Reaching Central Authorities

Summary of this page

Timeline: from first contact to today

2015 – 2016

Dedicated page (FR): « Demande d'explications écrites des autorités compétentes », English version. See also abduction in Germany.

2022 – 2026

Legal grounds: child abduction under the Hague Convention

Central Authorities and the French Central Authority in particular rely on the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Below is the legal argument they cite (Article 3) and a short explanation of how to interpret it.

What the Central Authority cited: Article 3 of the Convention

The French Central Authority (Bureau du droit de l’Union, du droit international privé et de l’entraide civile) stated in their email of 22 October 2015 that, under Article 3 of the Convention, the removal or the non-return of a child is considered wrongful when:

a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and

b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

It is specified that “the rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a) above may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.”

Source: Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, HCCH; quoted by the French Central Authority in email of 22 Oct 2015, “Re: URGENT : Je n'arrive pas a savoir si ma fille se porte bien...”, see email source PDFs in ca/.

How to interpret this (summary)

• Wrongful removal or retention — For the Convention to apply, the removal or retention must be “wrongful” in the sense of Article 3: it must breach “rights of custody” under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or non-return, and those rights must have been actually exercised (or would have been but for the removal/retention).
• Rights of custody — These can come from law (e.g. joint parental authority by operation of law), a court or administrative decision, or an agreement with legal effect in that State. So a parent left behind who had custody rights under the law of the country of habitual residence can invoke Article 3.
• Habitual residence — The key moment is “immediately before the removal or retention”. The authorities and courts of the country where the child is then present (e.g. Norway or Germany) will assess habitual residence and whether the removal/retention was wrongful. For how Norway applied this in refusing the return petition, see abduction-norway.html.
• Return procedure — The return procedure takes place in the State where the child is present. The left-behind parent can send the return request to the Central Authority of their own country (e.g. France) or to the Central Authority of the country where the child is (e.g. Norway or Germany). In practice, both may be involved; the French Central Authority indicated that the judicial procedure will in any case take place in the country where the child is.
• Practical takeaway — If the removal or retention is wrongful under Article 3, the Convention provides a mechanism to request the child’s return. However, obtaining a lawyer in the State where the child is, and getting Central Authorities and courts to act within a reasonable time, can be very difficult; as this page shows, it can take years for Central Authorities to answer or for procedures to progress, and a further move of the child to another country can force the left-behind parent to start again.

Legal basis: Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 (Arts. 3, 8, 12, etc.); full text. For the legal grounds invoked by Norway to refuse the return petition (Arts. 3, 12, 13, 20), see abduction-norway.html. French Central Authority: enlevement-parental.justice.gouv.fr. Norwegian Central Authority: regjeringen.no.

Documents (ca/ directory)

The following files in ca/ are email source PDFs and other mail exports sent to or from Central Authorities or related bodies. They are cited in the timeline and legal sections above.

• Email source PDFs — “Nabla Mail - RE: URGENT : Je n'arrive pas a savoir si ma fille se porte bien....pdf”, “Nabla Mail - Request for return of child from Norway to France” (and related), “Gmail - Demande d'explications écrites des autorités compétentes.pdf”. HTML version of that thread: FR, EN. Discussion in context of abduction in Germany: abduction-germany.html.
• Other PDFs — “Nabla Mail - 38DE2016”, “Nabla Mail - Abduction FRANCE_NORVEGE -_ GERMANY”, “Nabla Mail - Aide requis pour un enlèvement d'enfant en Allemagne”, “Nabla Mail - BDIP_38DE2016 NORVEGE” (several), “Nabla Mail - Fwd: Follow-up on Hague Convention Requests – Status Inquiry and Clarification”, “Nabla Mail - Relance…” (several), “E155M931129_20160222170048109-001.pdf”.
• Oslo proceedings (Norway) — Documents from the father and the mother in the Oslo District Court case (petition for return, court verdict, ca/abduction/oslo/) are listed on abduction-norway.html.

Open the ca/ directory to access these documents.

Central Authorities and persons contacted (France, Norway, Germany)

Below are the Central Authorities and main institutional contacts reached in each country in the framework of the Hague Convention and related steps. This list is drawn from correspondence and email source PDFs; the PDFs in ca/ should be checked for any further signatories or contacts (France, Norway, Germany).