This article is part of a broader discussion about attaining a full-fledged child-friendly (criminal) justice. Attaining that goal is particularly challenging in cases of international parental abduction, due to the involvement of two branches of law. It is examined to what extent the current interaction guarantees a decision in the best interests of the child. More specifically, the implications of the adage le criminel tient le civil en état are scrutinised from a children’s rights perspective.
The central research question reads: “to what extent can the adage le criminal tient le civil and état be upheld when further elaborating the best interests of the child in criminal law, more specifically in the interaction between civil and criminal law?” The research wants to contribute to the debate of the difficult triangular relationship between civil law, criminal law and children's rights law.
In cases of child abduction, the link and interaction between the two procedures goes beyond the traditionally accepted scope of civil damages arising from a criminal offense. Nevertheless, both procedures following a parental abduction are based on the same facts and are inextricably linked, which means that they have to be assessed together, which means that they should be judged together. The question arises as to how the two parallel procedures can be coordinated better, now that it is clear that they may significantly influence each other.
A full-fledged application of the adage means that a decision concerning the return of the child can only be handed down from the moment when the criminal proceeding (concerning the prosecution of the parent) is completed. It is immediately clear that this cannot be in the best interests of the child.
It is argued that the adage must be abandoned or reversed to guarantee article 3 CRC. This statement is substantiated with arguments of both practical (referring to the time course) and fundamental (importance of the child best interets as a first consideration) nature. Thereby counterarguments are anticipated.
---
Dit artikel kadert binnen de bredere discussie inzake het streven naar een kindvriendelijk (straf)rechtssysteem. In zaken van internationale parentale ontvoering, waarbij twee rechtstakken betrokken zijn, is dit bijzonder uitdagend. Er wordt onderzocht in welke mate de huidige interactie tussen beide rechtstakken het belang van het kind waarborgt. Concreet wordt het adagium le criminel tient le civil en état vanuit een kinderrechten-perspectief aan een kritische blik onderworpen.
De centrale onderzoeksvraag luidt: “in welke mate is het adagium le criminel tient le civil and état houdbaar in de verdere uitwerking van het belang van het kind in het strafrecht, meer bepaald in de wisselwerking tussen burgerlijk en strafrecht?” Het artikel wil aan het belang van het kind een duidelijkere positie geven in de moeilijke driehoeksverhouding tussen burgerlijk recht, strafrecht en kinderrechten.
In zaken van kinderontvoering gaat het de toepassing van het adagium verder dan de traditioneel aanvaarde reikwijdte van civielrechtelijke schadevergoedingen die voortvloeien uit een strafbaar feit. Niettemin zijn beide procedures, volgend op een parentale ontvoering, gebaseerd op dezelfde feiten en onlosmakelijk verbonden met elkaar, wat betekent dat ze samen moeten worden beoordeeld. De vraag rijst hoe de twee parallelle procedures beter gecoördineerd kunnen worden, nu duidelijk is dat ze elkaar op een significante manier kunnen beïnvloeden.
Onverkorte toepassing van het adagium betekent dat de burgerlijke beslissing betreffende de terugkeer van het kind pas kan plaatsvinden vanaf het moment dat de strafrechtelijke procedure (betreffende de vervolging van de ouder) is voltooid. Het is meteen duidelijk dat dit niet in het belang van het kind kan zijn.
Er wordt geargumenteerd dat het adagium moet worden verlaten dan wel omgedraaid om artikel 3 IVRK te garanderen. Argumenten van zowel praktische (verwijzend naar de tijdsverloop) als fundamentele (belang van het kind als eerste overweging) aard onderbouwen dit standpunt. Daarbij wordt geanticipeerd op tegenargumenten.

Those who talk can be heard. Those who are allowed to talk may be listened to. This study is an attempt to give legal voice to those who cannot talk or are usually not listened to: children. This study is about the attention given to their interests, the best interests of the child. When these interests are immersed in a minority context, children may be overlooked for different reasons, including discriminatory attitudes or prejudice regarding their families. Law and its interpretation must be changed in order to include the difference. This study discusses the best interests of the child principle with special attention to its legal relevance in cases where lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) are, or want to be, parents. The authoritative source for the interpretation of the principle is the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its case law. The study aims to explore the Court’s approach to the best interest of the child and identify whether the principle is being consistently applied in cases involving LGBT families, given the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are still sensitive issues in Europe. This is done by comparing these cases to cases lodged by applicants who were not identified as an LGBT person. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the lack of European consensus on sexual minorities’ rights are confronted with the urgent paramount consideration that has to be given to children’s best interests. The analysis explores whether there is room for detecting a possible Court’s biased approach towards the concept of the best interests of the child. This study challenges the Court’s decisions in the sense that the focus should not only be at the LGBT parents’ rights to private and family life, but also at the interests of their daughters and sons. This is an attempt to call upon the ECtHR and all states not only to actively fight discrimination against LGBT persons, but, ultimately, to stop interpreting the concept of the best interests of the child in an arguably biased way, and to consider the principle’s legal value in any decision, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or any other distinction.