Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Article 13/1(b) and “Domestic Violence”: A Critical Review
Onur Can SaatcıoğluThe Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction aims to secure the prompt return of children who were wrongfully removed to, or retained in, a Contracting State, in violation of the rights of custody or access under the law of another. The Convention is based on the assumption that the best interests of the child is best preserved in the state of the habitual residence of the child concerned. That being said, the Convention also allows for numerous exceptions to that assumption, again laid down in different provisions. Among these, the most frequently invoked exception is stipulated under article 13, paragraph 1-b. Often called the “grave risk exception”, this provision instructs the courts of the requested State that they are not bound to order the return of the child, as long as the person who opposes the return establishes that there is a grave risk that this would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him/her in an intolerable situation. One major problem with the above wording can be seen in cases where the abductor is a victim of domestic violence. The current framework of the Convention frequently leads to undesirable consequences, as it often fails to provide necessary protection both to the victim and the child. This paper is an effort to make this problem more visible. In the light of various criticisms made about this subject over time, the reasons behind it and the possible solutions to it will be examined.
Uluslararası Çocuk Kaçırmanın Hukuki Veçheleri Hakkında Sözleşme m.13/1-b Hükmü Kapsamında “Ev İçi Şiddet” Olgusu: Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirme
Onur Can Saatcıoğlu1980 Tarihli Uluslararası Çocuk Kaçırmanın Hukuki Veçheleri Hakkında Sözleşme, 16 yaşını tamamlamamış çocuğun, velayet hakkı ihlal edilerek bir ülkeden diğer bir ülkeye götürülmesi veya alıkonulması halinde, derhal mutad meskeninin bulunduğu ülkeye geri dönmesini veya şahsi ilişki kurma hakkının tesis edilmesini sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Sözleşme, çocuğun üstün menfaatinin en iyi gözetileceği yerin, onun mutad meskeni ülkesi olduğunu varsaymaktadır. Öte yandan, anılan varsayımın çeşitli istisnaları olabileceği de, Sözleşme’nin birden fazla maddesinde getirilmiş hükümler ile kabul edilmiştir. Bu hükümler arasında uygulamada en sık başvurulan istisna m.13/1-b hükmünde yer alan “ciddi risk istisnası” olup, iade edilmesi halinde çocuğun fiziki veya psikolojik bir tehlikeye maruz kalacağı yahut başka bir şekilde, müsamaha edilemeyecek bir duruma düşeceği yolunda ciddi bir risk bulunan hallerde, mahkemeye iade talebini reddedebilme imkanı vermektedir. Söz konusu istisna uygulamasındaki en büyük problem, çocuğu kaçıran kişinin ev içi şiddet mağduru olduğu vakalar bakımından gündeme gelmektedir. Mevcut haliyle Sözleşme sistemi, mağduru ve dolayısıyla çocuğu korumakta yetersiz kalmakta, adil olmayan sonuçlara neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışma, yabancı doktrin görüşleri ışığında problemin kaynağına ve neden olduğu sonuçlara temas ederek, konunun günümüz itibariyle niçin özel ilgi gerektirdiği hususunu ele almayı ve çeşitli çözüm önerilerine yer vermeyi amaçlamaktadır.
The Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction aims to secure the prompt return of children who were wrongfully removed to, or retained in, a Contracting State, in violation of the rights of custody or access under the law of another. The Convention is based on the assumption that the best interests of the child is best preserved in the state of the habitual residence of the child concerned.
That being said, the Convention also allows for numerous exceptions to that assumption, again laid down in different provisions. Among those, the most frequently invoked exception is stipulated under article 13 paragraph 1-b. Often called the “grave risk exception”, this provision instructs the courts of the requested State that they are not bound to order the return of the child, provided that the person who opposes the return establishes that this would involve a grave risk to the child and expose him/her to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him/her in an intolerable situation. Perhaps the most intriguing problem regarding the scope of this provision can be seen in cases where the abductor (usually, the mother) is a victim of domestic violence and the abduction was perpetrated in order to escape from this violence. There is no explicit reference to this scenario in the provision, although it is thought to be included within the scope of the phrase “intolerable situation”. In contrast to cases where the child is the victim of the violence, the fact that the mother is the sole recipient seems to have a minor effect on the decision whether or not to return the child. As long as adequate protective measures can be found in the state of the habitual residence, courts tend to return the child, while presuming at the same time that they favoured the child’s best interests according to the Convention.
The current framework of the Convention often leads to undesirable consequences like these. The drafters of the Convention have long been aware of this issue as they continually highlight the need for further work to be carried out on it. However, even though a “Guide to Good Practice” was published very recently with the aim of guiding the courts on the application of this exception, no clear solution has been offered with respect to cases where the mother has suffered from domestic violence. In contrast to this silence, many authors who are themselves experts on cases of international child abduction, have become more and more critical about the approach embraced by the Convention and applied by the courts. This paper aims to discuss whether this approach is sustainable if we have to protect the best interests of the child. In the first part of this paper, the general view in Turkish law regarding the exception will be examined. In the light of the opinions of scholars and of court decisions, we will try to project a concise image regarding the current domestic approach. Then, we will try to draw out the guidelines highlighted in the Guide to Good Practice. Since it is the most recent document which aims to guide practitioners, its approach can be expected to be of utmost importance. Once we have a foundational basis, in the next part we will introduce major criticisms which have been expressed on this issue. One of the observations regarding the Convention upon which most parties are agreed is that, contrary to the initial thoughts of the drafters, most abductors today come in the form of mothers. Additionally, a high percentage of them are apparently escaping from domestic violence. Proved by numerous scientific studies, these two realities necessitate a change in approach and we will try to reveal this necessity by making reference to some of those studies.
Finally, the last part of this paper will discuss possible solutions proposed by certain scholars or initiated by some member states alongside with our own comments about them and generally about the whole issue.
