Rights of custody
Article 3 and 5 of the Hague Convention state when the removal of a child is to be considered wrongful.
Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
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.
The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular 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 that State.
Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.
Courts have considered the meaning and effect of art 3, when read in conjunction with art 5. For instance:
In Re H (A Minor) (Abduction) [1990] 2 FLR 439 the UK court decided that in a case where the custody order in favour of the mother expressly prohibited removal of the child from Ontario without the leave of the court, the subsequent removal of the child without such leave was a breach of the rights of
custody attributed to her under the law of Ontario. The judge found that there was nothing in the Convention to say that the breach of the rights of custody had to be a breach of the rights belonging to any other person or institution.
In Re C (A Minor)(Abduction) [1989] 1 FLR 403 the UK Court of Appeal decided the effect of art 5, and concluded that the definition of ‘custody’ had a wider meaning than the domestic concept. In that case, the father and mother had a consent order in the Sydney court, whereby the mother was granted custody, and by cl 2 ‘neither the father nor the mother shall remove the child from Australia without the consent of the other’. When the mother removed the child to England without such consent, it was held that the father’s right amounted to a right of custody within art 5, enabling him to decide whether, at the request of the mother, the child should live inside or outside Australia. This decision demonstrates the wide extent of the meaning of ‘rights of custody’.
Read more about International Child Abduction
All blogs from The Author:
- The use of Foreign Experts in 1980 Hague Convention Cases
- Cross-Border Child Relocation Dispute: Strategic Legal Intervention Between Egypt and Vietnam
- Child Placement and Co-Parenting in Italy
- Getting a child from the jungle
- Dealing with international child abduction
- No return order due to ratified parental agreement
- Abducted in Italy
- Father’s Rights in International Law
- Care arrangement from Dubai
- Return order to Israel
- Permission not required
- Supporting families and colleagues through the CALA
- International Law in Domestic Courts: A Note on Child Litigation in the UK
- The wishes of a child in a Hague Convention procedure in Hungary
- The voice of the child in Hungarian abduction procedure
- Towards a Comprehensive Approach to International Child Abduction Situations
- Act of Fraudulent Commission of Reality
- Article 13b defence
- My child has been abducted to Brazil
- Return order not required
- Brazil’s new era in child abduction cases
- ASIME congress november 2023
- International Child Abduction and The Hague Convention
- International child abduction case leads to indirect recognition of LBGTQ+ families in Greece (?)
- What is the law with parental child abduction in the UK?