Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:45:34.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Jundeff Affair – Comparative Remarks on International Child Kidnapping and Judicial Co-operation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Amos Shapira  and
Kurt Siehr
Get access

Extract

Josef Jundeff was born in Poland. In 1952 he left that country and settled in West Berlin. On a visit to Israel in 1963 he met Sara, an Israeli woman residing in Israel. Josef and Sara married in Tel Aviv in 1965 and immediately after the wedding ceremony they left Israel and established their matrimonial home in West Berlin. There two boys were born to the Jundeffs in 1967. Two years later legal skirmishes started between husband and wife in Berlin. A short period of reconciliation followed. In January 1973 the wife finally decided to separate from her husband and, accordingly, she instituted divorce proceedings in the District Court (Landgericht) of West Berlin. Shortly thereafter, without obtaining her husband's consent or a judicial authorization, Sara took the children and brought them to Israel.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , May 1978 , pp. 3 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. KG, 19 December 1973, 1974 FamRZ 461= 1973 IPRspr. no. 72. As to a short account of the Jundeff affair cp. Bodenheimer, Brigitte M., The International Kidnapping of Children: The United States Approach, 11 Family Law Q. pp. 83, 96–97 (1977).Google Scholar

2. H.C.J. 56/74, unpublished.

3. Motion 456/74, unpublished.

4. Motion 37/76, unpublished.

5. H.C.J. 27/76, unpublished.

6. Motion 79/76, unpublished.

7. See (1961) 10 I.C.L.Q. pp. 53–63.

8. Between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany there is no bilateral treaty on jurisdiction in child custody or any other matters.

9. As far as we know, the Jundeff children were not German citizens.

10. The Federal Republic of Germany did not make reservations as to Art. 13 para. 3 (under which the Convention may be limited to children who are citizens of contracting states) and as to Art. 15 (establishing jurisdiction for protective measures in divorce proceedings even if all other bases of jurisdiction are unavailing).

11. Supra n. 1.

12. As of 31 October 1976 the Convention is in force in Austria, France, the Federal Republic of Germany (including West Berlin), Luxembourg, the Netherlands (including the Dutch Antilles), Portugal (including overseas provinces) and Switzerland.

13. Standardisation of the Legal Concepts of “Domicile” and of “Residence”. Resolution (72)1 and Annex adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 18 January 1972 and Explanatory Memorandum, reproduced in (1973) 20 N.T.I.R. p. 213 et seq. – As to habitual residence as a proposed ground for English and Scottish jurisdiction see the Law Commission's Working Paper No. 68, infra n. 34, paras. 3.70–3.78 (pp. 63–69).

14. BayObLG, 25 08 1972Google Scholar, 1972 BayObLGZ 292 at p. 295, also, 1972 IPRspr. no. 179 at p. 481; BayObLG, 21 12 1973Google Scholar, 1973 BayObLGZ 345 at p. 347Google Scholar, also, 1973 IPRspr. no. 181 at p. 494; OLG Dusseldorf, 10 January 1975, 1975 FamRZ 641 at p. 642, all invoking von Steiger's expression “le centre effectif de la vie du mineur”: see Conference de La Haye de Droit International Prive, Actes et Documents de la Neuvieme Session, vol. IV (The Hague 1961) 219 at p. 226 (report on Art. 1).

15. For the purposes of the Hague Convention the courts tacitly start from the premise that there can only be one habitual residence as a “real center of living”.

16. BayObLG, 25 08 1972Google Scholar, supra n. 14 (Dutch mother moved with her American child to Amsterdam); OLG Stuttgart, 23 June 1975, 1976 NJW p. 483, also, 1975 FamRZ 644 (Austrian father took his Austrian child to Vienna).

17. OLG Hamm, 12 December 1973, 1974 NJW 1053, also, 1973 IPRspr. no. 178 at p. 485.

18. KG, 19 December 1973, supra n. 1; OLG Hamburg, 17 07 1972Google Scholar, and LG Hamburg, 17 04 1972Google Scholar, 1972 IPRspr. no. 66 a and b (the same case); OLG Hamburg, 24 07 1972Google Scholar, 1972 FamRZ 514 with note by Kropholler, also, 1972 IPRspr. no. 70; OLG Stuttgart, 23 June 1973, supra n. 16 (although the court failed to qualify this case as one of kidnapping proper); AG Iserlohn, 17 December 1973, 1974 FamRZ 141 with note by Siehr, also, 1973 IPRspr. no. 180.

19. KG, 19 December 1973, supra n. 1; AG Iserlohn, 17 December 1973, supra n. 18.

20. See OLG Stuttgart, 23 June 1973, supra n. 16 (although the court did not characterize the taking of the children to Vienna as kidnapping proper).

21. OLG Hamburg, 24 07 1972Google Scholar, supra n. 18 and infra text at n. 71 (two years of residence in Germany); see also OLG Hamm, 12 December 1973, supra n. 17 (change of residence during custody proceedings in Germany in a non-kidnapping case).

22. German courts may exercise divorce jurisdiction if at least one spouse is a German citizen or if, as in the Jundeff cue (see KG, 19 December 1973, supra n. 1), at least one of the spouses is habitually resident in Germany and the German divorce decree will be recognized by the husband's national law, or if either of the spouses is stateless: see paras. 606, 606 b n. 1 Code of Civil Procedure (old version thus far unchanged by the revision of 14 June 1976).

23. See para. 43 in connection with para. 36 of the Act of 1898 on Matters of Non-Contentious Jurisdiction (abbr.: FGG). See also s. 621 para. 1 nos. 1–3, para. 2 sent. 1 Code of Civil Procedure (version of 14 June 1976) and its reference to the general provisions of venue and hence jurisdiction, i.e., to ss. 12 seq. Code of Civil Procedure and s. 36 FGG (supra). See Cohn, , Manual of German Law 2nd ed., vol. II (1971) at pp. 150, 172–173.Google Scholar

24. KG, 19 December 1973, supra n. 1.

25. See s. 33 FGG (supra n. 23) and BayObLG, 31 07 1974Google Scholar, 1974 BayObLGZ p. 317.Google Scholar

26. Principal Legislation No. 380, 1962, at p. 120; 16 Laws of the State of Israel p. 106.Google Scholar

27. As to the applicable law see infra.

28. See Koronel v. Koronel, 29 (II) P.D. (1975) p. 259Google Scholar (per Justice Kister); cf., Masarwa v. Masarwa, 30 (III) P.D. (1976) pp. 288, 293 (per Justice Shershevski).Google Scholar

29. See Lev v. Lev, 27 (I) P.D. (1973) p. 148Google Scholar; Perlmutter v. Perlmutter, 30 (III) P.D. (1976) p. 355.Google Scholar

30. Goldstein v. Goldstein, 27 (II) P.D. (1973) p. 197Google Scholar. See also Masarwa v. Masarwa, 30 (III) P.D. (1976) p. 288.Google Scholar

31. Principal Legislation No. 233, 1957, at p. 148; 11 Laws of the State of Israel p. 157.Google Scholar

32. An alternative or additional iurisdictional source may possibly be found in s. 7(a) of the Courts Law, 5717–1957, which broadly empowers the High Court of Justice to “deal with matters in which it deems it necessary to grant relief in the interests of justice and which are not within the jurisdiction of any other court or tribunal.”

33. In Goldstein v. Goldstein, 27 (II) P.D. (1973) pp. 197, 209.Google Scholar

34. As to English and Scottisch law see the Law Commission Working Paper No. 68, the Scottish Law Commission Memorandum No. 23 (London 1976) paras. 3.40–3.69 (pp. 47–63). The Contracting states of the Hague Convention, supra n. 12, follow the same scheme outlined supra under 2.1(a).

35. As to standard (1) see Re P. (G.E.) (an infant), [1964] 3 All E.R. 977 (C.A.), where, in a case very similar to the Jundeff affair, Lord Denning, M.R., and Pearson, L.J., predicated English jurisdiction on the child's continuing ordinary residence in England; Leatherdale v. Ferguson, 50 D.L.R. (2nd) p. 182Google Scholar (Manit. 1964) (inter-Canadian kidnapping); Scheffer v. Scheffer, [1967] N.Z.L.R. p. 466Google Scholar, referring to In re P. (G.E.), supra. As to standard (2) see Re E. (an infant), [1967] 1 All E.R. p. 329 (Ch. D.), affirmed [1967] 2 All E.R. p. 881 (C.A.);Re T.A. (infants), (1972) 116 Sol.J. 78 (Fam.D.); Re K. (infants), (1976) 6 Family Law p. 150Google Scholar (C.A.), also (1976) 126 N.L.J. p. 412; Heslop v. Heslop, 12 D.L.R. (2nd) p. 591 (Ont. 1958)Google Scholar; Re Wright, 49 D.L.R. (2nd) p. 460 (N.S. 1964)Google Scholar (inter-Canadian kidnapping); Re Lyon and Lyon, 10 D.L.R. (3rd) p. 287 (B.C. 1969)Google Scholar; Walker v. Walker, [1974] 3 W.W.R. p. 48 (B.C.)Google Scholar; Re B. (infants), [1971] N.Z.L.R. p. 143 (C.A.)Google Scholar. As to standard (3) see Re Loughran and Loughran, 30 D.L.R. (3rd) p. 385 (Ont. 1972)Google Scholar; Braun v. Mallet, [1975] 1 Ghana L.R. p. 81Google Scholar. Regarding American Law see Ratner, , Child Custody in a Federal System, 62 Mich.L.Rev. pp. 795, 807–813 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, next footnote.

36. 9 Uniform Laws Annotated p. 99 (1973 with Cumulative Annual Pocket Part 1976). See also infra n. 77 and 78 and Ehrenzweig, , The Interstate Child and Uniform Legislation: A Plea for Extralitigious Proceedings, 64 Mich.L.Rev. pp. 1–12 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Supra n. 7.

38. The Introductory Law to the Civil Code is reproduced in English in the Civil Code of the German Empire (translated by Loewy, ), Boston-London 1909 p. 569 et seqGoogle Scholar. See also Cohn, , supra n. 23, pp. 94, 101–103, 149–150.Google Scholar

39. See OLG Stuttgart, 23 06 1975Google Scholar, supra n. 16, referring to literature endorsing this view which is not yet accepted by all courts, see, e.g., KG, 19 12 1973, supra n. 1.Google Scholar

40. OLG Stuttgart, 26 06 1975Google Scholar, supra n. 16.

41. The same is true concerning the parental authority of an illegitimate child's mother: s. 1705 Civil Code.

42. KG, 19 12 1973Google Scholar, supra n. 1; and LG Hamburg, 17 04 1972Google Scholar, supra n. 18, affirmed by OLG Hamburg, 17 07 1972, supra n. 18.Google Scholar

43. For such reasoning see OLG Hamburg, 24 07 1972, supra n. 18.Google Scholar

44. The Court did not raise the question whether the German conflicts rule should be held repugnant to the constitutional principle of equality of the sexes (see supra text at n. 39).

45. Principal Legislation No. 82, 1951 at p. 248; 5 Laws of the State of Israel p. 171.Google Scholar

46. Principal Legislation No. 380, 1962 at p. 120; 16 Laws of the State of Israel p. 106.Google Scholar

47. See mainly, ss. 17, 25 and 30.

48. See Shapira, , Custody of Children – “Welfare of the Child” and Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 4 Mishpatim pp. 291, 292–95 (1972) (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

49. See Steiner v. Attorney General, 9 (I) P.D. (1955) p. 241 (per Justice Silberg).Google Scholar

50. See, e.g., Anonymous v. Anonymous, 26 (I) P.D. (1972) pp. 85, 92, 101Google Scholar; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 26 (II) P.D. (1972) pp. 634, 640Google Scholar; Lipovski v. Lipovski, 30 (I) P.D. (1976) pp. 619, 623.Google Scholar

51. “According to the psychoanalysts's experience the best interests of an infant are safeguarded under the condition that three needs are fulfilled: the need for affection (for the unfolding and centering of the infant's own feelings); the need for stimulation (to elicit inherent functions and potentialities); and the need for unbroken continuity (to prevent damage done to the personality by the loss of function and destruction of capacities which follow invariably on the emotional upheavals brought about by separation from, death or disappearance of the child's first love objects).” A. Freud, Cindy, in Goldstein, J. and Katz, J., The Family and the Law pp. 1051, 1053 (1965)Google Scholar. See generally Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child pp. 31–39 (1972).Google Scholar

52. Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51, at p. 99.Google Scholar

53. Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51, at pp. 6–7Google Scholar; Goldstein, , Psychoanalysis and Jurisprudence, 77 Yale L.J. pp. 1053, 1074 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51, at p. 40.Google Scholar

55. Sees. 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (1971 c. 3); J.v.C., [1969] 1 All E.R. pp. 788, 809 (per Lord Guest) (H.L.). For a statutory definition of the child's “best interests” see the Child Custody Act of 1970, 18 Mich. Statutes Ann. s. 25.312 (3) (Rev. 1974). See also the decisions quoted supra n. 35 and by Mnookin, , Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law anH Contemp. Probl. pp. 226–293 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Amado v. Director of Immigrants Camp, 4 P.D. (1950) p. 4.Google Scholar

57. Id. at pp. 13, 20, 21.

58. See Landerer v. Landerer, 25 (II) P.D. (1971) p. 258Google Scholar; Dakin v. Kohan, 25 (II) P.D. (1971) p. 372Google Scholar; Anonymous v. Anonymous, 26 (I) P.D. (1972) p. 85Google Scholar; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 26 (II) P.D. (1972) p. 634Google Scholar; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 27 (II) P.D. (1973) p. 197Google Scholar; Lipovski v. Lipovski, 30 (I) P.D. (1976) p. 619Google Scholar; Masarwa v. Masarwa, 30 (III) P.D. (1976) p. 288.Google Scholar

59. “Placements should provide the least detrimental available alternative for safeguarding the child's growth and development.” Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51, at p. 53Google Scholar. For a similar observation see Goldstein v. Goldstein, 26 (II) P.D. (1972) pp. 634, 650–51 (per President Agranat).Google Scholar

60. See Goldstein v. Goldstein, 26 (II) P.D. (1972) pp. 634, 641 (per Justice Sussman).Google Scholar

61. See Anonymus v. Anonymous, 26 (I) P.D. (1972) pp. 85, 90 (per Justice Sussman)Google Scholar; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 26 (II) P.D. (1972) pp. 634, 640–41 (per Justice Sussman)Google Scholar; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 27 (II) P.D. pp. 197, 207–208Google Scholar (per Justice Landoi) pp. 213–16 (per Justice Etzioni); Lipovski v. Lipovski, 30 (I) P.D. (1976) pp. 619, 624Google Scholar (per Justice Berinson). See also Justice Berinson's emphatically worded decision in the Jundeff case, H.C.J. 21/76, unpublished.

62. See Dakin v. Kohan, 25 (II) P.D. (1971) p. 372Google Scholar, where Justice Cohn ordered the return of a kidnapped child to his mother in France even though a rather lengthy period of time had elapsed since the French courts deliberated the question of custody. See also the dissenting opinion of Justice Sussman in Anonymous v. Anonymous, 26 (I) P.D. (1972) p. 85Google Scholar and the remarks of Justice Etzioni in Goldstein v. Goldstein, 27 (II) P.D. (1973) pp. 197, 213, 215.Google Scholar

63. Cf., Justice Kister's opinion in Anonymous v. Anonymous, 26 (I) P.D. (1972) p. 85.Google Scholar

64. Compare Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51, at p. 100.Google Scholar

65. See Goldstein v. Goldstein, 26 (II) P.D. (1972) pp. 634, 643Google Scholar (per Justice Sussman) p. 650 (per President Agranat); Goldstein v. Goldstein, 27 (II) P.D. (1973) pp. 197, 215Google Scholar (per Justice Etzioni); Masarwa v. Masarwa, 30 (III) P.D. (1976) pp. 288, 293Google Scholar (per Justice Shershevski). But see H.C.J. 27/76 Jundeff v. Jundeff, unpublished, where Justice Berinson maintained that “the passage of time … in the circumstances of this case cannot provide a legitimate ground for altering our previous decisions. Time passed due to violation of our orders …” It is submitted that this treatment of the time factor makes the ultimate result of the Jundeff affair somewhat problematic. On the time dimension in child placement decisions see Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51, at pp. 40–49.Google Scholar

66. As was the case, according to the majority opinion, with regard to the eldest daughter in Anonymous v. Anonymous, 26 (I) P.D. (1972) p. 85.Google Scholar

67. See Landerer v. Landerer, 25 (II) P.D. (1971) pp. 258, 280Google Scholar (per Justice Landoi) pp. 274, 276 (per Justice Witkon). See also Goldstein, J., Freud, A. and Solnit, A.J., supra n. 51 at p. 101.Google Scholar

68. See BayObLG, 21 12 1973Google Scholar, supra n. 14 at p. 351.

69. This condition (see Cohn, , supra n. 23, 115sub e)Google Scholar. invokes, mutatis mutandis, s. 328 para. 1 No. 3 Code of Civil Procedure. – It was irrelevant in the Jundeff case as no German citizen was involved.

70. See the obiter dictum in KG, 17 02 1976Google Scholar, 1976 OLGZ p. 281 at p. 285.Google Scholar

71. OLG Hamburg, 24 07 1972Google Scholar, supra n. 18. See also KG, 17 02 1976, supra n. 70.Google Scholar

72. BayObLG, 21 12 1973Google Scholar, supra n. 14; BayObLG, 25 03 1974Google Scholar, 1974 BayObLGZ p. 126Google Scholar, also, 1974 NJW p. 1052; BayObLG, 31 07 1974Google Scholar, 1974 BayObLGZ p. 317Google Scholar, also, 1974 NJW p. 2183.Google Scholar

73. It is unlikely that German courts will depart from this position when a German child is involved. See KG, 17 02 1976Google Scholar, supra n. 70, where German children of a divorced German-Iranian couple refused to return to their Iranian father after spending a vacation with their German mother in Germany. The court declined to order the return of the children before a determination has been made as to which parent will be awarded custody.

74. BayObLG, 31 07 1974Google Scholar, supra n. 72.

75. Re H. (infants), [1965] 3 All E.R. p. 906 (Ch.D.)Google Scholar, affirmed [1966] 1 All E.R. p. 886 (C.A.); Re T. (infants), [1968] 3 All E.R. p. 411 (C.A.)Google Scholar; Re L. (minors), [1974] 1 All E.R. p. 913 (C.A.)Google Scholar. See also Re C. (a minor), (1976) 6 Family Lawp. 211 (C.A); Leatherdale v. Ferguson, supra n. 35; Re Ridderstroem and Ridderstroem, 25 D.L.R. (3rd) 29 (Ont. 1972)Google Scholar; Re Loughran and Loughran, supra n. 35; Braun v. Mallet, , supra n. 35Google Scholar, with comment by Siehr, Kindesentführungen ohne Ende – aber: II y a des juges à Accra!, 1976 FamRZ pp. 255–257; In the Matter of Hofmann, [1971] H.C.D. (Tanz) 319 (No. 409). As to American law see Ratner, , supra n. 35 p. 824 n. 138Google Scholar. Cp. also Bodenheimer, , supra n. 1 pp. 86–91, 94–97.Google Scholar

76. As to the power of the court to form an independent judgment on the merits of the matter at hand see McKee v. McKee, [1951] 1 All E.R. p. 942 (P.C.)Google Scholar, also, [1951] 2 D.L.R. p. 651; Re E. (an infant), supra n. 35; Re T.A. (infants), supra n. 35; Re K. (infants), supra n. 35; Re Wright, supra n. 35; Walker v. Walker, supra n. 35. As to American law see Ratner, , supra n. 35, at p. 824 n. 137.Google Scholar

77. Supra n. 36. See Bodenheimer, Brigitte M., The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act: A Legislative Remedy for Children Caught in the Conflict of Laws, 22 Vand. L. Rev. pp. 1207–1244 (1969)Google Scholar; id., supra n. 1, pp. 91–94; Note, 60 Minn.L.Rev. pp. 820, 826–835 (1976). – As to an American bill introduced in the United States Congress requiring the American states to enforce custody decrees of sister states, see Bodenheimer, , supra n. 1 pp. 98–99.Google Scholar

78. California, Colorado, Hawai, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, Wyoming; Minnesota has passed an act substantially similar to the Uniform Act. See 1975 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 331 (record of passage of acts, as of 31 August 1975).

79. Note the absence of annotations to s. 23 in the master volume and in the Annual Pocket Part 1976, supra n. 36.

80. See the Law Commission's Working Paper No. 68, supra n. 34, paras. 1.3, 1.12–1.16 (pp. 2, 5–6).

81. See Pretura di Roma, 25 September 1974, 1975 II diritto di famiglia e delle persone 566, where an English order to return a kidnapped child erroneously was held to be recognized under the European Communities Convention of 1968 on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters although this Convention had not been ratified by the United Kingdom.

82. Supra n. 7 and 12. – Shortly before the Hague Convention was prepared in 1961, the International Law Association had formulated a Draft Convention on the Custody of Infants: (1960) 49 I.L.A. Rep. pp. XI and 459.

83. See 64 Revue critique d.i.p. (1976) pp. 821, 834, also, 20 N.I.L.R. (1976) pp. 398, 404 (sub C 3).

84. See European Treaty Series No. 71 (Strasbourg 1970).

85. Draft European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to the Custody of Children; Draft European Convention Relating to an International Tribunal to Settle Conflicts in Matters of Custody of Children. Versions of 14 March 1977, Council of Europe Document CCJ (77) 1. As to these Drafts (versions of 26 March 1976) cp. Siehr, , Kindesentführungen ins Ausland – Ein deutsch-italienisches Beispiel und eine Initiative des Europarats, 1977 Der Amtsvormund, pp. 219, 232–235.Google Scholar

86. As to such re-kidnapping cases see OLG Hamburg, 17 07 1972Google Scholar, supra n. 18; Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. p. 610 (1947).Google Scholar