|
INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE ON
CROSS-BORDER FAMILY RELOCATION
WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
23-25 MARCH 2010
co-organised by
Hague Conference on Private International Law
International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children
with the support of
United States Department of State
WASHINGTON DECLARATION ON
INTERNATIONAL FAMILY RELOCATION
On 23-25 March 2010, more than 50 judges and other experts
from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Egypt, Germany, India,
Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States
of America, including experts from the Hague Conference on Private International
Law and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children,
met in Washington, D.C. to discuss cross-border family relocation. They
agreed on the following:
Availability of Legal Procedures
Concerning International Relocation |
1. |
States should ensure that legal procedures
are available to apply to the competent authority for the right to
relocate with the child. Parties should be strongly encouraged to
use the legal procedures and not to act unilaterally. |
Reasonable Notice
of International Relocation
|
2. |
The person who intends to apply for international
relocation with the child should, in the best interests of the child,
provide reasonable notice of his or her intention before commencing
proceedings or, where proceedings are unnecessary, before relocation
occurs. |
| Factors Relevant to Decisions
on International Relocation |
3. |
In all applications concerning international relocation
the best interests of the child should be the paramount (primary)
consideration. Therefore, determinations should be made without any
presumptions for or against relocation. |
4. |
In order to identify more clearly cases in which
relocation should be granted or refused, and to promote a more uniform
approach internationally, the exercise of judicial discretion should
be guided in particular, but not exclusively, by the following factorslisted
in no order of priority. The weight to be given to any one
factor will vary from case to case: |
| |
| i) |
the right of the child separated from one parent
to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents
on a regular basis in a manner consistent with the child’s
development, except if the contact is contrary to the child’s
best interest; |
| ii) |
the views of the child having regard to the child’s
age and maturity; |
| iii) |
the parties’ proposals for the practical arrangements
for relocation, including accommodation, schooling and employment; |
| iv) |
where relevant to the determination of the outcome, the
reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation; |
| v) |
any history of family violence or abuse, whether physical
or psychological; |
| vi) |
the history of the family and particularly the continuity
and quality of past and current care and contact arrangements; |
| vii) |
pre-existing custody and access determinations; |
| viii) |
the impact of grant or refusal on the child, in the context
of his or her extended family, education and social life, and
on the parties; |
| ix) |
the nature of the inter-parental relationship and the commitment
of the applicant to support and facilitate the relationship between
the child and the respondent after the relocation; |
| x) |
whether the parties’ proposals for contact
after relocation are realistic, having particular regard to the
cost to the family and the burden to the child; |
| xi) |
the enforceability of contact provisions ordered
as a condition of relocation in the State of destination; |
| xii) |
issues of mobility for family members; and |
| xiii) |
any other circumstances deemed to be relevant
by the judge. |
|
5. |
While these factors may have application to domestic
relocation they are primarily directed to international relocation
and thus generally involve considerations of international family
law. |
6. |
The factors reflect research findings concerning
children’s needs and development in the context of relocation. |
| The Hague Conventions of 1980
on International Child Abduction and 1996 on International Child
Protection |
7. |
It is recognised that the Hague Conventions of
1980 and 1996 provide a global framework for international co-operation
in respect of cross-border family relocations. The 1980 Convention
provides the principal remedy (the order for the return of the child)
for unlawful relocations. The 1996 Convention allows for the establishment
and (advance) recognition and enforcement of relocation orders and
the conditions attached to them. It facilitates direct co-operation
between administrative and judicial authorities between the two States
concerned, as well as the exchange of information relevant to the
child’s protection. With due regard to the domestic laws of
the States, this framework should be seen as an integral part of
the global system for the protection of children’s rights.
States that have not already done so are urged to join these Conventions. |
| Promoting Agreement |
8. |
The voluntary settlement of relocation disputes
between parents should be a major goal. Mediation and similar facilities
to encourage agreement between the parents should be promoted and
made available both outside and in the context of court proceedings. The
views of the child should be considered, having regard to the child’s
age and maturity, within the various processes. |
| Enforcement of Relocation Orders |
9. |
Orders for relocation and the conditions attached
to them should be able to be enforced in the State of destination.
Accordingly States of destination should consider making orders that
reflect those made in the State of origin. Where such authority does
not exist, States should consider the desirability of introducing
appropriate enabling provisions in their domestic law to allow for
the making of orders that reflect those made in the State of origin. |
| Modification of Contact Provisions |
10. |
Authorities in the State of destination should
not terminate or reduce the left behind parent’s contact unless
substantial changes affecting the best interests of the child have
occurred. |
| Direct Judicial Communications |
11. |
Direct judicial communications between judges
in the affected jurisdictions are encouraged to help establish, recognise
and enforce, replicate and modify, where necessary, relocation orders. |
| Research |
12. |
It is recognised that additional research in the
area of relocation is necessary to analyse trends and outcomes in
relocation cases. |
| Further Development and Promotion
of Principles |
13. |
The Hague Conference on Private International
Law, in co-operation with the International Centre for Missing and
Exploited Children, is encouraged to pursue the further development
of the principles set out in this Declaration and to consider the
feasibility of embodying all or some of these principles in an international
instrument. To this end, they are encouraged to promote international
awareness of these principles, for example through judicial training
and other capacity building programmes. |
| |
|
Download Washington Declaration in PDF format:
English
French
Spanish
|
Term of use
