No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Hague Child Abduction Convention — The Common Law Response
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
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
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1993
References
1. For this doctrine, see Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 4th edn. (1990) pp. 47–48 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. 30–31Google Scholar; reproduced in Actes et Documents de la 14e Session, vol. 3, pp. 56–58.Google Scholar
8. [1951] A.C. 352.
9. McClean, J.D., Recognition of Family Judgments in the Commonwealth (1983) pp. 253–263.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. 582–583.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. 63–69.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.