The Hague Convention and International Child Abduction: A Legal Framework
International child abduction cases are among the most complex disputes that courts must resolve, requiring a delicate balance between protecting parental rights and prioritising the best interests of the child. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980 (“the Hague Convention”) is the primary international instrument governing these matters, aiming to secure the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained across international borders. South Africa, as a signatory to the Hague Convention, has incorporated its principles into domestic law, and the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 provides the statutory framework for the enforcement of international child abduction cases within the Republic.
The underlying philosophy of the Hague Convention is that child abduction should not confer any legal advantage on the abducting parent. Instead, jurisdiction over custody disputes should be exercised by the courts of the child’s habitual residence. Article 12 of the Hague Convention establishes a default obligation for judicial authorities to order the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained, provided that the application is lodged within one year of the abduction. If more than a year has elapsed, the court may still order the return unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in the new environment.
However, the Hague Convention also recognises that there are circumstances where returning a child may not be in their best interests. Article 13(b) provides an exception where there is a “grave risk” that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation. This defence was central to the dispute in Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v C.M (2023/077002) [2025] ZAGPJHC 99 (10 February 2025), where the court had to determine whether the left-behind parent had established the jurisdictional requirements for return and whether the abducting parent had successfully invoked the protection of Article 13(b).
The Constitutional Court in Sonderup v Tondelli and Another 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC) provided an authoritative interpretation of the Hague Convention’s objectives, affirming that its provisions serve to discourage child abduction while ensuring that custody decisions are made by the appropriate court. In doing so, the court stressed that the return of the child should not be ordered automatically where compelling evidence suggests that the child will face serious harm. This reasoning was later affirmed in Ad Hoc Central Authority, South Africa and Another v Koch NO and Another 2024 (3) SA 249 (CC), where the court reiterated that the best interests of the child must be evaluated in the context of both the immediate risk of return and the long-term stability that the Convention seeks to promote.
In line with this jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Appeal in N M v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another 2024 JDR 5313 (SCA) recently reinforced the principle that while the prompt return of the child is a foundational premise of the Hague Convention, the defence under Article 13(b) must be applied rigorously, ensuring that children are not returned to environments where they will suffer substantial harm. The court held that allegations of psychological harm must be assessed in light of expert evidence and the specific facts of each case, rather than being determined based solely on the preferences of the abducting parent.
Against this backdrop, the judgment in Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa v C.M. had to consider whether the father had successfully established that the child’s removal from Israel was wrongful under Article 12 and whether the mother had discharged the onus of proving that returning the child would expose her to serious harm under Article 13(b). The case ultimately turned on whether the minor child’s relocation had been consensual and whether the child had become sufficiently settled in South Africa to justify refusing the return application.
Key Arguments: Parental Rights and the Best Interests of the Child
The central dispute in the case revolved around two core legal questions: whether the father had successfully established the wrongful removal of the minor child under Article 12 of the Hague Convention, and whether the mother had proved that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b). Each party presented arguments grounded in factual evidence, legal precedent, and expert testimony.
The father, supported by the Central Authority of South Africa, argued that the minor child had been unlawfully removed from Israel and wrongfully retained in South Africa without his consent. He relied on the principle established in the Hague Convention that custody matters should be adjudicated in the jurisdiction of habitual residence, asserting that the child’s removal undermined his parental rights. He contended that the mother’s relocation was not authorised and that she had failed to demonstrate any justifiable reason for unilaterally severing the child’s ties to Israel.
In response, the mother relied on a documented parental consent form allegedly signed by the father, permitting her to travel with the child to South Africa. She argued that his claim of wrongful removal was disingenuous, as he had actively facilitated the child’s relocation by providing the necessary travel documents. The court, therefore, had to determine whether this consent was genuine or whether it had been given under circumstances that negated its legal effect.
The mother further advanced a defence under Article 13(b), submitting that returning the child to Israel would expose her to significant psychological harm and place her in an intolerable situation. She introduced expert reports, including an assessment by the court-appointed curator ad litem, which indicated that the minor child had no recollection of her life in Israel, had developed deep emotional bonds in South Africa, and would experience severe distress if removed from her current environment. She also pointed to her own precarious financial circumstances in Israel, arguing that she would be unable to provide stable care for the child if forced to return.
The father, on the other hand, maintained that the Hague Convention does not permit abducting parents to manufacture Article 13(b) defences by delaying proceedings until the child becomes settled in a new jurisdiction. He relied on the reasoning of the N M case, which emphasised that courts must be cautious when considering defences based on elapsed time, as this could incentivise parents to defy custody arrangements and manipulate legal protections in their favour. He argued that the mother had deliberately frustrated his efforts to maintain a relationship with the child, further asserting that the risk of harm alleged by the mother was speculative rather than substantiated by objective evidence.
The court was, therefore, tasked with weighing the competing parental rights while ensuring that the best interests of the child remained paramount. The next section will explore the court’s findings and its application of the relevant legal principles in determining whether the Hague Convention’s mandatory return provisions should be set aside.
Court Findings: The Application of Article 13(b) and the Risk of Harm
The court’s judgment turned on two critical issues: the factual determination of whether the child’s removal was wrongful under Article 12 and the legal interpretation of Article 13(b) in light of the evidence presented.
On the first issue, the court found that the father had not successfully established that the removal was unlawful. The judge accepted the mother’s version of events, noting that the travel documents included a parental consent form signed by the father and that he had been aware of her intention to relocate. The court concluded that the father had either consented to the relocation or had subsequently acquiesced to it, thereby failing to meet the jurisdictional threshold required to invoke the Hague Convention’s mandatory return provisions.
Turning to Article 13(b), the court undertook a detailed assessment of the curator ad litem’s findings, which indicated that the minor child had fully integrated into life in South Africa and would suffer severe emotional distress if forcibly removed. The report highlighted the psychological risks associated with disrupting the child’s settled routine, her strong attachment to her maternal caregivers, and her inability to communicate in her father’s primary language. The court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of psychological harm and place her in an intolerable situation.
In reaching its decision, the court relied heavily on the precedent set in the Koch case, which reaffirmed that Article 13(b) must be applied rigorously, ensuring that children are not returned to environments where they would be at significant risk. The judgment also referenced the Sonderup case, which held that while the Hague Convention prioritises the prompt return of children, courts must exercise judicial discretion when compelling evidence of harm is presented.
Another crucial consideration was the passage of time. The court acknowledged the Supreme Court of Appeal’s ruling in the N M case, which cautioned against allowing abducting parents to benefit from strategic delays. However, it found that in this instance, the delay had not been deliberate but rather a result of legal proceedings and administrative processes. The judge noted that by the time the application was filed, the child had been in South Africa for nearly four years, making her deeply embedded in her new environment.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, holding that the mother had successfully discharged the burden of proof under Article 13(b). The judge concluded that ordering the child’s return to Israel would not serve her best interests, particularly given the risk of emotional trauma and the lack of viable protective measures to mitigate these risks.
Implications of the Judgment: Balancing Parental Claims and Child Welfare
The judgment in Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v C.M (2023/077002) [2025] ZAGPJHC 99 (10 February 2025) has significant ramifications for the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction within South Africa. It underscores the delicate balance that courts must strike between upholding the rights of the left-behind parent and ensuring that the best interests of the child remain paramount. This decision reaffirms that while the Hague Convention’s primary objective is to deter international child abduction and ensure the prompt return of children to their habitual residence, its provisions are not absolute and must be applied in a manner that does not expose children to undue harm.
One of the most notable implications of this ruling is its firm stance on the interpretation of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. The court’s decision aligns with the approach taken in the Sonderup case, which held that while the Convention creates a strong presumption in favour of returning abducted children, courts are not bound to order return where compelling evidence establishes that the child would face a grave risk of harm. By placing significant weight on the findings of the curator ad litem, the court has reinforced the principle that psychological and emotional well-being are as critical as physical safety in determining whether the Article 13(b) defence applies.
Furthermore, the judgment highlights the evolving jurisprudence regarding the passage of time in Hague Convention applications. The court acknowledged the concerns raised in the N M case, which warned against allowing abducting parents to benefit from delay tactics. However, it distinguished the present matter by noting that the delay was not strategic but rather a result of the procedural timeline of legal proceedings. This nuanced approach recognises that while the Convention’s objective is to prevent wrongful retention, the reality of prolonged litigation may render the automatic return of a child untenable if they have become fully integrated into a new environment.
This case also builds on the precedent set in the Koch case, which emphasised that Article 13(b) must be applied rigorously to prevent the wrongful return of children to unsafe environments. The court’s ruling reiterates that the existence of a habitual residence does not automatically justify return if doing so would expose the child to an intolerable situation. By carefully evaluating the curator’s findings and considering the minor child’s complete lack of familiarity with Israel, the judgment sends a clear message that each case must be determined on its own merits, with due regard to the psychological impact of forced relocation.
A crucial takeaway from this case is the role of documentary evidence in Hague Convention proceedings. The court’s acceptance of the father’s signed parental consent form as proof that he acquiesced to the child’s relocation was pivotal in rejecting the argument that the mother had abducted the child. This finding serves as a cautionary note for left-behind parents, reinforcing the importance of maintaining clear, written records of custody arrangements and consent to travel. It also raises broader questions about the evidentiary burden in abduction cases, particularly in instances where consent is disputed after the fact.
From a practical perspective, this ruling will likely influence how South African courts approach future Hague Convention applications. While the Convention remains a powerful tool for deterring international child abduction, this case confirms that its application must be tempered by judicial discretion. South African courts are expected to continue assessing each case on its unique facts, ensuring that legal formalities do not override the fundamental rights and well-being of the child.
In conclusion, Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa v C.M. marks an important development in the intersection of international family law and child protection. It reinforces that while parental claims to custody and jurisdiction are significant, they cannot take precedence over a child’s need for stability, security, and emotional well-being. By upholding the Article 13(b) defence and refusing to order the child’s return to Israel, the judgment affirms that the best interests of the child remain the paramount consideration in Hague Convention cases within South Africa.
Questions and Answers
What was the legal basis for the application in Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v C.M?
The application was brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which provides for the return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained across international borders. The Central Authority of South Africa, acting on behalf of the father, sought an order compelling the return of the minor child to Israel on the basis that she had been unlawfully removed from her habitual residence.
How did the court determine whether the child’s removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention?
The court had to establish whether the requirements of Article 12 of the Hague Convention were met. This required proof that the child had been removed from her habitual residence in Israel without the consent of the left-behind parent and that she was being wrongfully retained in South Africa. The father claimed that the mother had unlawfully removed the child, while the mother argued that she had obtained his consent for the relocation.
What role did the concept of habitual residence play in the court’s analysis?
Habitual residence is a key jurisdictional requirement under the Hague Convention, as it determines which country has authority over custody disputes. The court had to assess whether the child’s habitual residence remained in Israel or whether, by the time the application was filed, she had become sufficiently settled in South Africa to justify refusing the return order.
Why did the court find that the child had not been wrongfully removed?
The court accepted the mother’s argument that the father had consented to the child’s relocation. Documentary evidence, including a parental consent form and messages exchanged between the parents, suggested that the father had knowingly permitted the child to leave Israel. Because the removal was not wrongful in terms of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the application for the child’s return could not succeed.
What was the significance of Article 13(b) in the judgment?
Article 13(b) provides an exception to the general rule of mandatory return by allowing a court to refuse return where there is a grave risk that doing so would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation. The mother relied on this provision, arguing that the child had no connection to Israel, had developed strong emotional ties in South Africa, and would suffer severe distress if forced to return.
How did the court apply the legal principles established in the Sonderup case?
The court followed the precedent set in Sonderup v Tondelli and Another 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), which held that the Hague Convention does not create an absolute duty to return children where compelling evidence of harm is presented. The court reaffirmed that Article 13(b) must be interpreted in a way that prioritises the best interests of the child over procedural technicalities.
What role did the curator ad litem’s findings play in the court’s decision?
The curator ad litem conducted an independent assessment of the child’s circumstances and concluded that she had fully settled in South Africa and would suffer significant emotional harm if removed. The report highlighted the child’s lack of familiarity with Israel, her inability to speak her father’s language, and the absence of a stable support structure in Israel. The court relied heavily on these findings in determining that a return order would not be in the child’s best interests.
How did the court distinguish this case from the ruling in the N M case?
In N M v Central Authority for the Republic of South Africa and Another 2024 JDR 5313 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal warned against allowing abducting parents to use delay as a defence under Article 13(b). However, in this case, the court found that the delay was not a result of the mother’s deliberate actions but rather a consequence of the legal process. As a result, the child’s prolonged stay in South Africa could not be held against her.
What factors led the court to conclude that returning the child would place her in an intolerable situation?
The court found that the child would experience severe psychological distress if removed from her current environment, given that she had lived in South Africa for nearly four years and had no memory of Israel. Additionally, the mother’s financial instability in Israel and the child’s inability to communicate in Hebrew or Russian meant that reintegrating into Israeli society would be highly disruptive.
What was the significance of the Koch case in this decision?
The court relied on Ad Hoc Central Authority, South Africa and Another v Koch NO and Another 2024 (3) SA 249 (CC), which reinforced the principle that the Hague Convention must be applied flexibly to protect children from serious harm. The court echoed the Constitutional Court’s finding that while prompt return is the Convention’s default position, this obligation does not override the duty to consider whether a child’s welfare would be at risk.
How did the court approach the issue of parental rights versus the child’s best interests?
While the father’s rights as a parent were acknowledged, the court reaffirmed that the best interests of the child principle, as enshrined in South African law, must take precedence. It found that forcing the child to return to Israel solely to vindicate the father’s custodial rights would not be justified where compelling evidence showed that doing so would harm the child.
What impact does this ruling have on the enforcement of the Hague Convention in South Africa?
The judgment reinforces the trend in South African courts of applying the Hague Convention with a strong emphasis on the best interests of the child. While the Convention remains a crucial tool in combatting international child abduction, this case confirms that courts will not order returns mechanically and will carefully scrutinise claims under Article 13(b) before issuing a return order.
What does this decision mean for left-behind parents seeking the return of their children?
This ruling signals that left-behind parents must ensure they can prove that a removal was wrongful and that their consent was not given. It also highlights the difficulty of overcoming an Article 13(b) defence, particularly where the abducting parent can demonstrate that the child has become settled in the new country.
What lessons can be drawn from this case for future Hague Convention applications?
Future applicants must be prepared to provide clear evidence of wrongful removal and act swiftly to avoid the risk of a child becoming settled in a new jurisdiction. This case also underscores the importance of expert testimony in Article 13(b) disputes, as courts will place significant weight on assessments from independent curators and psychologists when evaluating claims of grave risk.
What broader implications does this case have for international family law disputes?
This judgment highlights the ongoing tension between international legal instruments like the Hague Convention and domestic principles prioritising child welfare. It reinforces that while international cooperation in child abduction cases is vital, courts must exercise their discretion carefully to ensure that procedural requirements do not take precedence over the well-being of the child involved.
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.
DOWNLOAD THE JUDGEMENT HERE: