5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Mississauga, Canada.
6.  In 2009 the applicant got married in Canada to E.N., a Polish national. They continued living in Canada and their son was born there in September 2010. The child obtained Canadian nationality at birth. It is unknown to the Court whether he also holds Polish nationality. The family lived in the applicant’s apartment. The applicant worked full time and was the sole financial provider for the family. In February 2011 he took thirty-three weeks’ parental leave.
7.  In April 2011 the family went to Poland on holiday. They agreed to return to Canada in July 2011 and aeroplane tickets were purchased to this end.
The couple split up in May 2011 and E.N. refused to return to Canada with the child. Soon afterwards the applicant went back to Canada alone. He briefly returned to Poland in July 2011 when his son underwent emergency surgery.
8.  On 31 October 2011 the applicant lodged an application to have his child returned under the Hague Convention. This application was registered with the Kielce District Court on 23 January 2012.
9. On 27 November 2012 the Kielce District Court decided to obtain an expert report from the Family Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny “the RODK”). The experts were ordered to assess whether there was a grave risk that the boy’s return abroad would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. A copy of this decision has not been submitted to the Court.
10.  The applicant and E.N. were invited to appear at an interview at the RODK which was scheduled for 30 November 2012. It appears that the domestic court’s decision to order the RODK report contained an instruction that the examination should go ahead whether or not the applicant was present. The applicant did not come to the appointment at the RODK. As a result, the report was based only on the statements of the child and his mother and on four volumes of the domestic court’s case file. It was prepared by two experts in psychology and was issued on 7 December 2012.
11.  In their report, the RODK experts took notice of the fact that for the past year and a half the child (who was two years old at the time of the psychological examination) had lived away from and almost without any contact with his father. They also observed that the child had a strong emotional bond with his mother; he was developing well and spoke Polish; and that E.N. had ensured the child’s security, well-being and development.
12.  The experts concluded that “the child’s separation from his mother would disturb his sense of security, belonging and stability, and [that] it would be adverse to his development – in particular, psychological [development] – [and] it would be against his best interests. In view of the above, moving the child to his father’s care [posed] a grave risk to his emotional [and] social development, [and] could cause a situation [which] for a two-year-old child [would be] difficult to bear.”
13.  Apart from the RODK report, the domestic court obtained the following evidence: testimony from the applicant, E.N. and the members of both families and medical reports.
14.  On 2 January 2013 the Kielce District Court, with Judge I.G. presiding, dismissed the applicant’s Hague Convention application (IIRNsm 87/12).
15.  The first-instance court held that the child had been wrongfully retained in Poland by his mother within the meaning of the Hague Convention. It also considered that, in line with Article 17 of the Hague Convention, the interim orders concerning the issues of custody over the child and his residence which had been granted by the Canadian and Polish family courts (see paragraphs 33, 34 and 36 below) were viewed as irrelevant to the case at hand.
16.  The district court also considered that the RODK report was thorough, clear and of a high evidentiary value. Relying on the report and the remaining evidence, the family court established that since his birth the child had been under the constant good care of his mother (who had not worked in Canada). The child had a strong emotional bond with the mother, did not remember the applicant and did not perceive him as a parent. The applicant did not show any interest in the child. Since July 2011, he had seen his son only once, in March 2012, despite the fact that he had been in Poland for a month. He had also stopped paying child support and had not shown any interest in him. The domestic court also made an additional observation that the applicant had sold his apartment in Canada and it was unknown if his new living conditions were adequate for his two-year-old child to move into.
17.  In view of the above it was ultimately held that separating the two-year-old boy from the mother and returning him to his father in Canada would be traumatic and hard to bear for the child. This, in turn, would pose a threat to the child’s emotional and social development and would perturb his sense of security and stability.
18.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had erred in that, inter alia, it had given a broad and not restrictive interpretation of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention and had dismissed his application even though it had not been established that the child was at a grave risk of physical or psychological harm if returned to Canada. The applicant also challenged the RODK experts’ report, arguing that it was unconvincing and inconsistent with the evidence obtained.
19.  On 9 July 2013 the Kielce Regional Court (II Ca 551/13) dismissed the appeal in the relevant part.
20.  The appellate court observed that international and domestic practice required that Article 13 (b) be given a restrictive reading to the effect that, in principle, any unfavourable consequences of the child’s separation stemming from the order to surrender the child by the abducting parent did not give rise to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of that provision. It also noted that the aim of the Hague Convention would be achieved if the abducting parent returned with the child. If no objective obstacles to the abducting parent’s return were present, it could be inferred that the parent was refusing to return and was acting in his or her own interest and not the interest of the child.
21.  The appellate court reasoned that the application of the above‑mentioned principles was more complex in cases concerning very young children. The Hague Convention stipulated only a maximum age requirement for children whose return could be sought under its provisions (the age of 16). It also protected (under Article 12) very young children from possible harmful effects of the return if it was shown that the parent seeking the return had not taken care of the child before the abduction or that the child had already adapted to the new environment. Following this approach, separating an abducted child from the parent who had a dominant role in the child’s life would not fall within the Article 13 (b) exceptions unless objective obstacles to the parent’s return could be shown to be present. This approach however, was difficult to accept in cases concerning abductions of infants by mothers because of the special relationship between them. This was true even in the absence of any objective obstacles to the mother’s own return because any separation of an infant from his or her mother would inevitably be contrary to the child’s best interests.
22.  The appellate court held that the utmost importance had to be attached to the child’s contact with his mother and his separation from her would place the boy in an intolerable situation. The domestic court relied on the following elements of the case: the applicant’s son had arrived in Poland with both parents at the age of six and a half months, in April 2011; since then the child had been taken care of solely by his mother; the most important element in his life was his contact with the mother; he did not have any memories of his life in Canada; and the applicant had not considered the child’s remaining in Poland illegal prior to October 2011. The appellate court also observed that by not appearing at the RODK interview, the applicant had waived his right to demonstrate that he could establish adequate contact with his young child and that the applicant had only seen his child once since the latter’s departure from Canada.
23. Since July 2011, the applicant has visited his son once, in March 2012 during a month-long stay in Poland.
24.  In the applicant’s submission, he had made countless attempts to see his son. In particular, he had applied to the courts to have a meeting with his child away from E.N.’s house on 23 November 2011 and on an unspecified date in February 2012. Copies of these applications have not been submitted to the Court.
In the Government’s submission, the applicant had not enquired about or sought contact with the child.
25.  On 23 February 2012 the applicant lodged an application with the competent domestic court for arrangements to be made to secure the effective exercise of his right of contact during the Hague Convention proceedings. He wished to meet with his son away from E.N.’s house one day before and on the day of the court hearing. He submitted that he had not seen his child since August 2011 and that the child’s mother and grandparents had been very hostile towards the applicant when he had tried to visit his son at home. The applicant submitted that the application had been made under Article 21 of the Hague Convention. A copy of this application has not been submitted to the Court.
26.  On 2 March 2012 the Kielce District Court, with I.G. as the presiding judge, decided to return the application for an interim order on the right of contact as unsubstantiated. It was considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that the child’s mother, apart from her allegedly hostile attitude, had obstructed his contact with the child. The domestic court relied on the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and did not make any reference to Article 21 of the Hague Convention.
27.  The applicant stated without submitting a copy of the relevant document that on 1 July 2013 the domestic court had decided to grant him a right to a supervised visit with his son for two hours daily in E.N.’s house. The applicant had been in Canada at that time and thus had not exercised his right.
28.  The applicant also submitted that on 9 July 2013 the appellate court had dismissed his request, presumably for a different schedule of his visits. A copy of this decision is not in the case file.
29.  On an unspecified date, the Polish family court granted the applicant a right to contact with his child. The details of this decision are unknown to the Court.
30.  On 3 June 2014 the Kielce Regional Court issued a decision, presumably concerning the applicant’s right of contact with his son (IC 2240/11). A copy of this decision has not been submitted by the Court.
31.  The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. On 10 September 2014 the applicant’s lawyer completed this appeal by submitting that E.N. had been hindering the father’s right of contact which he had tried to enforce in line with the court’s order. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown.
32.  On 1 September 2011 E.N. petitioned for divorce in Poland. Divorce proceedings are currently pending before the Kielce Regional Court.
33.  On 22 November 2011 the Kielce Regional Court gave an interim order, establishing the child’s residence as being with the mother. It appears that the applicant participated in the court hearing via a live video link. He refused to answer any questions.
34.  On 27 October 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada held that the child’s retention in Poland was wrongful and issued an interim order granting full custody of the child to the applicant, authorising him and the law-enforcement authorities to apprehend the child and ordering E.N. to surrender the child without delay. To this effect, a wanted notice for E.N. was issued by Interpol for the offence of kidnapping.
35.  On 21 August 2012 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found E.N. to be in contempt of court for, inter alia, failing to comply with the interim order described above. No sentence was pronounced on that occasion.
36.  On 11 September 2012 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed the interim decision of 27 October 2011, granting a final order of the applicant’s exclusive custody of the child. The Canadian court also requested the assistance of the Polish courts in securing the immediate apprehension and return of the child pursuant to the Hague Convention.
37.  On 22 May 2013 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the divorce between the applicant and E.N.
38.  The relevant international and domestic law is set out in the Court’s judgment of K.J. v. Poland, no. 30813/14, §§ 33-38 and 41-41, 1 March 2016.