Opinion ID: 793263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rights of Custody and Access

Text: 29 The Convention defines custody rights as rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence. Hague Convention, art. 5(a), 19 I.L.M. at 1501. In determining custody, the Convention calls into play a State's choice of law rules as well as its internal custody rights laws. Feder, 63 F.3d at 225. This requires a careful examination of the country of origin's custody laws to determine whether the party seeking the child's return had custody rights in that country and was exercising them, within the meaning of that country's law, at the time the child was removed. Id. Once it is determined that a party had valid custody rights under the country of origin's laws, [v]ery little is required of the applicant in support of the allegation that custody rights have actually been or would have been exercised. The applicant need only provide some preliminary evidence that he or she actually exercised custody of the child, for instance, took physical care of the child. Hague Convention Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. at 10,507. 30 The duty of the host forum — in this case, the District Court — to make a threshold determination of custody rights under the country of origin's laws is not novel; indeed, it comports with the federal courts' frequent responsibility to examine the law and choice of law rules of another forum to determine the rights and duties of litigants. Such a determination does not, of course, bind the other forum to reach the same result in future litigation, nor does it run afoul of comity concerns. Article 3's requirement that the host country determine custody rights under the country of origin's law to ascertain whether removal was wrongful, and therefore whether the Convention applies, is a straightforward question of law of the sort federal courts routinely encounter, and thus presents no unusual burden on the competence of our courts. 31 That said, the Convention does not allow the state to which a child has been wrongfully taken actually to decide who should have custody, see Hague Convention, art. 16, 19 I.L.M. at 1503, and thus a determination by the host country that a party had custody rights in the country of origin for purposes of determining whether removal was wrongful under the Convention has no bearing on the merits of a subsequent custody determination in the country of origin once the child is returned. Id. art. 19, 19 I.L.M. at 1503; see Feder, 63 F.3d at 221 n. 5 (same); Hague Convention Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. at 10,511 ([A] decision under the Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue. It follows that once the factual status quo ante has been restored, litigation concerning custody or visitation issues could proceed . . . in the child's State of habitual residence.). The host country must therefore determine, as a threshold matter, whether the party seeking the child's return had valid custody rights under the country of origin's laws, and exercised those rights, to assure that the Convention is applicable. But, as indicated, this determination does not actually decide the custody question, and therefore does not resolve any subsequent custody adjudication in the country of habitual residence. 32 The Convention also contrasts rights of custody, which may be vindicated by an order that the child be returned to the country of habitual residence, with rights of access, which may not. Hague Convention, art. 5, 19 I.L.M. at 1501; see Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 455 n. 3 (1st Cir.2000). [R]ights of access are those rights to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child's habitual residence. Hague Convention, art. 5(b), 19 I.L.M. at 1501; see 42 U.S.C. § 11602(7) ([T]he term `rights of access' means visitation rights.). The Convention affords limited remedies for a parent who removes a child from a country in contravention of another's parent's rights of access, such as direct[ing] the person who . . . prevented the exercise of rights of access . . . to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the applicant. . . . Hague Convention, art. 26, 19 I.L.M. at 1504. [S]uch remedies do not include an order of return to the place of habitual residence, however. Whallon, 230 F.3d at 455 n. 3 (emphasis added).