Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Convention on the civil Aspects of International Child Abduction | |
---|---|
Signed | 25 October 1980 |
Location | The Netherlands |
Effective | 1 December 1983[1] |
Parties | 98 (September 2017)[1] |
Depositary | Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands |
Languages | French and English |
Full text | |
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction at Wikisource |
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) that provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member country to another.
The Convention was concluded 25 October 1980 and entered into force between the signatories on 1 December 1983. The Convention was drafted to ensure the prompt return of children who have been abducted from their country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained in a contracting state not their country of habitual residence.[2]
The primary intention of the Convention is to preserve whatever status quo child custody arrangement existed immediately before an alleged wrongful removal or retention thereby deterring a parent from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court. The Convention applies only to children under the age of 16.
As of May 2018, 98 states are party to the convention.[1] In 2017, Tunisia and Jamaica acceded to the convention.[1]
Procedural nature
Family law |
---|
Family |
The Convention does not alter any substantive rights. The Convention requires that a court in which a Hague Convention action is filed should not consider the merits of any underlying child custody dispute, but should determine only that country in which those issues should be heard. Return of the child is to the member country rather than specifically to the left-behind parent.
The Convention requires the return of a child who was a "habitual resident" in a contracting party immediately before an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights.[3] The Convention provides that all Contracting States, as well as any judicial and administrative bodies of those Contracting States, "shall act expeditiously in all proceedings seeking the return of a children" and that those institutions shall use the most expeditious procedures available to the end that final decision be made within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings.[4]
Wrongful removal or retention
The Convention provides that the removal or retention of a child is "wrongful" whenever:
"a. It is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
"b. at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention." These rights of custody may arise by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of the country of habitual residence.[5]
"From the Convention's standpoint, the removal of a child by one of the joint holders without the consent of the other, is . . . wrongful, and this wrongfulness derives in this particular case, not from some action in breach of a particular law, but from the fact that such action has disregarded the rights of the other parent which are also protected by law, and has interfered with their normal exercise."[6]
Habitual residence
The Convention mandates return of any child who was "habitually resident" in a contracting nation immediately before an action that constitutes a breach of custody. The Convention does not define the term "habitual residence," but it is not intended to be a technical term. Instead, courts should broadly read the term in the context of the Convention's purpose to discourage unilateral removal of a child from that place in which the child lived when removed or retained, which should generally be understood as the child's "ordinary residence." The child's "habitual residence" is not determined after the incident alleged to constitute a wrongful removal or retention. A parent cannot unilaterally create a new habitual residence by wrongfully removing or sequestering a child. Because the determination of "habitual residence" is primarily a "fact based" determination and not one which is encumbered by legal technicalities, the court must look at those facts, the shared intentions of the parties, the history of the children's location and the settled nature of the family prior to the facts giving rise to the request for return.[7]
Special rules of evidence
The Convention provides special rules for admission and consideration of evidence independent of the evidentiary standards set by any member nation. Article 30 provides that the Application for Assistance, as well as any documents attached to that application or submitted to or by the Central Authority are admissible in any proceeding for a child's return.[8] The Convention also provides that no member nation can require legalization or other similar formality of the underlying documents in context of a Convention proceeding.[9] Furthermore, the court in which a Convention action is proceeding "may take notice directly of the law of, and of judicial or administrative decisions, formally recognized or not in the State of habitual residence of the child, without recourse to the specific procedures for the proof of that law or for the recognition of foreign decisions which would otherwise be applicable" when determining whether there is a wrongful removal or retention under the Convention.[10]
Limited defenses to return
The Convention limits the defenses against return of a wrongfully removed or retained child. To defend against the return of the child, the defendant must establish to the degree required by the applicable standard of proof (generally determined by the lex fori, i.e. the law of the state where the court is located):
(a) that Petitioner was not "actually exercising custody rights at the time of the removal or retention" under Article 3; or
(b) that Petitioner "had consented to or acquiesced in the removal or retention" under Article 13; or
(c) that more than one year has passed from the time of wrongful removal or retention until the date of the commencement of judicial or administrative proceedings, under Article 12; or
(d) that the child is old enough and has a sufficient degree of maturity to knowingly object to being returned to the Petitioner and that it is appropriate to heed that objection, under Article 13; or
(e) that "there is grave risk that the child's return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation," under Article 13(b); or
(f) that return of the child would subject the child to violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, under Article 20.
Non-compliance
Noncompliance with the terms and spirit of the Hague Convention has been a particularly difficult problem in the practical implementation of the Convention. In 2014, the United States declared Brazil, Mexico, Romania, and Ukraine as "Countries with Enforcement Concerns."[11] Additional countries are listed and reference to the most recent report should be made by concerned parties.
The Cuellar Versus Joyce case[12] was an example of the difficulties facing left behind parents applying to the US Central Authority.
Interpretation of article 13b: no return in case of "grave risks"
The principal purpose of the Abduction Convention is to cause the prompt return of a child to his or her "habitual residence." In certain exceptional cases under Article 13b, the court's mandatory return obligation is changed to a discretionary obligation, specifically, "the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." The duty to return a child is however not abrogated by a finding under Art. 13(b) but merely changes from mandatory to discretionary.
In the primary source of interpretation for the Convention, the Explanatory Report, Professor E. Pérez Vera noted the following:
It would seem necessary to underline the fact that the three types of exception to the rule concerning the return of the child must be applied only so far as they go and no further. This implies above all that they are to be interpreted in a restrictive fashion if the Convention is not to become a dead letter. In fact, the Convention as a whole rests upon the unanimous rejection of this phenomenon of illegal child removals and upon the conviction that the best way to combat them at an international level is to refuse to grant them legal recognition. The practical application of this principle requires that the signatory States be convinced that they belong, despite their differences, to the same legal community within which the authorities of each State acknowledge that the authorities of one of them—those of the child's habitual residence—are in principle best placed to decide upon questions of custody and access. As a result, a systematic invocation of the said exceptions, substituting the forum chosen by the abductor for that of the child's residence, would lead to the collapse of the whole structure of the Convention by depriving it of the spirit of mutual confidence which is its inspiration.[citation needed]
State parties
As of May 2018, there are 98 parties to the Convention.[13] The last states to accede to the Convention were Tunisia and Jamaica in 2017.[14]
See also
- International child abduction
- Child abduction
- Child laundering
- Child harvesting
- List of international adoption scandals
- Hague Adoption Convention
- Hague Abduction Convention Compliance Reports (US)
- International Child Abduction Remedies Act (US)
- Hague Conference on Private International Law
Footnotes
- ^ a b c d "Status table: Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". Hague Conference on Private International Law. 14 June 2011. Retrieved 19 July 2011.
- ^ Hague Convention, Preamble.
- ^ Hague Convention, Article 4.
- ^ Hague Convention, Article 11.
- ^ Hague Convention, Article 3.
- ^ Elisa Pérez Vera, Explanatory Report: Hague Conference on Private International Law, in 3 Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session ("Explanatory Report"), 71, at 447–48
- ^ Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1073 (US 9th Cir. 2001) Case details on the INCADAT website Archived 13 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Hague Convention, Article 30
- ^ Hague Convention, Article 23.
- ^ Hague Convention, Article 14
- ^ https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/childabduction/complianceReports/2014.pdf
- ^ see Cuellar v Joyce, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 624886 9th Cir.(Mont.)
- ^ https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=24
- ^ https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=24
External links
- Full Text of the Convention
- Explanatory Report by Elisa Perez-Vera
- INCADAT—Case-law database of different jurisdictions concerning the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
- US State Department International—Parental Child Abduction—Compliance Report 2011
- Contracting States
- The Child Abduction Section of the Hague Conference website
- [1]
- Case law and materials including Hebrew documents
- Hague Conference Guides to good practice
- The Hague Domestic Violence Project International Child Abduction and Domestic Violence
- Multiple perspectives on the implications of the Hague Convention
- Use dmy dates from July 2013
- Family law treaties
- Treaties concluded in 1980
- Treaties entered into force in 1983
- Hague Conference on Private International Law conventions
- International child abduction
- Treaties of Albania
- Treaties of Argentina
- Treaties of Australia
- Treaties of Austria
- Treaties of Belarus
- Treaties of Belgium
- Treaties of Bolivia
- Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Treaties of Brazil
- Treaties of Bulgaria
- Treaties of Canada
- Treaties of Chile
- Treaties extended to British Hong Kong
- Treaties extended to Portuguese Macau
- Treaties of Costa Rica
- Treaties of Croatia
- Treaties of Cyprus
- Treaties of the Czech Republic
- Treaties of Denmark
- Treaties of Estonia
- Treaties of Ecuador
- Treaties of Finland
- Treaties of France
- Treaties of Georgia (country)
- Treaties of West Germany
- Treaties of Greece
- Treaties of the Hungarian People's Republic
- Treaties of Iceland
- Treaties of Ireland
- Treaties of Israel
- Treaties of Italy
- Treaties of Jamaica
- Treaties of South Korea
- Treaties of Latvia
- Treaties of Lithuania
- Treaties of Luxembourg
- Treaties of Malta
- Treaties of Mauritius
- Treaties of Mexico
- Treaties of Monaco
- Treaties of Montenegro
- Treaties of Morocco
- Treaties of the Netherlands
- Treaties of New Zealand
- Treaties of Norway
- Treaties of Panama
- Treaties of Paraguay
- Treaties of Peru
- Treaties of Poland
- Treaties of Portugal
- Treaties of Romania
- Treaties of Russia
- Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro
- Treaties of Slovakia
- Treaties of Slovenia
- Treaties of South Africa
- Treaties of Spain
- Treaties of Sri Lanka
- Treaties of Sweden
- Treaties of Switzerland
- Treaties of the Republic of Macedonia
- Treaties of Turkey
- Treaties of Ukraine
- Treaties of the United States
- Treaties of the United Kingdom
- Treaties of Uruguay
- Treaties of Venezuela
- Treaties of Andorra
- Treaties of Armenia
- Treaties of the Bahamas
- Treaties of Belize
- Treaties of Burkina Faso
- Treaties of Colombia
- Treaties of the Dominican Republic
- Treaties of El Salvador
- Treaties of Fiji
- Treaties of Gabon
- Treaties of Guatemala
- Treaties of Guinea
- Treaties of Honduras
- Treaties of Iraq
- Treaties of Japan
- Treaties of Kazakhstan
- Treaties of Lesotho
- Treaties of Nicaragua
- Treaties of Moldova
- Treaties of Pakistan
- Treaties of the Philippines
- Treaties of Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Treaties of San Marino
- Treaties of Seychelles
- Treaties of Singapore
- Treaties of Thailand
- Treaties of Trinidad and Tobago
- Treaties of Turkmenistan
- Treaties of Uzbekistan
- Treaties of Zambia
- Treaties of Zimbabwe
- Treaties of Yugoslavia
- Child custody
- 1980 in the Netherlands
- Treaties extended to the Caribbean Netherlands
- Treaties extended to Anguilla
- Treaties extended to Bermuda
- Treaties extended to the Cayman Islands
- Treaties extended to the Falkland Islands
- Treaties extended to the Isle of Man
- Treaties extended to Jersey
- Treaties extended to Montserrat
- Treaties extended to Clipperton Island
- Treaties extended to French Guiana
- Treaties extended to French Polynesia
- Treaties extended to the French Southern and Antarctic Lands
- Treaties extended to Guadeloupe
- Treaties extended to Martinique
- Treaties extended to New Caledonia
- Treaties extended to Réunion
- Treaties extended to Saint Pierre and Miquelon
- Treaties extended to Wallis and Futuna
- 20th century in The Hague