Decision; Subjects: RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, FRANCE; [CRC: Kinderrechtskonvention, Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes; Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant; Convenzione sui diritti del fanciullo]
Erwägungen (7 Absätze)
E. 1 The author of the communication is J.I.P.G., a national of Spain. He submits the communication on behalf of his child, S.P.G., born in France on 21 November 2012. He claims that the State Party violated his son’s rights under articles 8 (1), 9 (2), 10 (2) and 18 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 7 April 2016.
E. 2 At an early age, S.P.G. was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder – tuberous sclerosis complex – requiring daily, multidisciplinary medical care. Following the parents’ separation, an alternating residence arrangement was established in the child’s best interests and remained in place until 2020. In August 2021, the family court judge of Dax Judicial Court ruled that the author would exercise his right of access and accommodation with respect to S.P.G. during all holidays in the school year and half of the summer holidays. The author states that, beginning in February 2022, S.P.G.’s mother systematically refused to produce the child for visitation during holidays. J.I.P.G. considers this to be a serious violation of his right to maintain parental ties with his child and of the principle of the best interests of the child, as S.P.G. is deprived of his father on the ground that the latter resides in Spain.
E. 3 On 21 September 2023, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications, decided to register the communication.
* Adopted by the Committee at its 100th session (12–30 January 2026). ** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Suzanne Aho, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff, Rosaria Correa, Timothy Ekesa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Mariana Ianachevici, Philip Jaffé, Sophie Kiladze, Cephas Lumina, Benyam Dawit Mezmur, Juliana Scerri Ferrante, Aïssatou Alassane Sidikou, Zeinebou Taleb Moussa and Benoit Van Keirsbilck. United Nations CRC/C/100/D/239/2024 Convention on the Rights of the Child Distr.: General 11 February 2026 English Original: French CRC/C/100/D/239/2024 2 GE.26-01278
E. 4 In its observations dated 15 July 2024, the State Party provided additional factual background to the communication. After seven years of medical care for S.P.G. at Necker Hospital in France, the author applied for the child’s residence to be established in Spain, the author’s new country of residence, where he lived with his family. In support of his application, he claimed that S.P.G.’s medical care in France had been unsatisfactory and that the child would have benefited from better treatment in Spain, including the prospect of a new clinical trial and improved educational support.
E. 5 In a ruling handed down in August 2021, the family court judge decided that S.P.G.’s place of residence would be established at his mother’s home, so as to maintain continuity in the child’s medical care, and that the father would enjoy rights of access and accommodation during school holidays. In June 2023, Pau Court of Appeal held that the father had been unable to explain how the child’s medical care would differ in Spain, that the costs associated with a potential clinical trial had not been substantiated, that he had not previously submitted the child’s medical file to hospital services in Valencia or Barcelona and that he had been unable to provide proof of regular income. On that basis, the judge confirmed primary residence with the mother. According to the judicial authorities, the two parents share joint responsibility for ensuring that all decisions are taken in the best interests of their child.
E. 6 On 12 August 2024, the State Party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication were transmitted to the author for comment. Despite a reminder from the secretariat, the author submitted no comments on those observations.
E. 7 At a meeting on 30 January 2026, the Committee noted that the author had not submitted comments on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee considered that the author had lost interest in communication No. 239/2024 and therefore decided to discontinue its consideration thereof, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-01278 (E) 130226 130226 Committee on the Rights of the Child Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, concerning communication No. 239/2024*, ** Communication submitted by: J.I.P.G. Alleged victim: S.P.G. State Party: France Date of communication: 21 September 2023 (initial submission) Subject matter: Establishing child visitation rights; best interests of the child; children’s rights Articles of the Convention: 8 (1), 9 (2), 10 (2) and 18 (1) 1. The author of the communication is J.I.P.G., a national of Spain. He submits the communication on behalf of his child, S.P.G., born in France on 21 November 2012. He claims that the State Party violated his son’s rights under articles 8 (1), 9 (2), 10 (2) and 18 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 7 April 2016. 2. At an early age, S.P.G. was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder – tuberous sclerosis complex – requiring daily, multidisciplinary medical care. Following the parents’ separation, an alternating residence arrangement was established in the child’s best interests and remained in place until 2020. In August 2021, the family court judge of Dax Judicial Court ruled that the author would exercise his right of access and accommodation with respect to S.P.G. during all holidays in the school year and half of the summer holidays. The author states that, beginning in February 2022, S.P.G.’s mother systematically refused to produce the child for visitation during holidays. J.I.P.G. considers this to be a serious violation of his right to maintain parental ties with his child and of the principle of the best interests of the child, as S.P.G. is deprived of his father on the ground that the latter resides in Spain. 3. On 21 September 2023, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications, decided to register the communication.
* Adopted by the Committee at its 100th session (12–30 January 2026). ** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Suzanne Aho, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff, Rosaria Correa, Timothy Ekesa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Mariana Ianachevici, Philip Jaffé, Sophie Kiladze, Cephas Lumina, Benyam Dawit Mezmur, Juliana Scerri Ferrante, Aïssatou Alassane Sidikou, Zeinebou Taleb Moussa and Benoit Van Keirsbilck. United Nations CRC/C/100/D/239/2024 Convention on the Rights of the Child Distr.: General 11 February 2026 English Original: French CRC/C/100/D/239/2024 2 GE.26-01278 4. In its observations dated 15 July 2024, the State Party provided additional factual background to the communication. After seven years of medical care for S.P.G. at Necker Hospital in France, the author applied for the child’s residence to be established in Spain, the author’s new country of residence, where he lived with his family. In support of his application, he claimed that S.P.G.’s medical care in France had been unsatisfactory and that the child would have benefited from better treatment in Spain, including the prospect of a new clinical trial and improved educational support. 5. In a ruling handed down in August 2021, the family court judge decided that S.P.G.’s place of residence would be established at his mother’s home, so as to maintain continuity in the child’s medical care, and that the father would enjoy rights of access and accommodation during school holidays. In June 2023, Pau Court of Appeal held that the father had been unable to explain how the child’s medical care would differ in Spain, that the costs associated with a potential clinical trial had not been substantiated, that he had not previously submitted the child’s medical file to hospital services in Valencia or Barcelona and that he had been unable to provide proof of regular income. On that basis, the judge confirmed primary residence with the mother. According to the judicial authorities, the two parents share joint responsibility for ensuring that all decisions are taken in the best interests of their child. 6. On 12 August 2024, the State Party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication were transmitted to the author for comment. Despite a reminder from the secretariat, the author submitted no comments on those observations. 7. At a meeting on 30 January 2026, the Committee noted that the author had not submitted comments on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee considered that the author had lost interest in communication No. 239/2024 and therefore decided to discontinue its consideration thereof, in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.