Johnson and Johnson (Sweden 1996)
     Response to United States Note No. 64 of 30 Jun 1996
     7 International Abduction [SWEDEN 1996]
     ===========================================================

     MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
     Division for International Legal Assistance

     001   The Ministry for Foreign Affairs presents its
     compliments to the Embassy of the United States of America
     and has the honour to refer to the Embassy's note No 064 of
     30 June 1996.

     002   In this note "The United States strongly urges the
     Government of Sweden to amend the 1989 Enforcement Law,
     Sweden's implementing legislation for the Hague Convention,
     to remedy the inconsistency between Sweden's hemvist law and
     its obligations under the Hague Convention, and to take all
     other necessary steps to correct the Regeringsratten
     decision of 9 May 1996

     003   The Swedish Government is not aware of any
     contradictions to the Hague Convention in the 1989 Swedish
     legislation implementing the Hague Convention into Swedish
     law.  In particular it should be emphasized that Section 11
     second subparagraph of the 1989 Enforcement Act is a
     faithful translation of the definition of "wrongful" removal
     or retention of the Convention (Article 3, first
     subparagraph).  Traditionally, the word "hemvist" is used in
     Swedish international family law to correspond to the Hague
     concept of "habitual residence".

     004   "Habitual residence" is not defined neither in the
     Hague Convention nor in the 1989 Enforcement Act. It is up
     to the court to interpret this concept.  In doing so
     Regeringsratten has paid special attention to the
     terminology employed in the Hague Convention and its
     purposes. Like in many other countries, courts in Sweden are
     independent of the Government. It would be contrary to the
     constitution of Sweden if the Government should to "correct"
     Regeringsratten judgment of 9 May 1996.

     005   The difficulties of the United States to accept the
     judgment of Regeringsratten seem to stem at least to some
     extent from differences of the national custody
     legislations. In Swedish law, questions of custody are
     regulated through mandatory rules which may not be set aside
     by an agreement between the parties. It is not possible for
     the parents, e.g., to create by agreement legally effective
     permanent habitual residence for the child or to agree in
     advance on exclusive jurisdiction for the court of a certain
     country.

     006   Finally, it should be pointed out that the judgment of
     Regeringsratten concerns only the question whether the
     conditions of the Hague Convention for the return of the
     child were fulfilled.  The judgment is in no way a decision
     on the merits of the custody issue.

     007   The Ministry for Foreign Affairs avails itself of this
     opportunity to renew to Embassy of the United States the
     assurances of its highest considerations.

     Stockholm  31 July 1996