AFFAIRE

Télécharger le texte complet EN

Nom de l'affaire

March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001)

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/USf 386

Juridiction

Pays

États-Unis d'Amérique - Niveau fédéral

Nom

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Etats-Unis)

Degré

Deuxième Instance

États concernés

État requérant

Mexique

État requis

États-Unis d'Amérique - Niveau fédéral

Décision

Date

19 April 2001

Statut

Définitif

Motifs

Objectifs de la Convention - Préambule, art. 1 et 2 | Risque grave - art. 13(1)(b)

Décision

Recours rejeté, retour ordonné

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

1 3 11 12 13(1)(b) 14

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif

1 13(1)(b)

Autres dispositions
Doctrine du « Fugitive Disentitlement » (Déchéance des droits du fugitif)
Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

INCADAT commentaire

Objectifs et domaine d’application de la Convention

Objectifs de la Convention
Objectifs de la Convention

Exceptions au retour

Problèmes généraux
Nature limitée des exceptions

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The children, a boy and a girl, were 10 and 6 respectively at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. They had lived in both the United States and Mexico. The parents had been married, however the mother disappeared in 1996 and thereafter the father cared for the children alone. The maternal grandparents alleged that the mother had been murdered by the father, but no one had been charged with the mother's disappearance.

Following the disappearance of the mother, the father moved to Mexico with the children. State contempt orders were issued in both Illinois and Tennessee in respect of various civil proceedings brought by the grandparents following the father's departure. On 15 June 2000 the maternal grandparents arrived in Mexico to exercise access with the children.

On 21 June they took the children to the United States. On 3 August the father applied for return of the children. On 4 October the trial court granted summary judgment and ordered that the children be returned to Mexico. The maternal grandparents appealed.

Ruling

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the trial court had not erred in its refusal to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.

Grounds

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine The grandparents argued that since the father was in contempt of several state court orders he should be barred under the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine from invoking the assistance of the court in securing the return of the children. The appeal court rejected this submission, finding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in declining to apply the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine. It noted that the contempt orders against the father were not a result of criminal contempts. It added that it was unwilling to expand the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine to any conduct that exhibited disrespect for any aspect of the judicial system. The court explained that there must be restraint in resorting to the inherent power and its use must be a reasonable response to the issues involved.

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

The court ruled that the existence of a default judgment which found that the father had killed the mother, was not clear and convincing evidence that the children would face a grave risk of harm if returned. There were no allegations he had ever harmed, abused or neglected the children. The court stated that allegations regarding the mother's death should be addressed in a custody hearing and not a Convention case. It added that the Mexican authorities were capable of protecting the children if the need so arose.

INCADAT comment

Convention Aims

Courts in all Contracting States must inevitably make reference to and evaluate the aims of the Convention if they are to understand the purpose of the instrument, and so be guided in how its concepts should be interpreted and provisions applied.

The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, explicitly and implicitly, embodies a range of aims and objectives, positive and negative, as it seeks to achieve a delicate balance between the competing interests of the central actors; the child, the left behind parent and the abducting parent, see for example the discussion in the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court: W.(V.) v. S.(D.), (1996) 2 SCR 108, (1996) 134 DLR 4th 481 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 17].

Article 1 identifies the core aims, namely that the Convention seeks:
"a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
 b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States."

Further clarification, most notably to the primary purpose of achieving the return of children where their removal or retention has led to the breach of actually exercised rights of custody, is given in the Preamble.

Therein it is recorded that:

"the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody;

and that States signatory desire:

 to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention;

 to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence; and

 to secure protection for rights of access."

The aim of return and the manner in which it should best be achieved is equally reinforced in subsequent Articles, notably in the duties required of Central Authorities (Arts 8-10) and in the requirement for judicial authorities to act expeditiously (Art. 11).

Article 13, along with Articles 12(2) and 20, which contain the exceptions to the summary return mechanism, indicate that the Convention embodies an additional aim, namely that in certain defined circumstances regard may be paid to the specific situation, including the best interests, of the individual child or even taking parent.

The Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report draws (at para. 19) attention to an implicit aim on which the Convention rests, namely that any debate on the merits of custody rights should take place before the competent authorities in the State where the child had his habitual residence prior to its removal, see for example:

Argentina
W., E. M. c. O., M. G., Supreme Court, June 14, 1995 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AR 362]
 
Finland
Supreme Court of Finland: KKO:2004:76 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FI 839]

France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No de RG 06/002739 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 947]

Israel
T. v. M., 15 April 1992, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Supreme Court of Israel [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 214]

Netherlands
X. (the mother) v. De directie Preventie, en namens Y. (the father) (14 April 2000, ELRO nr. AA 5524, Zaaksnr.R99/076HR) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NL 316]

Switzerland
5A.582/2007 Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, 4 décembre 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 986]

United Kingdom - Scotland
N.J.C. v. N.P.C. [2008] CSIH 34, 2008 S.C. 571 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 996]

United States of America
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 125]
 
The Pérez-Vera Report equally articulates the preventive dimension to the instrument's return aim (at paras. 17, 18, 25), a goal which was specifically highlighted during the ratification process of the Convention in the United States (see: Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10505 (1986)) and which has subsequently been relied upon in that Contracting State when applying the Convention, see:

Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2008) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 741]

Applying the principle of equitable tolling where an abducted child had been concealed was held to be consistent with the purpose of the Convention to deter child abduction.

Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 578]

In contrast to other federal Courts of Appeals, the 11th Circuit was prepared to interpret a ne exeat right as including the right to determine a child's place of residence since the goal of the Hague Convention was to deter international abduction and the ne exeat right provided a parent with decision-making authority regarding the child's international relocation.

In other jurisdictions, deterrence has on occasion been raised as a relevant factor in the interpretation and application of the Convention, see for example:

Canada
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 754]

United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re A.Z. (A Minor) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1993] 1 FLR 682 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 50]

Aims and objectives may equally rise to prominence during the life of the instrument, such as the promotion of transfrontier contact, which it has been submitted will arise by virtue of a strict application of the Convention's summary return mechanism, see:

New Zealand
S. v. S. [1999] NZFLR 625 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 296]

United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 60]

There is no hierarchy between the different aims of the Convention (Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report, at para. 18).  Judicial interpretation may therefore differ as between Contracting States as more or less emphasis is placed on particular objectives.  Equally jurisprudence may evolve, whether internally or internationally.

In United Kingdom case law (England and Wales) a decision of that jurisdiction's then supreme jurisdiction, the House of Lords, led to a reappraisal of the Convention's aims and consequently a re-alignment in court practice as regards the exceptions:

Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]

Previously a desire to give effect to the primary goal of promoting return and thereby preventing an over-exploitation of the exceptions, had led to an additional test of exceptionality being added to the exceptions, see for example:

Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 901]

It was this test of exceptionality which was subsequently held to be unwarranted by the House of Lords in Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]

- Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine:

In United States Convention case law different approaches have been taken in respect of applicants who have or are alleged to have themselves breached court orders under the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine".

In Re Prevot, 59 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 1995) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 150], the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was applied, the applicant father in the Convention application having left the United States to escape his criminal conviction and other responsibilities to the United States courts.

Walsh v. Walsh, No. 99-1747 (1st Cir. July 25, 2000) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 326]

In the instant case the father was a fugitive. Secondly, it was arguable there was some connection between his fugitive status and the petition. But the court found that the connection not to be strong enough to support the application of the doctrine. In any event, the court also held that applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine would impose too severe a sanction in a case involving parental rights.

In March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 386], the doctrine was not applied where the applicant was in breach of civil orders.

In the Canadian case Kovacs v. Kovacs (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 671 (Sup. Ct.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 760], the father's fugitive status was held to be a factor in there being a grave risk of harm facing the child.

Author: Peter McEleavy

Limited Nature of the Exceptions

Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.