Enforcement of custody in the face of children’s dissent: should law prevail?

4 April 2013 by

Father-and-child-holding--006Raw and others v France – read judgment (only available in French)

This complicated inter-jurisdictional battle between estranged parents is a stark illustration of how difficult it can be in these sorts of cases to apply the law in the fog of family warfare.

Even though the mother’s case was upheld in the Strasbourg Court, one can tell from the modesty of the damages awarded and the strength of the minority opinions that the judges were extremely reluctant to apply hard letter law to the complicated case before them. Indeed in one partially concurring judgment, Judge Nussberger found it distinctly odd that the mother was able to join the children as parties, in the light of their opposition to her wish that they leave their father to join her. He noted that

The previous jurisprudence of the Court offers no solution the conflict of interest present in this case. This is all the more regrettable in that this contradicts the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obliges to hear and respect the views of the child (Article 12)

Whilst the practice of the Court is to allow a parent to enter the name of a minor child to report a violation of the Convention in a custody dispute with the other parent (Diamante and Pelliccioni v Marino), it did not seem justifiable to transpose this approach to child abduction cases, especially if the child has explicitly expressed his intent and that he disagreed with the parent who wants to represent him. In theory, in these cases, both the father and mother could ask to represent the child, each with contradictory positions. Such a situation is not in the best interests of the child and or in the interest of a fair trial before the Court.

In my opinion, to avoid such “exploitation” of children in conflicts between adults and children, we should deny parents the right to represent their minor children, unless there a decision of a competent national institution confirming that pursuing a case before the Court is in the best interests of the child.

The following summary of the facts is based on the Court’s  press release.

The applicant mother, Samantha Raw, had been involved in a bitter custody dispute with the French father of their two sons, D and A. In 2002 French court granted custody to the mother and let her and the children return to England.  On 28 December 2008, while D and A were in France for Christmas and were due to return to their mother, their father went to the police station in La Roche-sur-Yon, referring to his children’s suffering, their fear of returning to the United Kingdom, the educational shortcomings in that country, instances of ill-treatment and the threats made by their son D to harm himself or to attack his mother were he obliged to return. By an order of 2 January 2009, after having heard D and A, the children’s judge for La Roche-sur-Yon provisionally awarded residence rights to their father; the reason given was the unhappiness expressed by the adolescents. Psychological reports drawn up for the court also recommended that the boys be looked after by their father.

However, following an application by Ms Raw, the English High Court  held on 9 January 2009 that the retention of D and A by their father was unlawful and ordered that they be returned to their mother. The High Court made the children wards of court until further order. The English authorities sent a complaint under the International Child Abduction Convention to the French government, which used an emergency procedure to compel the father to restore the boys to their mother. A French judge ordered the father to do so. He appealed, but neither the appeals court nor the French Supreme Court would reverse the decision.  In the light of the ward of court order, the father could not rely on Article 13 of the Hague Convention, which permitted the State authorities not to order the child’s return, since Article 11 of Brussels Regulation II bis (on the enforcement of civil judgments) specified that a court could not refuse to return a child on the basis of Article 13 of the Hague Convention if adequate arrangements had been made to secure protection of the child after his or her return. In this case, the boys having been made wards of court, their well-being would be appropriately monitored in their country of habitual residence. On 17 March 2009 Ms Raw lodged a complaint alleging failure to return the children, and on 16 April the Poitiers Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in her favour.

In June a meeting was organised between D and A and their mother in the presence of the welfare facilitator, their father, an educator and a psychologist. This attempt to re-establish contact was unsuccessful on account of the children’s negative reaction: D attacked his mother physically and A, shouting and crying, refused to meet her. Ms Raw’s lawyer wrote to the French Minister of Justice on 6 October 2009, complaining about the French authorities’ refusal to use police force to ensure execution of the French court’s ruling that the children should be returned to the UK. For the next six months the French Central Authority and the prosecutor’s office exchanged information about the case, but no measure was taken to encourage compliance with that judgment. In April 2010 the Poitiers Public Prosecutor told Ms Raw that, although the judgment ought to be executed, it would not order its enforcement, considering that, “given the children’s ages and personalities, it would not be apt to implement it”. In July 2010 the Central Authority for England and Wales wrote to the French Central Authority requesting execution of the original judgment in favour of the mother, specifying that Ms Raw was available to come to France to collect her children. The French Central Authority transmitted this request and the Poitiers Public Prosecutor confirmed his refusal.

In December 2009 A. secretly asked his mother to come and collect him. She did so, and took him back to the United Kingdom. The Hague Convention no longer applies to D’s situation, since he reached the age of 18 on 9 January 2011. He continues to live with his father in France.

Proceedings before the Strasbourg Court

The mother, joining her children as applicants, complained that the French authorities had failed to respect her right to family life by ensuring that D and A were returned to Great Britain.

The Court upheld the complaint, concluding that the French authorities had not taken all of the measures that they could reasonably have been demanded of them to facilitate execution of the Poitier Court of Appeal’s judgment ordering the return of D and A to the United Kingdom. By 5 votes to 2, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 and ordered France to pay the applicants jointly 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,500 in respect of costs and expenses.

Reasoning behind the Court’s decision

The Court stressed that the Convention must be applied in accordance with the principles of international law. The positive obligations imposed on states by Article 8 in the matter of reuniting a parent with his or her children had to be interpreted in the light of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction  and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 20 November 1989, which emphasised the paramount nature of the child’s interests. The Court noted the rapidity with which the French authorities reacted once the procedure provided for by the Hague Convention had been launched.  On the other hand, the Court acknowledged that the children’s best interests called for a certain prudence on the part of the authorities where tangible factors – such as those identified in that report – gave grounds for considering that their return could be detrimental to them. The Court noted that the French authorities had used various methods to convince the father of D and A to cooperate in organising their return to the United Kingdom.

As the mediated meeting between D and A and their mother had failed completely and the boys had been deeply affected by that event, the Court considered it understandable that the public prosecutor at the Poitiers Court of Appeal had decided that, as things stood, a return to their mother in the United Kingdom could not take place.The Court noted that the French Central Authority had nonetheless pursued its efforts, in collaboration with the Central Authority for England and Wales.  But the Court  also noted that the French authorities gradually reduced their activity. Thus, for six months no measure was taken which was likely to encourage compliance with the French court’s judgment in the mother’s favour.

The Court did not dispute the authorities’ decision to give priority to an approach based on cooperation and negotiation. Indeed, Article 7 of the Hague Convention stressed the need to seek an amiable resolution. The Court considered that the decision by the Public Prosecutor at the Poitiers Court of Appeal not to resort to forcible execution of the judgment of 16 April 2009 and the Prefect’s decision of 19 August 2009 to refuse the use of police force were not open to criticism. The Court considered, however, that coercive measures could have been taken against the father. In this respect, it failed to understand why the relevant French authorities had not taken any action on the complaint filed by Ms Raw alleging failure to return the children. The Court was aware that one of the difficulties faced by the authorities in this case arose from the attitude of the children themselves, who had clearly stated their refusal to return to their mother in the United Kingdom. It considered, however, that attitude was not necessarily immutable. It further observed that, although the children’s opinion had to be taken into account when applying the Hague Convention and Brussels Regulation II bis, their objections were not necessarily sufficient to prevent return.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Lemmens took issue with the entire rationale behind the judgment. Whilst acknowledging that the conduct of the French authorities should be judged in the light of the judgments ordering the return of the children, the strength of their opposition to such a move should be taken into account:

 the task of the Court is limited to judging the facts only from the perspective of the positive obligations on the state, imposed by the right to respect for family life of the applicants. But the French authorities have a certain margin of appreciation. The majority believes that they have not taken all measures that could reasonably be required of them (paragraph 95). For my part, I attach decisive significance to the outcome of the [failed] reconciliation meeting on 4 June 2009. I believe that the authorities, acting as they did, were properly guided by the best interests of children as they saw understood them (and their interpretation does not seem unreasonable). This assessment, which I realise involves an element of subjectivity, leads me to conclude that the authorities remained within the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in relation to the Convention.

See Ronald Sokol’s fascinating account of this case in the New York Times: When Justice Can’t be Done
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. Adam Wagner says:

    Thanks for getting to all this so speedily! I hope you had a good break

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation deficit DEFRA Democracy village Dennis Gill dentist's registration fees deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disabled claimants disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 justification just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: