Proposition 54K1234

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions relatives à une interdiction de sortie du territoire, la délivrance, l'invalidation et le retrait de documents de voyage et de documents d'identité pour des mineurs non émancipés.

General information ¶

Author

CD&V Veli Yüksel

Submission date

July 2, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Schengen Agreement border control infancy travel terrorism

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 12, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Lahaye-Battheu is the rapporteur and refers to the written report.

I give the floor to the applicant of the bill, Mr. Yüksel.

Since this is an important issue, I would like to say a few things.

The present legislation framework in the fight against parental child abductions, abductions by parents.

Child Focus figures show that there were 390 more cases of child abductions in 2016. In addition, an increase can be observed year after year. In 2017, the foundation handled 10% more files than the previous year. About 1,800 cases of child abductions occur annually in the European Union as well.

The holiday period is at the doorstep and it is especially in this period that we are faced with such cases, in which one of the parents takes the child abroad and then never returns again. The contact between the child and the other parent is broken and in many cases the parent never sees the child again. This creates awkward situations. Parental child abductions occur mainly within the European Union – France remains the leader in this regard – but also outside the EU Member States. In such cases, it is sometimes a long and very complex procedure to bring the child back to Belgium and in many cases it can never even succeed. Over the past few days and weeks, many people have contacted me and described their situation. Often these are very difficult situations.

The bill includes a number of amendments. Very concrete work is being done on the delivery and/or invalidation of the child’s identity documents. Thus, by amending Article 374/1 of the Civil Code, the family court will be able to impose travel restrictions on that child in case of serious fear of a parent’s child kidnapping by interfering with Belgian passports, travel documents and identity cards. This can be done by preventing the issuance or by preventing the usability of documents and identity cards already delivered by declaring them invalid and withdrawing them, in particular passports, travel documents for non-Belgians, and also by signing them into the central file of identity cards.

The measure provided for in Article 374/1, paragraph 1, does not, of course, apply to the delivery of identity cards for minors over 12 years of age, since those identity cards must be issued under the legislation on the basis of the entry in the population register. Whether or not a parent expressly agrees to this is therefore not applicable. However, the validity of that identity card may be limited to the territory of Belgium, as provided for in paragraph 2. After a decision of the court, in particular the family court, the secretary will forward the decision to the municipality where the child is registered, to the FOD Internal Affairs and also to the FOD Foreign Affairs.

Colleagues, I would like to emphasize for a moment that it is not intended that a one-sided or unexpected reaction from one parent will only hinder the other parent’s travel plans with the child or the child’s travel plans. It is up to the family court to judge whether the objection of one of the parents in question is correct. There must therefore be a serious fear before a minor is not allowed to travel abroad.

I think I explained the essence of the bill. We held a very constructive discussion. I hope that the vote will be very constructive and that all groups will support this proposal in order to stop the abduction of children by parents.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the text submitted to us this afternoon responds to a unfortunately common situation, namely the abduction of a child illegally taken abroad by one of his or her parents. If we cannot do much to prevent the deterioration of human relations to the point where one of the parents wishes to dispose of the exclusive custody of the children as he or she wishes, and in an unlawful way – I recall it – we can, however, and must do everything in our power to prevent this intention from happening.

I think it is important to remember that this type of abuse, committed by one of the parents, does not limit its disastrous effects to the children and the other parent. It also extends to the child’s surroundings: his friends, classmates, neighbors, grandparents; not to mention the violation of the values of our rule of law and the rulings of justice that constitute such acts.

I will not return to the details of the proposal, as Mr. Yüksel just did it. For the MR group, we are pleased that the new law allows the competent authorities to intervene either on the passport or on the travel document or on the Belgian identity card of the minor child, either in a preventive way by refusing to issue that document, but also in a curative way, allowing the family court to order the invalidation and withdrawal of the passport or travel document or to limit the validity of the Belgian identity document.

For us, this is a balanced text, which is feasible in practice and ultimately reaffirms two obvious things. First, the right of both parents to the upbringing of their children and the right of the child himself not to be a mere instrument of the abusive will of one of his two parents. Next, the importance of respecting the merits of decisions taken by courts and courts, in particular with regard to family matters.

This text is therefore welcome. thank you ! We supported it, as amended. We will support it in the plenary session.