Opinion ID: 76527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hague Convention's Return Remedy

Text: 58 Article 12 of the Hague Convention establishes the general rule that a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention shall be returned unless more than a year has elapsed between the removal and the date of commencement of the proceedings and the child has become settled. Convention, Art. 12; see 42 U.S.C. § 11601. 5 59 Article 3 of the Hague Convention outlines the conduct that is wrongful for purposes of Article 12. Pursuant to Article 3, the removal or retention of a child is wrongful if it violates the rights of custody of another person, either jointly or alone, and those rights of custody were actually being exercised at the time of the removal or retention or would have been exercised absent the removal or retention. Convention, Art. 3. Article 3 provides: 60 The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where — 61 a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and 62 b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. 63 Id. (emphasis added); see Lops, 140 F.3d at 935. 64 The Hague Convention does not include an exhaustive list of rights that constitute rights of custody. However, Article 5 does distinguish between rights of custody and rights of access as follows: 65 a) rights of custody shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence; 66 b) rights of access shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child's habitual residence. 67 Convention, Art. 5 (emphasis added). Accordingly, rights of custody is a term expressly defined in the Convention. In American courts, we tend to think of custody rights primarily in the sense of physical custody of the child. However, in applying the Hague Convention, we must look to the definition of rights of custody set forth in the Convention and not allow our somewhat different American concepts of custody to cloud our application of the Convention's terms. Specifically, in this case we must think of rights of custody as including rights relating to the care of the person of the child, and in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence. Id. 68 Further, Article 13 of the Convention sets forth certain narrow exceptions to Article 12's mandatory-return rule. Under Article 13, a court is not bound to order the child's return if the person opposing the return establishes that the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention.... Convention, Art. 13(a). 6 69 In sum, the Hague Convention provides that the removal or retention of a child from his or her State of habitual residence is wrongful if the petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the child has been removed or retained in violation of the petitioner's rights of custody, i.e., rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence, either jointly or alone; and (2) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. Convention, Arts. 3, 5; 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e)(1)(A); see Lops, 140 F.3d at 936. 7 Once the petitioner satisfies this burden, the child must be returned to her State of habitual residence unless the respondent establishes one of these affirmative defenses: (1) that the petition for return was filed more than one year from the removal or retention and the child is well-settled in her new environment, or (2) that the petitioner was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of the removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention. Convention, Arts. 12, 13; 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e)(2)(B). 8 70