Opinion ID: 799335
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overlooking a Warning?

Text: The majority next suggests that the district judge may have made a legal error, that he may have “overlooked our warning in Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, supra, 431 F.3d at 570-71 , not to treat the Hague Convention as a venue statute designed ‘to deter parents from engaging in international forum shopping in custody cases.” Slip op. at 9, quoting Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363, 367 (3d Cir. 2005). The Hague Convention is indeed a venue statute. It is designed to deter exactly such forum-shopping and to prevent litigation of custody in the country chosen by the abducting parent, as the Third Circuit explained in Baxter. Accord, e.g., England v. England, 234 F.3d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 2000); Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 936 (11th Cir. 1998). The quoted passage in Van De Sande addressed a different issue, an argument that a court could decide “grave risk” and venue by asking only if the country of habitual residence had sufficient laws and police to protect the child. It is unclear from the Van De Sande opinion whether the father actually made that argument in that case (the target of the discussion was dictum in another circuit’s opinion), but in any event the district judge did not make the supposed error here. The judge was thoroughly familiar with Van De Sande. He referred to it repeatedly during the hearing. The majority suggests the judge made this mistake when he asked: “Why can’t Canada any more than Illinois protect – offer her protection?” Tr. 218. In context, it is clear that the judge was referring to the mother, not to the child. (The judge’s preceding question was “Why can’t she move to Canada?”, referring obviously to the mother.) The question was raised as part of the judge’s proper effort to satisfy himself that a No. 12-1692 19 Canadian family court could quickly take steps to deal with interim questions such as custody, support, including paying needed legal fees. See Tr. 212-13, 218, 220-22.5 There is no doubt that the mother here would face substantial obstacles litigating in the country of habitual residence, away from her parents. She would need to find a place to live and a lawyer, and she probably would need an award of interim support. But those obstacles are surmountable and in any event are not legitimate grounds for denying the Hague Convention’s return remedy.