Facts
The case concerns a child abduction case, where the mother registered in the records took the child abroad without the authorization of the registered father, who had been granted custody of the child by court decision. The registered mother and father were not the child's biological parents, but had obtained a fraudulent registration in the records. The registered father had exercised parental authority for 11 years.
The registered mother was convicted of child abduction (art. 220 SCC) and appealed to the Federal Court. The issue in dispute is whether the registered father, who is not the biological father, can be considered as having parental authority within the meaning of art. 220 SCC.
Considerations
The Federal Court considered that the registered father, who had exercised parental authority for 11 years, could be considered as having parental authority within the meaning of art. 220 SCC. The Court estimated that the fact that the registered father was not the biological father did not exclude the possibility that he be considered as having parental authority, insofar as he had exercised parental authority for a long period.
The Court also considered that the registered mother had committed an abuse of rights by filing a complaint for child abduction against the registered father, while she had participated in the fraudulent obtaining of the…