Supreme Court of Finland: 1995:110

Return of a child

Docket no. S 95/301

Presented on 5 June 1995

Archive no. 2319

Handed down on 15 June 1995

Matter of returning a child in accordance with the Hague Convention. Split decision.

Child Custody and Right of Access Act, sections 30 and 32

CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER IN COURT

Petition to the Court of Appeal of Helsinki

In a petition filed with the Court of Appeal, A stated that his wife B had in November 1993, without the consent of A, removed their two children, born in 1987 and 1989, from the family home in Switzerland to Finland and had failed to return the children to their home in Switzerland. Hence, B had violated the A�s right of custody as the father of the children. Accordingly, A requested that the Court of Appeal would order, in accordance with sections 30 and 32 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act, that the children be at once returned to their home in Switzerland.

Response

B requested that the petition be dismissed.

Order of the Court of Appeal, 7 December 1994

The Court of Appeal noted that on 10 October 1994 A and B had provisionally agreed that the children would live with B in Finland. No evidence had been offered that A would have been coerced to enter into the agreement. Hence, A was to be deemed to have consented to the non-return of the children as referred to in section 32(2) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act, and the non-return was therefore not to be deemed wrongful.

For this reason, the Court of Appeal dismissed the petition.

Decided by Justices Rosokivi, Karppinen and Honka, the latter acting also as the referendary.

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

A has repeated the requests submitted to the Court of Appeal.

B has responded to the appeal.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT, 15 JUNE 1995

Statement of reasons

The spouses A and B and their minor children have been habitually resident in Switzerland. There have been problems in the relationship of the spouses. In 1993, B has been repeatedly hospitalised for clinical depression. She has also had a alcohol abuse problem, for which she has sought help. On 3 November 1993, she has travelled with the children from Switzerland to Finland without agreeing on the same with A, with the purpose of seeking hospital treatment for her alcoholism. They have arrived in Finland on 5 November 1993. Between 10 November and 7 December 1993 B has received treatment in the J�rvenp�� Social Welfare Hospital, where also the children have been staying. After the end of the hospital treatment, she has declined to return to live with A and stayed with the children to live in Helsinki.

A has stated that in the beginning of April 1994 he became aware that his wife will not return nor allow the children to return to Switzerland. From that time on, A has requested that the children be returned to him in Switzerland. Moreover, he has stated that in order to be allowed access to his children when visiting Finland in October 1994, he was on 10 October 1994 obliged to enter into the provisional agreement with her wife on the children living with their mother in Finland.

The Act on the Amendment of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act (186/1994, issued 4 March 1994 and entered into force 1 August 1994) inserted into the Act provisions on the return of a child in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, made in The Hague on 25 October 1980 (the Hague Convention). Under section 30 of the Act, a child in Finland who has been wrongfully removed from his/her state of habitual residence, or wrongfully retained, shall be ordered to be at once returned, if the child immediately before the wrongful removal or retention has been habitually resident in a contracting state of the Hague Convention. Under section 32 of the Act, the removal or retention of the child is to be deemed wrongful if it is in breach of rights of custody, attributed to a person under the law of the state where the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention and the person actually exercised those rights at the time of removal or retention. According to the transitional provision of the amending Act 186/1994, the provisions on the return of a child apply to a child in Finland who has been wrongfully retained here even if the child had been brought to Finland before the entry into force of the Act.

Switzerland being a contracting party to the Hague Convention, the matter is to be decided in accordance with the provisions in the Act 186/1994 on the application of the Convention. A has the rights of custody referred to in section 32(1) of the Act, and he would also have actually exercised those rights at the entry into force of the Act on 1 August 1994, had the children not been retained in Finland. At the entry into force of the Act, he had not consented to the children staying to live in Finland.

As the children have remained with B in Finland without the consent of A, this constitutes, as from the entry into force of the Act 186/1994 on 1 August 1994, an unlawful non-return of the children as referred to in the Act.

However, on 1 October 1994 the parties have entered into a provisional written agreement, according to which the children should be ordered to live with their mother in Finland until it is otherwise agreed or ordered. The agreement contains also terms by virtue of which A has been allowed access to the children during his visit to Finland on 8 to 15 October 1994. The agreement has been concluded under the supervision of the social welfare authorities. During the negotiations for and the drafting of the agreement, both parties have been assisted by legal counsel. No evidence has been offered of A having been coerced into the agreement. That he evidently would not have been allowed access to the children during his visit to Finland had he not entered into the agreement cannot be deemed to have any effect on the assessment of the validity of the agreement. Likewise, the claim by A in support of his petition that, at the time of agreement, he had not been aware of his rights under the Act 186/1994, which entered into force on 1 August 1994, does not have an effect on the ruling in this matter. No other grounds for the voidability of the agreement have been offered.

Accordingly, by entering into the agreement, A has consented to the non-return of the children in the sense of section 32(2) of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act, and the non-return is therefore not to be deemed unlawful.

Operative part

The order of the Court of Appeal is upheld.

Decided by Justices Lindholm (dissenting), Taipale (dissenting), Tulokas and Kivinen, and Auxiliary Justice Vuori (dissenting). Referendary: Anneli Tuomola.

Draft ruling by the Referendary and the statements of dissent

Referendary Counsellor Tuomola

That the Supreme Court would adopt the following statement of reasons:

The Act on the Amendment of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act (186/1994, issued 4 March 1994 and entered into force 1 August 1994) inserted into the Act provisions on the return of a child in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, made in The Hague on 25 October 1980 (the Hague Convention). Under section 30 of the Act, a child in Finland who has been wrongfully removed from his/her state of habitual residence, or wrongfully retained, shall be ordered to be at once returned, if the child immediately before the wrongful removal or retention has been habitually resident in a contracting state of the Hague Convention. Under section 32 of the Act, the removal or retention of the child is to be deemed wrongful if it is in breach of rights of custody, attributed to a person under the law of the state where the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention and the person actually exercised those rights at the time of removal or retention. According to the transitional provision of the amending Act 186/1994, the provisions on the return of a child apply to a child in Finland who has been wrongfully retained here even if the child had been brought to Finland before the entry into force of the Act.

Switzerland is a contracting party to the Hague Convention. A has had rights of custody, as referred to in the legislation, and he has also actually exercised those rights.

B has travelled with the children to Finland with the consent of A. At that time, no agreement had been made on a deadline for the return of the children to Switzerland, and the circumstances do not show that there would have been a tacit agreement on the same. That A has later made requests for the return of the children to Switzerland does not alter the nature of B�s conduct so that it would become an unlawful non-return of the children.

The operative part of the order of the Court of Appeal is upheld.

Auxiliary Justice Vuori:

I would not decide this matter in the absence of oral arguments before this Court. As the voting result compels me to take a position, I agree with the statement of reasons of the majority of the Court.

Justice Taipale:

I approve of the draft ruling by the Referendary.

Justice Lindholm:

I agree with Justice Taipale.

KORKEIN OIKEUS 1995:110

Lapsen palauttaminen

Diaarinumero S 95/301

Esittelyp�iv� 5.6.1995

Taltionumero 2319

Antop�iv� 15.6.1995

Kysymys lapsen palauttamisesta Haagin sopimuksen nojalla. ��n.

L lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 30 �, 32 �

ASIAN K�SITTELY TUOMIOISTUIMESSA

Hakemus Helsingin hovioikeudessa

A lausui hovioikeuteen toimittamassaan hakemuksessa, ett� h�nen vaimonsa B oli ilman A:n suostumusta marraskuussa 1993 vienyt puolisoiden yhteiset, vuosina 1987 ja 1989 syntyneet kaksi lasta perheen Sveitsiss� olevasta kodista Suomeen ja j�tt�nyt palauttamatta lapset kotiinsa Sveitsiin. B oli siten loukannut A:lle lasten is�n� kuuluvia, lasten huoltoa koskevia oikeuksia.

Mainituin perustein A pyysi, ett� hovioikeus lasten huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 30 ja 32 �:n nojalla m��r�isi lapset heti palautettaviksi A:n luo kotiinsa Sveitsiin.

Vastaus

B vaati hakemuksen hylk��mist�.

Hovioikeuden p��t�s 7.12.1994

Hovioikeus totesi A:n ja B:n 10.10.1994 v�liaikaisesti sopineen, ett� lapset asuvat B:n luona Suomessa. N�ytt�� siit�, ett� A olisi pakotettu tuon sopimuksen tekemiseen, ei ollut esitetty. A:n oli sopimuksella katsottava lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 32 �:n 2 momentissa tarkoitetulla tavalla hyv�ksyneen lasten palauttamatta j�tt�misen, jota ei siten ollut pidett�v� luvattomana.

Mainituin perustein hovioikeus hylk�si hakemuksen.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet hovioikeuden j�senet Rosokivi, Karppinen ja Honka, joka on my�s esitellyt asian.

MUUTOKSENHAKU KORKEIMMASSA OIKEUDESSA

A on uudistanut hovioikeudessa esitt�m�ns� vaatimuksen.

B on vastannut valitukseen.

KORKEIMMAN OIKEUDEN RATKAISU 15.6.1995

Perustelut

Aviopuolisoilla A:lla ja B:ll� sek� heid�n alaik�isill� lapsillaan on ollut pysyv� asuinpaikka Sveitsiss�. Puolisoiden keskin�iset v�lit ovat olleet ongelmalliset. B on vuonna 1993 ollut masennuksen vuoksi useita kertoja hoidettavana sairaalassa. H�nell� on ollut my�s alkoholiongelma, johon h�n on pyrkinyt saamaan apua. H�n on, sopimatta asiasta A:n kanssa, l�htenyt 3.11.1993 yhdess� lasten kanssa Sveitsist� Suomeen tarkoituksenaan hakeutua alkoholiongelmansa vuoksi sairaalahoitoon. Suomeen he ovat saapuneet 5.11.1993. B on ajan 10.11. -7.12.1993 ollut hoidettavana J�rvenp��n sosiaalisairaalassa lapset mukanaan. Sairaalahoidon p��tytty� h�n on, palaamatta yhteisel�m��n A:n kanssa, j��nyt lasten kanssa asumaan Helsinkiin.

A:lle on h�nen ilmoituksensa mukaan huhtikuun 1994 alussa selvinnyt, ettei h�nen vaimonsa aio palata eik� sallia lasten palaamista Sveitsiin. Siit� l�htien A on vaatinut lasten palauttamista luokseen Sveitsiin. Viel� h�n on lausunut, ett� saadakseen mahdollisuuden tavata lapsiaan k�ydess��n Suomessa lokakuussa 1994 h�nen oli ollut pakko 10.10.1994 vaimonsa kanssa v�liaikaisesti sopia lasten asumisesta �idin luona Suomessa.

Lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain muuttamisesta 4.3.1994 annetulla, 1.8.1994 voimaan tulleella lailla (186/94) lakiin on sis�llytetty s��nn�kset lapsen palauttamisesta Haagissa 25.10.1980 kansainv�lisest� lapsikaappauksesta tehdyn yksityisoikeuden alaa koskevan yleissopimuksen (Haagin sopimus) nojalla. Lain 30 �:n mukaan Suomessa oleva lapsi, joka on luvattomasti viety pois siit� valtiosta, jossa lapsella oli asuinpaikka, taikka j�tetty luvattomasti palauttamatta, on m��r�tt�v� heti palautettavaksi, jos lapsella v�litt�m�sti ennen luvatonta poisviemist� tai palauttamatta j�tt�mist� oli asuinpaikka Haagin sopimuksen osapuolena olevassa valtiossa. Lain 32 �:n mukaan lapsen poisviemist� tai palauttamatta j�tt�mist� on pidett�v� luvattomana, jos se loukkaa lapsen huoltoa koskevia oikeuksia, jotka kuuluvat huoltajalle sen valtion oikeusj�rjestyksen mukaan, miss� lapsella v�litt�m�sti ennen poisviemist� tai palauttamatta j�tt�mist� oli asuinpaikka, ja huoltaja oli n�it� oikeuksia poisviemisen tai palauttamatta j�tt�misen hetkell� tosiasiallisesti k�ytt�nyt. Lain 186/94 voimaantulos��nn�ksen mukaan lapsen palauttamista koskevia s��nn�ksi� on sovellettava Suomessa olevaan lapseen, joka on luvattomasti j�tetty palauttamatta, vaikka lapsi olisi tuotu Suomeen ennen lain voimaantuloa.

Kun Sveitsi on Haagin sopimuksen osapuoli, asia on ratkaistava tuon sopimuksen soveltamista koskevien, lakiin 186/94 sis�ltyvien s��nn�sten mukaisesti. A:lla on tuon lain 32 �:n 1 momentissa tarkoitetut lapsen huoltoa koskevat oikeudet, joita h�n olisi lain tullessa voimaan 1.8.1994 my�s tosiasiallisesti k�ytt�nyt, jos lasten palauttamatta j�tt�mist� ei olisi tapahtunut. Sanotun lain tullessa voimaan h�n ei ollut suostunut lasten j��miseen Suomeen.

Kun lapset ovat j��neet B:n luo Suomeen A:n suostumuksetta, kysymyksess� on lain 186/94 voimaantulosta 1.8.1994 alkaen ollut tuossa laissa tarkoitettu lasten luvaton palauttamatta j�tt�minen.

Asianosaiset ovat kuitenkin 10.10.1994 tehneet v�liaikaisen kirjallisen sopimuksen, jonka mukaan lapset tulee m��r�t� asumaan �itins� luona Suomessa, kunnes toisin sovitaan tai m��r�t��n. Sopimuksessa on my�s ehdot, joiden mukaisesti A on saanut tavata lapsia k�ydess��n Suomessa 8. - 15.10.1994. Sopimus on tehty sosiaaliviranomaisten valvonnassa. Sopimuksesta neuvoteltaessa ja sit� laadittaessa on kummallakin asianosaisella ollut avustajanaan lakimies. A:ta ei ole n�ytetty pakotetun sopimuksen tekemiseen. Sit�, ettei h�n ilmeisesti olisi mainitun Suomessa k�yntins� aikana saanut tavata lapsia, ellei olisi sopimusta allekirjoittanut, ei voida pit�� sellaisena seikkana, jolla olisi vaikutusta sopimuksen sitovuutta arvioitaessa. My�sk��n sill� A:n vaatimuksensa tueksi esitt�m�ll� seikalla, ettei h�n ole sopimusta tehdess��n tiennyt edell� mainitun 1.8.1994 voimaan tulleen lain (186/94) mukaisista oikeuksistaan, ei ole vaikutusta asian ratkaisuun. Muutakaan perustetta, jonka nojalla sopimusta olisi pidett�v� p�tem�tt�m�n�, ei ole esitetty.

N�in ollen A on mainitulla sopimuksella lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain 32 �:n 2 momentissa tarkoitetuin tavoin hyv�ksynyt lasten palauttamatta j�tt�misen, jota ei siten ole pidett�v� luvattomana.

Tuomiolauselma

Hovioikeuden p��t�ksen lopputulosta ei muuteta.

Asian ovat ratkaisseet oikeusneuvokset Lindholm (eri mielt�), Taipale (eri mielt�), Tulokas ja Kivinen sek� ylim��r�inen oikeusneuvos Vuori (eri mielt�). Esittelij� Anneli Tuomola.

Esittelij�n mietint� ja eri mielt� olevien j�senten lausunnot

Esittelij�neuvos Tuomola:

Korkein oikeus lausunee perusteluina seuraavaa:

Lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta annetun lain muuttamisesta 4.3.1994 annetulla, 1.8.1994 voimaan tulleella lailla (186/94) lakiin on sis�llytetty s��nn�kset lapsen palauttamisesta Haagissa 25.10.1980 kansainv�lisest� lapsikaappauksesta tehdyn yksityisoikeuden alaa koskevan yleissopimuksen nojalla. Lain 30 �:n mukaan Suomessa oleva lapsi, joka on luvattomasti viety pois siit� valtiosta, jossa lapsella oli asuinpaikka, taikka j�tetty luvattomasti palauttamatta, on m��r�tt�v� heti palautettavaksi, jos lapsella v�litt�m�sti ennen luvatonta poisviemist� tai palauttamatta j�tt�mist� oli asuinpaikka Haagin sopimuksen osapuolena olevassa valtiossa. Lain 32 �:n mukaan lapsen poisviemist� tai palauttamatta j�tt�mist� on pidett�v� luvattomana, jos se loukkaa lapsen huoltoa koskevia oikeuksia, jotka kuuluvat huoltajalle sen valtion oikeusj�rjestyksen mukaan, miss� lapsella v�litt�m�sti ennen poisviemist� tai palauttamatta j�tt�mist� oli asuinpaikka, ja huoltaja oli n�it� oikeuksia poisviemisen tai palauttamatta j�tt�misen hetkell� tosiasiallisesti k�ytt�nyt. Lain 186/94 voimaantulos��nn�ksen mukaan lapsen palauttamista koskevia s��nn�ksi� on sovellettava Suomessa olevaan lapseen, joka on luvattomasti j�tetty palauttamatta, vaikka lapsi olisi tuotu Suomeen ennen lain voimaantuloa 1.8.1994.

Sveitsi on Haagin sopimuksen osapuoli. A:lla on ollut lain tarkoittamat huoltajan oikeudet, joita h�n my�s tosiasiallisesti on k�ytt�nyt.

B on matkustanut lasten kanssa Suomeen A:n suostumuksella. Tuossa yhteydess� ei ollut sovittu mist��n ajankohdasta, mihin menness� lapset pit�isi palauttaa Sveitsiin, eik� voida olosuhteista p��tell� hiljaisesti sovitun sellaisesta ajankohdasta. Sill� perusteella, ett� A on my�hemmin ryhtynyt esitt�m��n vaatimuksia lasten palauttamisesta Sveitsiin, B:n menettely ei ole muuttunut lasten luvattomaksi palauttamatta j�tt�miseksi.

Hovioikeuden p��t�ksen lopputulosta ei muuteta.

Ylim��r�inen oikeusneuvos Vuori: Katson, etten voi ratkaista asiaa ilman suullista k�sittely�. ��nestyksen tuloksen johdosta velvollisena lausumaan asiasta olen Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisusta ilmenev�ll� kannalla.

Oikeusneuvos Taipale: Hyv�ksyn esittelij�n mietinn�n.

Oikeusneuvos Lindholm: Olen samaa mielt� kuin oikeusneuvos Taipale.

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