Opinion ID: 818057
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hague Convention and United Kingdom Law

Text: The [Hague] Convention was adopted in 1980 in response to the problem of international child abductions during domestic disputes. The Convention seeks 'to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State,' and 'to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the -6- other Contracting States.' Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983, 1989 (2010) (quoting Hague Convention art. 1). The Convention provides that removal of a child is wrongful when [(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 [(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. Hague Convention art. 3 (emphasis added). Rights of custody 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. Id. art. 5. Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 . . . the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith. Id. art. 12. The United States has implemented the Convention through ICARA, which authorizes a person who seeks a child's return to file a petition in state or federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 11603(a)-(b). The court shall decide the case in accordance with the Convention. Id. § 11603(d). If the child has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention, the child shall be promptly returned, subject to certain exceptions. Id. § 11601(a)(4). -7- Given this framework, Patrick must allege facts sufficient to show that he has rights of custody . . . under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention. Hague Convention art. 3. Patrick alleged in his petition that L.N.R.'s habitual residence is the United Kingdom. For purposes of this appeal, Rivera does not dispute this allegation. Therefore, Patrick's rights of custody are determined with respect to United Kingdom law. To evaluate Patrick's rights of custody under United Kingdom law, we must follow a trail of statutes. Our starting point is the law's description of parental responsibility, which Patrick and Rivera agree is tantamount to rights of custody: Where a child's father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child. Children Act, (1989) § 2(1).2 On its face, this provision would appear not to apply to Patrick and Rivera, who married after L.N.R.'s birth, but [r]eferences in this Act to a child whose father and mother were . . . married to each other at the time of his birth must be read with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (which extends their meaning). Id. § 2(3). That section states that references to a person whose father and mother 2 The National Archives of the United Kingdom has made these statutes available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/. -8- were married to each other at the time of his birth include . . . references to any person to whom subsection (3) below applies. Family Law Reform Act, (1987) § 1(2). Subsection (3) applies to any person who . . . is a legitimated person within the meaning of section 10 of [the Legitimacy Act 1976]. Id. § 1(3). That section defines legitimated person to include a person legitimated or recognised as legitimated . . . under section 2 or 3 above, Legitimacy Act, (1976) § 10(1), and Section 3 of the Legitimacy Act 1976 provides that where the parents of an illegitimate person marry one another and the father of the illegitimate person is not at the time of the marriage domiciled in England and Wales but is domiciled in a country by the law of which the illegitimate person became legitimated by virtue of such subsequent marriage, that person, if living, shall in England and Wales be recognised as having been so legitimated from the date of the marriage. Id. § 3 (emphasis added). Based on these statutes, we conclude (as did the district court) that L.N.R.'s removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention if L.N.R. became legitimated under Puerto Rico law by virtue of Patrick's marriage to Rivera.3 3 United Kingdom law provides other means for a father to obtain parental responsibility, but Patrick does not allege that he has complied with them. With his petition, Patrick filed a letter from the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit (a unit of Ministry of Justice's Official Solicitor) stating that [t]he parents are married to each other and therefore both have parental responsibility for [L.N.R.], pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Children Act 1989. It is unclear whether this conclusion followed -9-