The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

275 Pages·2015·2.57 MB·English

Federal Judicial Center
International Litigation Guide
The 1980 Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction:
A Guide for Judges
Second Edition
Hon. James D. Garbolino

Federal Judicial Center
2015
This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the
Center’s statutory mission to develop educational materials for the judicial
branch. While the Center regards the content as responsible and valuable,
this publication does not reflect policy or recommendations of the Board of
the Federal Judicial Center.
FIRST PRINTING
Contents
Preface ................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary .............................................................................. ix
Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
I. The 1980 Convention ........................................................................ 5
A. Overview of the Convention ......................................................... 5
B. Purposes for Adoption of the Convention .................................... 6
C. Basic Elements of the Case for Return .......................................... 7
D. Basic Elements of the Defenses to Return .................................... 7
E. Legal Framework .......................................................................... 9
1. Text of the 1980 Convention ................................................... 9
2. International Child Abduction Remedies Act ........................ 10
3. Concurrent Jurisdiction ......................................................... 11
4. Role of the Central Authority ................................................ 11
F. Treaty Interpretation ................................................................... 12
1. Abbott Guidelines ................................................................... 13
a. Interpretation of the Convention Text ................................ 13
b. Deference to Convention Purposes ..................................... 14
c. Executive Interpretation of Treaties .................................... 15
d. Sister State Decisions .......................................................... 15
2. Pérez-Vera Report .................................................................. 16
3. U.S. State Department Text & Legal Analysis ....................... 16
4. INCADAT ............................................................................... 17
G. Whether Both Countries Are Bound by the Treaty .................... 17
II. The Case in Chief for the Return of a Child ................................... 21
A. Summary ..................................................................................... 21
B. Burdens of Proof .......................................................................... 23
C. Wrongful Removal and Retention .............................................. 26
1. Distinguishing Between Wrongful Removal and Wrongful
Retention ................................................................................. 27
2. Anticipatory Violation and Wrongful Retention .................... 28
3. Retention by Ne Exeat Order .................................................. 29
4. Custody Rights ....................................................................... 30
a. Holders of Custody Rights .................................................. 30
iii
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (2d ed.)
b. Article 15 Request ............................................................... 32
c. “Chasing Orders” ................................................................ 33
d. Effect of Subsequent Custody Orders ................................. 35
e. Methods of Establishing Custody Rights ............................ 38
5. Rights of Custody Versus Rights of Access ............................ 47
6. Ne Exeat Orders—Abbott v. Abbott ......................................... 48
D. Habitual Residence ..................................................................... 50
1. Habitual Residence—Division in the Circuits ....................... 53
a. Synopsis ............................................................................... 53
b. Majority View ..................................................................... 54
c. Minority View ..................................................................... 62
2. Settled Versus Acclimatized ................................................... 64
3. Coercion and Physical Abuse ................................................. 68
4. Immigration Status ................................................................. 71
5. Asylum ................................................................................... 73
6. The Habitual Residence of Infants ......................................... 74
7. Shuttle Custody ...................................................................... 78
8. Military Families .................................................................... 80
E. Age of the Child .......................................................................... 84
III. Defenses to the Petition for Return ............................................... 87
A. Summary ..................................................................................... 87
1. Narrow Interpretation of Defenses ........................................ 88
2. Court May Order Return Even If Defense Established .......... 89
B. Delay of More Than One Year ..................................................... 94
1. Child Settled in New Environment ........................................ 95
2. Equitable Tolling .................................................................... 98
C. Consent and Acquiescence ....................................................... 101
1. Generally—Separate Defenses ............................................. 101
2. Consent by Participation in Custody Proceedings ............... 103
3. Stranded Parents .................................................................. 105
D. Failure to Exercise Rights of Custody ...................................... 107
E. Grave Risk of Harm—Intolerable Situation .............................. 109
1. Defining Grave Risk and Intolerable Situation .................... 110
2. Child Abuse .......................................................................... 113
3. Domestic Violence ............................................................... 114
F. Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ........ 117
iv
Contents
G. Child’s Objection to Return ...................................................... 120
1. Age and Maturity ................................................................. 123
2. Manner of Hearing Child’s Objection .................................. 125
3. Generalized Desires Versus Particularized Reasons ............. 126
4. Children’s Standing to Intervene on Their Own Behalf ....... 127
H. The Effect of Asylum Proceedings ............................................ 129
I. Nonstatutory Defenses: Equitable Defenses ............................... 130
1. Waiver .................................................................................. 130
2. Unclean Hands ..................................................................... 132
3. Fugitive Disentitlement ........................................................ 133
J. Undertakings .............................................................................. 137
K. Exhausting All Possible Alternatives to Refusing Return—
Circuit Split .............................................................................. 143
IV. Issuing Orders of Return ............................................................. 149
A. Specificity: Time, Manner, and Date of Return ........................ 150
B. Mirror-Image Orders ................................................................. 150
C. Safe Harbor Orders ................................................................... 151
D. Returns to Countries Other Than Habitual Residence ............. 152
E. Mootness and Stays ................................................................... 152
1. Mootness .............................................................................. 152
2. Stays ..................................................................................... 155
V. Procedural Issues .......................................................................... 157
A. Appellate Standard of Review ................................................... 157
B. Expeditious Handling Required ................................................ 161
1. Application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .................. 163
2. Expedited Discovery ............................................................ 164
3. Relaxed Rules for Admissibility of Documents .................... 164
C. Parallel Jurisdiction Issues ........................................................ 165
1. Younger Abstention .............................................................. 165
2. Colorado River Abstention .................................................... 167
3. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine ..................................................... 169
4. Removal ................................................................................ 169
D. Comity ...................................................................................... 170
1. Hague Convention Orders of Other Nations ....................... 170
2. Enforcement of Foreign Custody Decisions ........................ 172
v
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (2d ed.)
E. Petitions for Access Only .......................................................... 173
1. Making Access Orders. ......................................................... 175
2. Interim Visits Pending Trial ................................................. 177
F. Contacting Judges in Foreign Jurisdictions .............................. 178
G. Attorney Fees and Costs ........................................................... 181
1. Authority for Awards ........................................................... 181
2. Amount of Awards ............................................................... 183
H. Findings of Fact Required ........................................................ 185
I. The Manner of Taking Evidence ............................................... 186
1. Taking Testimony by Telephone ......................................... 187
2. Decisions Based on Affidavits .............................................. 187
3. Discovery .............................................................................. 188
4. Whether an Evidentiary Hearing Is Necessary .................... 188
VI. Case Management ........................................................................ 193
A. Preventing Further Removal or Concealment of the Child ...... 193
1. State Laws Regarding Removal of Child from Home Without
Notice ................................................................................... 194
2. Foster Care ........................................................................... 195
3. Bonds .................................................................................... 195
4. Deposit Passports ................................................................. 197
B. Establishing Timelines .............................................................. 197
C. Legal Representation ................................................................ 198
D. Narrowing the Issues for Trial .................................................. 199
E. Mediation .................................................................................. 199
Appendix A: Text of the 1980 Convention ....................................... 201
Appendix B: International Child Abduction Remedies Act .............. 217
Appendix C: Checklist for Hague Convention Cases ........................ 229
Appendix D: Countries Where Convention Is In Force with United
States ............................................................................................... 233
Table of Authorities ........................................................................... 235
Index .................................................................................................. 251
vi
Preface
The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force in the United States in
1988. In the ensuing twenty-five plus years, child abduction litigation
has produced over 150 appellate decisions and, within the last four
years, three decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.
This guide is designed to help federal and state judges deal with
proceedings for the return of children under the 1980 Hague Conven-
tion. The first edition, published in 2012, was aimed at an audience
primarily consisting of the federal judiciary. Bearing in mind that fed-
eral and state courts share concurrent jurisdiction over these unique
cases, a greater emphasis has been placed on the inclusion of state
court decisions in this edition. A review of the state appellate cases
shows that an overwhelming number of state courts rely on the greater
body of federal decisions. This reliance is likely the result, in part, of
the scarcity of precedent within the individual states combined with
the wealth of authoritative precedent in the federal system.
Cases arising under the 1980 Convention present challenges to
trial and appellate courts owing to unique legal concepts and the time-
sensitive nature of the proceedings. Recently, the Appellate and Civil
Rules Committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States rec-
ommended that increased judicial education be focused toward expe-
ditiously resolving Hague Convention cases as a first level of re-
sponse.1 This guide is part of the Federal Judicial Center’s efforts to-
ward fulfilling that goal.

Judge Jeremy D. Fogel
Director, Federal Judicial Center

1. See letter of Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton in response to comments contained in the
concurring opinion in Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1027 (2013); Advisory Committee
on Appellate Rules, Newark, N.J., Apr. 28–29, 2014, pp. 539–40.
vii

Executive Summary
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction is a treaty that governs proceedings for the prompt
return of children who have been wrongfully taken or kept away from
their “habitual residence.” The most typical situation that will trigger
the operation of the Convention occurs when one parent relocates
with a child across an international border without the consent of the
left-behind parent or without a court order permitting that relocation.
Proceedings under the Convention are civil, not criminal.2 The Con-
vention is the only internationally recognized remedy that compels the
actual return of a wrongfully abducted child. The 1980 Convention
serves two primary purposes: first, to deter future child abductions;
and second, to provide a prompt and efficient process for the return of
the child to the status quo that existed before the abduction.
A Hague Convention case is not a child custody case.3 Rather, a
Hague Convention case is more akin to a provisional remedy—to de-
termine if the child was wrongfully removed or kept away from his or
her habitual residence, and, if so, then to order the child returned to
that nation. The merits of the child custody case—what a parent’s
custody and visitation rights should be—are questions that are re-
served for the courts of the habitual residence. In the event that a par-
ent has commenced a child custody proceeding in a U.S. state court,

2. In 1993, Congress enacted the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act
(IPKCA), 18 U.S.C. § 1204 (1993). This act provides felony criminal penalties for the
removal or retention of a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the
lawful exercise of parental rights. Because the 1980 Hague Convention is only appli-
cable when the treaty is in force between the two countries involved, IPKCA fills a
void in the law regarding child abductions from the United States to a country where
the 1980 Convention is not in force with the United States.
3. 22 U.S.C. § 9001(b)(4) reads, in part:
In enacting this chapter the Congress recognizes –
* * * * *
The Convention and this chapter empower courts in the United States to determine
only rights under the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody
claims.
ix
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (2d ed.)
that proceeding must be stayed pending outcome of the Hague peti-
tion for return of the child. See infra page 5.
The substantive law and fundamental elements of a cause of action
for return of a child are found in the text of the Convention. The Con-
vention is set forth in Appendix A on page 201. The procedural as-
pects of handling these cases are governed by the International Child
Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9011. A copy of
ICARA can be found in Appendix B, infra at page 217.
Courts may only entertain petitions for return of a child if the
Hague Convention is in force between the two countries involved.
This is a fundamental jurisdictional requirement. The 1980 Conven-
tion went into effect in the United States on July 1, 1988, and as of this
writing it is currently in force between the United States and 80 other
countries. A list of those countries can be found in Appendix D, infra
at page 233. Additionally, the wrongful removal or retention of the
child must have occurred after the date the treaty became effective in
both countries. See discussion infra at page 2.
A quick checklist of key issues that arise in Hague cases is provid-
ed in Appendix C, infra at page 229, for use as a guide to issues that
may arise.
Unique Concepts
Hague Convention cases have several unique aspects that distinguish
them from other forms of litigation:
• Expeditious handling. The expected time frame for handling a
Hague Convention case is six weeks. To meet the goal of
promptly deciding the case, the Convention urges trial and ap-
pellate courts to use the most expeditious procedures that are
available to hear and issue a ruling on the case. Courts have uni-
formly regarded the expeditious handling of these cases as essen-
tial. (See infra page 157.) In one reported case, the time from the
x