented and the requesting parent was not a participant; finally there may be a distinction between the children vis-à-vis rights of access.

Bennett J. also noted that the appointment of an independent children's lawyer was broadly consistent with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. He added that whilst the children in the present case were too young to articulate their views it could not be the case that their interests were less deserving of independent representation than those of a child who could articulate views.

He concluded by noting that the proceedings would be determinative of significant matters for the children including the benefit to each of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and, if necessary, how that may be achieved having regard to their best interests as being the paramount, but not the only, consideration.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Bennett J. reviewed the Australian regulations which gave effect to Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Convention. He noted that Regulation 24 provides:

"(1) The Commonwealth Central Authority must take action to establish, organise or secure the effective exercise of rights of access to a child in Australia if:
(a) it receives a request from a Central Authority on behalf of a person who claims:
(i) to have rights of access to the child under a law in force in a convention country; and
(ii) that those rights have been breached; and
(b) it is satisfied that the request is in accordance with the Convention.

[...]

(4) For subregulation (1), the action taken may include any of the following:
(a) transferring the request to a State Central Authority;
(b) applying to a court under regulation 25 for an order that is necessary or appropriate to establish, organise or secure the effective exercise of the rights of access to which the request relates;
(c) seeking an amicable resolution in relation to the rights of access to the child."

He then recalled his finding in the case of State Central Authority and Peddar [2008] FamCA 519 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 1107] that whilst the Regulations provided the framework within which the State Central Authority could prosecute and participate in parenting proceedings, the principles for determination of time to be spent with and communication between a child resident in Australia and a parent in another Convention Country were the same principles that generally apply to children in Australia. And in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the best interests of a child was the paramount consideration.

To determine the best interests of the child reference must be made to the detailed criteria set down in the Family Law Act 1975, s. 60CC.  This identifies as the primary considerations, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.  13 additional considerations are then listed, including the child's views, the nature of his relationships, and the willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.

Author of the summary: Peter McEleavy

The final judgment was rendered by the Family Court in 2010: State Central Authority & Quang [2010] FamCA 231 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 1105].

Opposition de l'enfant au retour - art. 13(2)

-

Droit de visite - art. 21

Le juge Bennett a examiné la réglementation australienne donnant effet à l'article 21 de la Convention de La Haye de 1980. Il a noté les dispositions énoncées dans le Règlement 24 :

« (1) L'Autorité centrale du Commonwealth doit prendre des mesures en vue d'établir, d'organiser ou d'assurer l'exercice effectif du droit de visite d'un enfant en Australie :
(a) si elle reçoit la demande introduite par une Autorité centrale pour le compte d'une personne qui déclare :
(i) qu'elle dispose d'un droit de visite en vertu d'une loi en vigueur dans un pays partie à la Convention ; et
(ii) que ce droit a été violé ; et
(b) si la demande est bien conforme aux conditions prévues par la Convention.

[...]

(4) S'agissant de la disposition première, les mesures comprennent :
(a) le transfert de la demande à l'Autorité centrale d'un État ; ou
(b) la saisine d'un tribunal en vertu du règlement 25 afin d'obtenir une ordonnance nécessaire ou appropriée en vue d'établir, d'organiser ou d'assurer l'exercice effectif du droit de visite faisant l'objet de la demande ; ou
(c) la recherche d'une solution amiable concernant le droit de visite de l'enfant ».

Il a ensuite rappelé sa conclusion dans l'affaire State Central Authority and Peddar [2008] FamCA 519 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/AU 1107], établissant que même si la réglementation prévoit le cadre dans lequel l'Autorité centrale de l'État peut évoluer et participer à la procédure parentale, les principes de détermination des modalités de la communication entre l'enfant résidant en Australie et un parent situé dans un autre pays membre de la Convention, et du temps qu'ils doivent passer ensemble, sont les mêmes que ceux s'appliquant généralement aux enfants en Australie. Et au moment de décider de délivrer une ordonnance parentale, l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant doit être la considération primordiale.

Afin de déterminer l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant, il faut se reporter aux critères détaillés énoncés dans le Family Law Act 1975, alinéa 60CC, qui identifie comme considérations premières l'avantage pour l'enfant d'avoir des liens solides avec ses deux parents et la nécessité de protéger l'enfant des dangers psychiques et physiques auxquels il peut être exposé du fait de mauvais traitements, de négligences ou de violences familiales. Treize autres considérations sont référencées, notamment l'opinion de l'enfant, la nature de sa relation avec le parent, ainsi que la volonté et la capacité de chacun des parents de faciliter et d'encourager le maintien d'une relation étroite et continue avec l'autre parent.

Auteur du résumé : Peter McEleavy

Le jugement définitif a été rendu par la Family Court en 2010: State Central Authority & Quang [2010] FamCA 231 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/AU 1105].