Supreme Court of Finland

1998:No3492

Enforcement of an order for the return of a child

Docket no. S 98/917

Archive no. 3492

Handed down on 9 November 1998

Child Custody and Right of Access Act, section 46(2)

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

On 19 August 1998, the Supreme Court granted A leave to appeal. In his appeal, A has requested that the order of the Court of Appeal be overturned and that the order of the Supreme Court, handed down on 10 September 1997, on the return of his minor children, C and D, to the United States of America be immediately enforced, as well as that B be obliged to compensate A for the expenditures incurred by the return of the children.

B has responded to the appeal and requested that it be dismissed, inter alia on the grounds that the Court of Appeal of Vaasa has in its judgment of 17 June 1998, said judgment having later become final, ruled that B is to have custody of the children; the proper interpretation of section 46(3) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act and section 27 of the Act on the Enforcement of Child Custody and Right of Access should then be that the enforcement of the return order is to lapse.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

Statement of reasons

Significance of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Vaasa, of 17 June 1998

The Supreme Court upholds the reasons and the decision of the Court of Appeal, according to which the custody order, which was issued by the District Court of Jamsa and later upheld by the Court of Appeal, is not a barrier to the enforcement of the return order.

Right of a child to self-determination

According to section 46(2) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act, an order for the return of a child may be left unenforced only if the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and level of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his/her views. The provision corresponds materially to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Hague Convention, under which a judicial or administrative authority may refuse to order the return of the child if the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.

There are provisions on the right of a child to self-determination also in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was implemented in Finland by the Decree of 16 August 1991, and in the Act on the Enforcement of Child Custody and Right of Access. These provisions and the interpretations given to them may also serve as guidelines on when the will of the child is to be taken into account. Under Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the states parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child. The views of the child are to be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. The child shall be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Under section 2 of the Act on the Enforcement of Child Custody and Right of Access, enforcement shall not take place against the will of the child if he/she has attained the age of twelve years. In addition, enforcement shall not take place against the will of a child younger than twelve years of age, if he/she is of sufficient maturity for her will to be taken into account. This right of the child to self-determination shall be considered at all stages of enforcement of the return order.

In examinations commissioned by the Court of Appeal of Vaasa it was noted that the maturity of the children corresponds to their age. At present, C is seven and a half years old and D six years old.

As regards the right of the child to self-determination, his/her age is the crucial factor. The older the child, the harder it is to exert an undue influence on his/her views. In addition, it is quite natural that a little child will reflect the views and wishes of that parent who provides him/her with the immediate care that he/she needs. Accordingly, it is also for this reason that a little child has only limited chances to form a genuine personal opinion in the matter. In the case-law on the interpretation of the Hague Convention from various contracting states, the age at which the views of the child has been taken into account in a matter pertaining to his/her return has been between 9 and 13 years. In the Finnish enforcement practice relating to child custody and right of access it is normally the case that the views of a child under ten years of age are not taken into account. C and D are at present clearly younger than that; hence, they have not attained the age or level of maturity required in section 46(2) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, in the present case there is no basis for a refusal to enforce the court order on the return of the children, as referred to in section 46(2) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act.

Operative part

The order of the Court of Appeal is overruled. The return order on C and D is to be enforced.

Decided by Justices Portin, Lindholm, Wirilander, Palaja and Krogerus. Referendary: Irmeli Heikonen.

KORKEIN OIKEUS

1998: Nro 3492

Lasten palauttamista koskevan p��t�ksen t�yt�nt��npano

Diaarinumero S 98/917

Taltionumero 3492

Antop�iv� 9.11.1998

L lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 46 � 2 mom

MUUTOKSENHAKU KORKEIMMASSA OIKEUDESSA

Korkein oikeus on 19.8.1998 my�nt�nyt A:lle valitusluvan. A on valituksessaan vaatinut, ett� hovioikeuden p��t�s kumotaan ja ett� Korkeimman oikeuden 10.9.1997 antama p��t�s h�nen alaik�isten lastensa C:n ja D:n palauttamisesta Amerikan yhdysvaltoihin m��r�t��n v�litt�m�sti t�yt�nt��npantavaksi sek� ett� B velvoitetaan korvaamaan A:lle lasten palauttamisesta aiheutuvat kulut.

B on vastannut valitukseen ja vaatinut sen hylk��mist� katsoen, ett� valitus on hyl�tt�v� my�s sill� perusteella, ett� Vaasan hovioikeus on 17.6.1998 antamallaan tuomiolla lainvoimaisesti m��r�nnyt lasten huollon B:lle ja koska lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 46 �:n 3 momentin ja lapsen huoltoa ja tapaamisoikeutta koskevan p��t�ksen t�yt�nt��npanosta annetun lain 27 �:n tulkinta johtaa palauttamism��r�yksen t�yt�nt��npanon raukeamiseen.

KORKEIMMAN OIKEUDEN RATKAISU

P��asiaratkaisun perustelut

Vaasan hovioikeuden 17.6.1998 antaman tuomion merkitys

Korkein oikeus hyv�ksyy hovioikeuden perustelut ja ratkaisun, jonka mukaan J�ms�n k�r�j�oikeuden antama lasten huoltoa koskeva p��t�s, jonka Vaasan hovioikeus on sittemmin 17.6.1998 j�tt�nyt pysyv�ksi, ei ole esteen� palauttamism��r�yksen t�yt�nt��npanolle.

Lapsen itsem��r��misoikeus

Lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 46 �:n 2 momentin mukaan m��r�ys lapsen palauttamisesta voidaan j�tt�� panematta t�yt�nt��n ainoastaan, jos lapsi vastustaa palauttamista ja jos h�n on saavuttanut sellaisen i�n ja kypsyyden, ett� h�nen mielipiteeseens� on aiheellista kiinnitt�� huomiota. S��nn�s vastaa sis�ll�lt��n Haagin sopimuksen 13 artiklan 2 kappaletta, jonka mukaan oikeus- ja hallintoviranomainen voi kielt�yty� m��r��m�st� lasta palautettavaksi, jos lapsi vastustaa palauttamista ja jos viranomainen katsoo, ett� lapsi on saavuttanut sellaisen i�n ja kypsyyden, ett� lapsen mielipiteeseen on aiheellista kiinnitt�� huomiota.

Lapsen itsem��r��misoikeudesta on s��nn�ksi� my�s 16.8.1991 annetulla asetuksella voimaan saatetussa lapsen oikeuksia koskevassa yleissopimuksessa sek� lapsen huoltoa ja tapaamisoikeutta koskevan p��t�ksen t�yt�nt��npanosta annetussa laissa. N�ist�kin s��nn�ksist� ja niiden soveltamisk�yt�nn�st� voidaan saada johtoa arvioitaessa sit�, milloin lapsen omalle tahdolle voidaan antaa merkityst�. Lapsen oikeuksia koskevan yleissopimuksen 12 artiklan mukaan sopimusvaltioiden on taattava lapselle, joka kykenee muodostamaan omat n�kemyksens�, oikeus vapaasti ilmaista n�kemyksens� kaikissa itse��n koskevissa asioissa. Lapsen n�kemykset on otettava huomioon lapsen i�n ja kehitystason mukaisesti. Lapselle on annettava mahdollisuus tulla kuulluksi h�nt� koskevissa oikeudellisissa ja hallinnollisissa toimissa joko suoraan tai edustajan kautta kansallisen lain-

s��d�nn�n menettelytapojen mukaisesti. Lapsen huoltoa ja tapaamisoikeutta koskevan p��t�ksen t�yt�nt��npanosta annetun lain 2 �:n mukaan, jos lapsi on t�ytt�nyt 12 vuotta, t�yt�nt��npanoon ei saa ryhty� vastoin lapsen tahtoa. T�yt�nt��npanoon ei my�sk��n saa ryhty� vastoin 12 vuotta nuoremman lapsen tahtoa, jos lapsi on niin kehittynyt, ett� h�nen tahtoonsa voidaan kiinnitt�� huomiota. Lapsen itsem��r��misoikeus on otettava huomioon palauttamism��r�yksen t�yt�nt��npanon kaikissa vaiheissa.

Vaasan hovioikeuden toimituttamissa tutkimuksissa on havaittu, ett� lapset ovat ik��ns� vastaavasti kehittyneit�. C on t�ll� hetkell� 7 vuoden 6 kuukauden ja D 6 vuoden ik�inen.

Lapsen itsem��r��misoikeuden kannalta i�n merkitys on ratkaiseva. Mit� vanhempi lapsi on kysymyksess�, sit� vaikeampaa on ep�asiallisella tavalla vaikuttaa h�nen mielipiteeseens�. on my�s luonnollista, ett� pieni lapsi my�t�ilee sen vanhemman n�kemyksi� ja toiveita, jonka v�litt�m�st� huolenpidosta h�n on riippuvainen. Pienell� lapsella on t�st�kin syyst� rajoitetut mahdollisuudet muodostaa asiassa aito oma mielipide. Haagin sopimuksen soveltamista koskevassa oikeusk�yt�nn�ss� eri sopimusvaltioissa on palauttamisasiassa annettu merkityst� 9 - 13-vuotiaan mielipiteelle. Suomalaisessa lapsen huoltoa ja tapaamisoikeutta koskevassa t�yt�nt��npanok�yt�nn�ss� ei yleens� alle 10-vuotiaiden lasten mielipiteelle ole annettu merkityst�. C ja D ovat t�ll� hetkell� selv�sti t�t� nuorempia eiv�tk� n�in ollen ole saavuttaneet lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 46 �:n 2 momentissa edellytetty� ik�� ja kypsyytt�.

Johtop��t�s

Edell� olevasta ilmenee, ettei t�ss� tapauksessa ole lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 46 �:n 2 momentissa tarkoitettua perustetta j�tt�� panematta t�yt�nt��n palauttamism��r�yst�.

P��t�slauselma

Hovioikeuden p��t�s kumotaan. C:n ja D:n palauttamism��r�ys on pantava t�yt�nt��n.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet oikeusneuvokset Portin, Lindholm, Wirilander, Palaja ja Krogerus. Esittelij� Irmeli Heikonen.

For questions about this website please contact : The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law