Chapter 10: International Child Custody and Abduction Cases

This chapter will familiarize judges in the U.S. with the state and federal law applicable to international child custody, visitation and abduction disputes. These laws are UCCJA s? 23, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). When a custody order from a foreign country is presented for recognition and enforcement, UCCJA § 23 controls. If notice and opportunity to be heard were given to all affected persons, state courts are to enforce foreign custody decrees. When a petition is filed seeking the prompt return of a child to another country based on allegations that the child's removal or retention was wrongful, the Hague Convention and ICARA govern. If the child's removal or retention is wrongful within the meaning of the Convention, and no exceptions to return are proved, a court in the U.S. must order the child's return forthwith. A return order is not a decision on the merits of custody.     

The expanding role of expert psychological evaluations and testimony in Hague child abduction litigation

Hague Convention cases are a growing niche in forensic assessments. These cases focus on returning children, or preventing their return, after international abductions, by one of the parents, has occurred. This article focuses on the legal underpinnings of the Hague Abduction Convention, the “affirmative defenses” that may be invoked to prevent a return order, including “grave risk of harm,” “mature objection”, and the “well settled defense.” The article will also focus on the increasing roles that forensic evaluators play in these matters, the distinction between the role of forensic experts in custody proceedings and Hague cases, and the inherent limitations present in these unique kinds of evaluations.     

International Hague Network of Judges: Significance in Implementation of the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Convention”) provides for the prompt return to the country of habitual residence of children taken by a parent from one country to another. It was created to address the threshold problem in such cases, that is, which court should determine the rights of the parties involved. In a case under the Convention, the court's concern is which country is the country of habitual residence and practical aspects of the return to ensure the safety of the child and the taking parent. This article will discuss the formation of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ), why it is crucial in the advancement of the Convention's goals, and, specifically, what it does to educate judges and facilitate communication between judges, and how the IHNJ can facilitate the return, including providing information on services, procedures, and protections offered in the countries of return.     

U.S. Judicial Implementation of the Hague Convention in Cases Alleging Domestic Violence

This qualitative study examined U.S. legal cases where battered mothers living abroad fled with their children to the United States. These women subsequently faced child abduction lawsuits brought by their batterer. The cases are governed by the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention) which was ratified by the U.S. in 1988. Using content analysis, the study analyzed 47 published U.S. state and federal judicial opinions involving the Convention and allegations of domestic violence. It finds that U.S. courts are reluctant to employ Convention provisions that could prevent children from being returned to their mother's batterer.     

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION

The Child Abduction Convention, an international treaty, protects custody rights internationally among its member states by providing a remedy of return in cases where a child was wrongfully removed in violation of a parent's custody right. There is no such remedy for the violation of a parent's access (or visitation) rights. A ne exeat clause in a child custody agreement restrains a custodial parent from removing a child from a predetermined jurisdiction (such as a particular country) and can be issued when there is a risk that the custodial parent might flee to another country with the child(ren). Currently there is a circuit split within the United States as to whether a ne exeat right coupled with the right of access should equal a protected custody right under the Convention. Most international courts protect the ne exeat right under the Convention; however some do not. A ne exeat right should convey a protected custody right for policy reasons. The beneficial implications of a ne exeat right creating a protected custody right under the Child Abduction Convention clearly outweigh the detriments. While there is no instant solution to the inconsistencies among various courts in interpreting the Child Abduction Conventions’ scope in regard to a ne exeat right, there are ways to resolve the problem. If consistency in judicial interpretation cannot be achieved, a movement needs to be initiated to create a protocol to the Child Abduction Convention to further explain the scope of custody rights and ne exeat rights under the Convention.     

Getting Tough on International Child Abduction

International child abduction, typically undertaken by one of the child's parents, has become an increasing problem in recent years, particularly in the United States. Parents have encountered serious difficulties in repatriating an abducted child. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, signed by the U.S. and many other countries, establishes an international procedure for pursuing claims of child abduction. The Office of Children's Issues of the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. Department of State is the Central Authority that administers the Convention and its implementing legislation for the United States. In the author's view (and his alone), the Office of Children's Issues has not been sufficiently vigorous in seeking sanctions against countries that do not comply with the Convention. Even after Congress passed legislation in 2014 specifically directing the State Department to apply increasingly severe sanctions against noncompliant countries (the Sean and David Goldman Act), the State Department has still essentially failed to do so. Brazil is one signatory to the Hague Convention that the State Department itself has determined to be consistently noncompliant with the Convention since 2013. Yet the State Department has failed to impose significant sanctions on Brazil, among other countries.     

Intersecting Issues Involving Asylum in the United States and Cases Arising Under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The issue of immigration status has become the focal point in some cases arising under the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Asylum claims affect both substantive and procedural issues that are presented to state and federal courts. A nexus has developed between undocumented immigrants who are parties to a Hague case, and issues of habitual residence, acclimatization, and grave risk. Asylum claims have forced courts to consider the viability of such claims, requests for stay of Hague cases pending the outcome of asylum claims, the likelihood of deportation, and the effect of grants of asylum on the particular issues in the case. Where asylum has been granted to either a parent or child, substantial consideration has been given to the asylum determination by the court hearing the Hague case.     

Domestic violence and child participation: contemporary challenges for the 1980 hague child abduction convention

ABSTRACT

This article addresses two contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention: (i) domestic violence and (ii) child participation. It also outlines three components of a global socio-legal policy and research initiative undertaken to address these issues and, where relevant, their intersection. The published literature on these topics, including the children’s objections exception, is explored, as are the ways in which these challenges are addressed within some of the 101 Contracting States to the Convention and through the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention. Regard is paid to the data provided by the statistical analysis of applications made under the Convention in 2015 by Lowe and Stephens, and the changes which will occur once the Recast of The European Brussels 11a Regulation comes into operation. The likely impact for 1980 Hague Convention abduction proceedings of the UK having left the European Union at 23.00 GMT on 31 January 2020 is contemplated. Other current international initiatives are discussed, including the development of a child-friendly version of the Convention through The International Association of Child Law Researchers. Training is a key to changing attitudes and upskilling family justice professionals to ensure the Convention operates in a fully child-centric way. This will maintain and strengthen the Convention by keeping it ‘fit for purpose’.     

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR HAGUE CONVENTION CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES*

This note explains that an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) protocol should be adopted as part of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to facilitate the amicable resolution of cross‐border child custody cases. It suggests that national ADR models should be used as a guide to improve this treaty. First, this note brings to light the negative effect of cross‐border litigation on children as well as the complexities and the deficiencies of this international treaty. Second, it examines mediation and arbitration systems employed in the United States, Europe, and Australia and how these can be transposed on the international scale. Third, it proposes how the ADR protocol should be drafted and implemented. A sound ADR mechanism would alleviate the unfortunate conditions of children trapped in long and destructive international child custody battles.     

TO REGULATE OR NOT TO REGULATE: THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS BY GUATEMALA AND COOPERATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS

The United States will be entering into force the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption by the end of 2007. At this time, all intercountry adoptions that occur between the United States and one of the 70 other countries that also have entered the Hague Convention into force must be done according to Hague protocol. Guatemala has entered the Convention into force but its adoption practices do not currently align themselves with Convention requirements. The U.S. State Department has threatened that intercountry adoptions between the United States and Guatemala will come to a complete stop if Guatemala's conditions are not reformed. One out of every 100 children born in Guatemala is adopted by an American family and in the 2006 fiscal year, the United States adopted 4,135 Guatemalan babies. This high number placed Guatemala as the second country from which the United States adopted the most children in 2006 second only to China. A structured compromise must be established between the United States and Guatemala in order to ensure the continued provision of homes to Guatemala babies in America while Guatemala reforms its malignant adoption practices.     

2005年《选择法院协议公约》拒绝承认与执行外国判决的理由

2005年<选择法院协议公约>中的拒绝承认与执行规则是迄今为止最为详尽的关于间接管辖权的国际统一规则,其中的拒绝承认与执行的理由是间接管辖权规则的核心问题.起草者希望公约能与1958年纽约公约处理国际仲裁一样成功,新公约有可能成为国际民商事诉讼领域第一部全球性的多边条约.公约的间接管辖权规则虽然仅适用于协议管辖权依据,但是对于因其他管辖权依据引起的判决承认与执行,也具有非常重要的参考作用.     

Moving Children through Private International Law: Institutions and the Enactment of Ethics

This article examines how the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co‐operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) plays a central role in justifying the institution of legal adoption. The Hague Adoption Convention has often been regarded as a response to the challenges that the “global situation” brings to adoption practice. Based on private international law, the agreement contains protocols and norms to ensure the protection of the child in intercountry adoption. In the article, I propose that the Hague Convention can be understood as a “transparency device”; a complex assemblage working in pursuit of global “good governance.” The device, however, also operates as justification within the institutional domain, allowing adoption agencies to make distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate adoptions. Idemonstrate how the logic of transparency disguises as much as it promises to reveal. While the doctrine's aim is to validate adoptability and combat trafficking, it also helps to mainstream Euro‐American adoption knowledge to other parts of the world.     

The Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments: The Way Forward

This article analyses the proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments, which has been the subject of lengthy and ongoing negotiations. The issues that continue to divide the parties centre on differences between approaches to jurisdiction broadly similar to those used in Europe, and the approach used in the United States. The most comprehensive draft of the Hague Convention starts from a European approach, but makes a number of concessions to the US approach. The United States has rejected this draft, and the parties appear to have accepted this rejection and are now discussing whether a narrower convention can be drafted upon which the parties can reach consensus.
The article argues that the broad draft convention was a sound one, that it made all of the concessions to the US approach that were warranted, and that the goal of harmonising world approaches to jurisdiction in civil cases would be better promoted by adopting the broader convention, if necessary without the participation of the United States.     

TRADE‐OFFS IN FORMULATING A CONSISTENT NATIONAL POLICY ON ADOPTION*

Just as the courts must consider the trade‐off between the best interest of the child and parental rights in involuntary termination of parental rights, policy on international adoption must consider the trade‐offs between the best interest of the child and the long‐term interests of the nation. We argue that countries that suspend international adoptions do not maximize social welfare. A consistent national policy to maximize the well‐being of the children and society at large would be to devote resources today to the oversight of international adoption in accord with child protections under the Hague Convention, while at the same time developing a domestic system of care that provides for the physical and developmental needs of orphaned children in the context of permanent families.     

THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION AND THE GRAVE RISK OF HARM EXCEPTION

International child abduction is a problem that affects families around the world. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was instituted to ensure that abducted children are promptly and safely returned home. Although the goal has been met, recent decisions and their use of Article 13(b) have limited the return of children to Israel on the premise that political turmoil and increased incidences of terrorist attacks constitute war. Although few would dispute that the recent escalation of terrorist attacks in Israel is troublesome, these incidences do not rise to the level of war. Such interpretations of Article 13(b) is too broad and undermines the Convention's policies. Unfortunately, in the global post-September 11th climate, terror attacks are inevitable throughout the world. In light of this harsh reality, courts must not be quick to declare that a country is a zone of war absent clear and convincing evidence.     

Republication of Foreign Government Statements: The Fair Report Privilege in U.S. Libel Law Reexamined

Whether news reports concerning foreign government proceedings enjoy the same level of protection from tortious liability as reports concerning domestic government proceedings is a question of great consequence for media in the United States, especially given the ever-increasing globalization of political and economic affairs. A growing number of libel cases generated by international journalism based in documents and meetings of government officials in other nations are testing the well-established fair report privilege in state and federal courts. This article, after analyzing the history, cases and commentary on the subject, concludes by recommending a liberal privilege for such reporting.     

国际私法条约解释的路径依赖与方法展开

国际条约的文本制订及其为当事国接受仅实现了条约的形式统一,而条约的实质统一则需要通过一致解释和适用来达致。国际公法条约解释更多针对的是国家的权利和义务,而国际私法条约解释更多关涉的是私人的权利和义务,且没有相应的管辖国际私法条约的国际争议解决机构,故存在当事国解释的多样性风险。国际私法条约解释在路径上依赖条约解释的习惯法规则的同时,必须坚持自洽性和统一性解释要求。当事国在司法实践中对国际私法条约的解释,倾向于采用约文解释和目的解释方法,要求法官学会自我克制和比较借鉴,使用补充资料作为辅助手段,同时处理好多种约文文本和公共政策条款的解释问题。     

Mainstreaming Gender into European Family Law? The Case of International Child Abduction and Brussels II Revised

Gender mainstreaming is an EU policy tool encouraging equality between men and women by incorporating gender concerns into the formation of EU law. The EU has intervened in private international family law, an area where concerns over gender equality may be present. Child abduction, which is regulated by the Brussels II Revised Regulation, is an aspect of international family law where issues of gender have been highlighted. Women are predominantly the abductors of their children and may abduct a child to escape a violent relationship. These factors were in evidence in the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention and an effective gender mainstreaming strategy should promote discussion to address these concerns. By examining the proposals for Brussels II Revised, this article will demonstrate that the gendered nature of child abduction was not clearly addressed in the development of the legislation and questions how mainstreaming can be effective as an aspect of the legislative process.     

The Hague judgments project: assessing its plausible benefits for the development of the Indian private international law

At present, India is not a signatory to any international treaty or Convention that regulates the disputes arising from the international jurisdiction of courts or the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in transnational civil or commercial matters. These aspects are, consequently, regulated by the country’s private international law as espoused via case-law, in the absence of any codification of the rules on the subject. This has, therefore, exposed the Indian legal system to the threat of being unpredictable, inconsistent or even obsolete in some respects as far as the governance of international civil and commercial disputes are concerned. The paper, accordingly, investigates the plausible role that the two instruments presently under the scope of the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Judgment Project, namely, the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements [the HCCA] and the recent Proposed Draft Text on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments [the Draft Convention], may have on the development of the Indian legal system. While the HCCA is already in force with three ratifications till date, the Draft Convention is merely in the form of a draft text that would hopefully see the light of the day, depending upon the consensus between the Members of the Hague Conference. Apropos, this paper identifies the loopholes in the relevant rules of the Indian private international law on the international jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and demonstrates the manner in which, these aspects may be addressed if the country endorses the two instruments under the Judgments Project.     

IT'S 10 p.m., DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?

Over the past several decades, parent-child abduction has turned from a national into an international problem. To try and minimize this problem, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was adopted on October 1980. The goal of the Convention is to ensure that abducted children are promptly returned to their homes. While the goal has been met, the overwhelming use of the Convention's exceptions must be limited so that the purpose of the Convention is not damaged.