Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:07:16.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Hague Child Abduction Convention — The Common Law Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Get access

Extract

From the point of view of a commentator in a common law jurisdiction, the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is one of the most successful products of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. This article examines why that seems to be the case, and whether the courts in some common law jurisdictions have not been over-enthusiastic in embracing its principles.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For this doctrine, see Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 4th edn. (1990) pp. 4748 and the literature there cited.Google Scholar

2. J. H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd. v. Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 A.C. 418.Google Scholar

3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 18.

4. For the background to and commentary upon the Convention, see Dyer, A., ‘International Child Abduction by Parents’, 168 Hague Recueil (1980) p. 231.Google Scholar For a comparative study, see Shapira, A., ‘Private International Law Aspects of Child Custody and Child Kidnapping Cases’, 214 Hague Recueil (1989) p. 127. The report of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference which reviewed the operation of the Convention in 1989 is printed in 29 ILM (1990) p. 220.Google Scholar

5. Shapira, , loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 162, discussing an Israeli cause célèbre, the Jundeff case.Google Scholar

6. In England and Wales, by the Children Act 1989, s. 1, re-enacting legislation dating from 1925.

7. Originally published in the Aba's, Family Law Newsletter, vol 17 (1977) no. 2, pp. 3031Google Scholar; reproduced in Actes et Documents de la 14e Session, vol. 3, pp. 5658.Google Scholar

8. [1951] A.C. 352.

9. McClean, J.D., Recognition of Family Judgments in the Commonwealth (1983) pp. 253263.Google Scholar

10. Re McKee [1947] 4 D.L.R. 579 (Ont.).Google Scholar

11. Re McKee [1948] 4 D.L.R. 339 (Ont. CA).Google Scholar

12. McKee v. McKee [1950] 3 D.L.R. 577 (SCC), especially per Cartwright J. at pp. 582583.Google Scholar

13. [1951] A.C. 352, 364.

14. Menasce v. Menasce (1965) 40 D.L.R. (2d) 114 (PEI); Re Stalder and Wood (1975) 54 D.L.R. (3rd) 157 (Man. CA).

15. Re B (Infants) [1971] N.Z.L.R. 1 (NZ CA); E. v. F. [1974] 2 N.Z.L.R. 435.Google Scholar

16. E.g., Hilborn v. Hilborn (1977) 2 R.F.L. (2d) 5 (Alta.).Google Scholar

17. See infra.

18. Re C.(DJ.) and C.(W) (1974) 51 D.L.R. (3d) 351 (Ont.)Google Scholar; Burgess v. Burgess (1977) 75 D.L.R. (3d) 486 (NS App.)Google Scholar; Re O. and O. (1980) 117 D.L.R. (3d) 159 (Ont.).Google Scholar

19. E.g., Ferrers v. Ferrers, 1954 (1) S.A. 514 (Zimbabwe).Google Scholar

20. Ibid., at 158 per Evatt C.J. and Ellis S.J.

21. Ibid., at 158 pet Evatt C.J. and Ellis S.J.

22. See Actes et Documents de la 14e Session, vol. 3, pp. 6369.Google Scholar

23. Re H. (Infants) [1966] 1 All E.R. 886 (CA)Google Scholar; Re T. (Infants) [1968] Ch. 704 (CA)Google Scholar; Re E.(D.) (An Infant) [1967] Ch. 761 (CA).Google Scholar

24. [1970] A.C. 668.

25. Re L. (Minors) [1974] 1 W.L.R. 250 (CA).Google Scholar

26. 28 U.S.C. 1738A.

27. See the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, s. 8 (b).

28. Loc. cit. n. 4, p. 161.Google Scholar

29. Amaddo v. Director of Pardes-Hanna Immigration Camp (1950) 4 P.D.4.Google Scholar

30. The definition is in terms broader than the concept of custody traditionally adopted in common law jurisdictions: see S.(S M.) v. A.(J.) (1990) 65 D.L.R. (4th) 222 (BC) (rights of Indian tribe to assert statutory tribal preference in adoption placement held to be right to determine child's place of residence)Google Scholar; Re J. (Abduction: Ward of Court) [1989] Fam. 85. (Since the Children Act 1989, the terminology of ‘custody’ has been expunged from the English legal lexicon).Google Scholar

31. Re H. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1991] 2 A.C. 476.Google Scholar

32. Ibid.

33. For the question whether this means return to the wronged parent or to the country of habitual residence, which appears to be understood differently in Australia and England, see McClean, , 106 LQR (1990) p. 375.Google Scholar

34. Re D (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1989] 1 F.L.R. 97 n.

35. See 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq. and S. v. S. 574 N.Y.S. 2d 429 (1991) (need of abducting parent to be close to a ‘population of available Orthodox Jewish men’, in order to find a new husband held not to satisfy Art. 13).

36. Re E. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1989] 1 F.L.R. 135 (CA)Google Scholar; Parsons v. Styger (1989) 67 O.R. (2d) 3, 11 (Ont. CA).Google Scholar

37. Re A. (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence), The Times (February 17, 1992) (CA).Google Scholar

38. Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1991] 2 F.L.R. 1 (CA).Google Scholar See also Re A. (Minors) (Abduction) [1991] 2 F.L.R. 241 (CA).Google Scholar

39. 1989] F.L.C. 92–054.

40. In the Marriage of Hooft van Huysduyden (No. 1) (1989) 99 F.L.R. 282.Google ScholarFor a similar case in the United States, see Re Mohsen (A Minor) 715 F. Supp. 1063 (DC Wyo., 1989).Google Scholar

41. G. v. G. (Minors) (Abduction) [1991] 2 F.L.R. 506 (CA), decided in May 1989.Google Scholar

42. [1990] 3 All E.R. 97 (CA).

43. Art. 7 (a).

44. Arts. 7(c) and 10.

45. Arts. 7(d) and 13(3).

46. Art. 7(f), (g).

47. See Art. 11 of the Preliminary Draft of the Convention and pares. 90–91 of the Special Commission's Report: Acres et Documents de la 14e Session, pp. 168, 202.Google Scholar

48. 546 N.Y.S. 2d 517 (1989); see also Duquette v. Tahan 600 A. 2d. 472 (NJ Super., 1991)Google Scholar

49. Although the Hague Convention came into force in the United States in July 1988, it does not apply to wrongful removals occurring before that date.