Opinion ID: 779969
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Text: 4 The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international treaty among the United States and fifty other countries. 1 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, opened for signature October 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. 11,670, reprinted in 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494 (March 26, 1986). Despite the forceful connotation of words like abduction that are employed in the treaty, the Convention's drafters were concerned primarily with securing international cooperation regarding the return of children wrongfully taken by a parent from one country to another, often in the hope of obtaining a more favorable custody decision in the second country. Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir.2001). The Convention only applies when both countries are parties to it. 2 Convention, art. 35. Under the Convention each country must designate a Central Authority responsible for overseeing the implementation of a country's obligations. 3 42 U.S.C. § 11606(a). Within the state of California, the California Attorney General's Office acts as the Central Authority. 4 Under U.S. law, the Convention is implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601-11610. 5 A Convention proceeding is a civil action brought in the country to which the child was wrongfully removed. Wrongful removal means that a parent has taken a child out of a country in violation of the other parent's custody rights. ICARA actions may be brought in state or federal court. The conclusion that a child has been wrongfully removed under the Convention obligates a court to order him returned to the country from which he was taken. A parent who opposes the return of his child may, however, raise four affirmative defenses. Hague Convention, art. 12, 13, 30; 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e)(2). Unless these defenses are raised successfully, the court must order a wrongfully-removed child returned; a judicial proceeding under the Convention is not meant, however, to inquire into the merits of any custody dispute underlying the petition for return. Convention, art. 19; Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1999). Of paramount importance to the case before us, the Convention provides the remedy of return only for a parent who has rights of custody. Convention, art. 12. 5 A parent possessing only access rights is not entitled to that remedy. Instead, a parent with access rights is permitted to submit an application to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of [such] rights to the Central Authority of the country to which the child has been removed. Convention, art. 21.