Court Opinion

ID: 9498795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:28:05.968846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:04.284203
License: Public Domain

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
For the reasons set forth below, I would hold that the district court has jurisdiction and I would remand this case for further proceedings.
I.
Cantor brought this action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 11601-11611 (West 2005), which is the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child *207Abduction (“Hague Convention” or “Convention”), Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,-670, 19 I.L.M. 1501. Article 1 of the Hague Convention posits two fundamental objectives: (1) “to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State”; and (2) “to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in other Contracting States.” As we explained in Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir.2001):
In adopting the Hague Convention, the signatory nations sought to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence, as well as to secure protection for rights of access. That is, the primary purpose of the Hague Convention is to preserve the status quo and to deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court.
Id. at 398 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Hague Convention aims to have judicial authorities decide whether a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in violation of existing custody rights, or whether existing access rights are being violated, not whether the petitioning parent is better suited to serve as custodian. See, e.g., Yang v. Tsui, 416 F.3d 199, 203 (3d Cir.2005) (explaining the “adjudication of a Hague Convention Petition” is distinct from “[cjustody litigation in state court [that] revolves around findings regarding the best interest of the child”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1419, — L.Ed.2d - (2006) (No. 05-697). The Hague Convention limits judicial authorities to considering claims for return of a child or to secure the exercise of access rights and forbids courts to revisit the merits of the underlying custody decision. See Hague Convention, art. 16, 19 I.L.M. at 1503; cf. Miller, 240 F.3d at 398 (explaining that “[t]he merits of any underlying custody case are not at issue” in an action brought under the Hague Convention) (internal quotation marks omitted).
For purposes of this case, the significance of the Hague Convention’s purpose, as reflected in the Preamble and Article 1, is that the Contracting States sought to protect and foster respect for two categories of legal rights — rights of custody and rights of access. The Convention defines “rights of custody” 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), I.L.M. at 1501. “Rights of access” are essentially visitation rights enjoyed by the non-custodial parent, specifically including “the right 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.
By enacting ICARA, Congress implemented the Hague Convention, giving it the force of law in the United States.1 *208Congress incorporated into ICARA the primary objectives of the Hague Convention with respect to both classes of rights, finding that the Convention “establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained, as well as for securing the exercise of visitation rights.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11601(a)(4). The express purpose of ICARA is “to establish procedures for the implementation of the Convention in the United States.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11601(b)(4). ICARA “empower[s] courts in the United States to determine only rights under the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11601(b)(4). On its face, the unqualified phrase “rights under the Convention” encompasses “rights of access” as well as “rights of custody.”
Under ICARA’s “Judicial remedies” provision, federal courts enjoy concurrent original jurisdiction with the state courts over “actions arising under the Convention.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(a). Section 11603 expressly contemplates that such actions may include not only claims for the return of a child being held in violation of custody rights, but also claims “for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(b). A straightforward reading of this provision suggests that ICARA affords aggrieved parents a judicial forum for resolving claims that involve either custody rights or access rights:
Any person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the Convention for the return of a child or for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access to a child may do so by commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief sought in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.
42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(b). ICARA establishes a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for petitions filed under section 11603(b), regardless of whether the petition is for the return of a child or for securing the exercise of access rights. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(e)(1). The statute, however, makes a distinction between these two types of claims with respect to petitioner’s prima facie case. When the petition seeks the return of a child, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that “the child has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(e)(1)(A).2 When the petition seeks to secure “the effective exercise of rights of access,” the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence simply that he “has such rights.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(e)(1)(B).
Cantor commenced this action under ICARA asserting both types of claims. She alleged her daughters were removed or retained in contravention of her custody rights and sought the return of the girls to Israel. She did not assert custody rights as to her two sons, but she alleged that she was being denied the effective exercise of *209her rights of access to the boys. For purposes of this appeal, however, we are concerned only with the petition as it relates to Cantor’s access rights. The district court dismissed Cantor’s petition to the extent that it sought enforcement of her alleged access rights, concluding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate such a claim because the Hague Convention “provides for no ... recourse to judicial authority” for claims involving access rights. J.A. 28. The district court concluded that, under Article 21 of the Hague Convention, the non-custodial parent’s only recourse for an alleged breach of access rights is to file an application with the Central Authority of the country in which the child is located. By contrast, the district court noted, the Hague Convention establishes “action by the ‘judicial or administrative authority’” as the standard “remedy” for a claim of wrongful removal in breach of custody rights. J.A. 28. The district court limited its analysis to the language of the Hague Convention and did not address the effect, if any, of ICARA. Having concluded that there is no judicial forum in which Cantor can raise her denial of access rights claim, the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The result reached by the district court is consistent with a substantial line of district court decisions holding that federal courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving access rights. See, e.g., Neng Nhia Yi Ly v. Heu, 296 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1010-11 (D.Minn.2003); Wiggill v. Janicki, 262 F.Supp.2d 687, 689 (S.D.W.Ya.2003); Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (W.D.Mich. 2000); Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d 857, 860 (E.D.Pa.1998). These decisions answer the jurisdictional question solely by reference to the text of the Hague Convention rather than the implementing statute, often relying upon ICARA’s language that federal courts have “jurisdiction of actions arising under the Convention,” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(a) (emphasis added), and that ICARA’s provisions “are in addition to and not in lieu of the provisions of the Convention.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11601(b)(2). In turn, the lower courts uniformly have concluded, based on a comparison of Article 12 (addressing the return of a wrongfully removed child) and Article 21 (addressing rights of access), that the Hague Convention does not provide either (1) a judicial forum to resolve disputes regarding access rights or (2) a substantive remedy for the denial of access rights. See, e.g., Neng Nhia Yi Ly, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1011 (noting “[t]he lack of parallelism between Article 12 and Article 21 has led the district courts that have considered the issue to conclude that the Convention creates no judicial power to enforce rights of access”). As stated in Neng Nhia Yi Ly, which is fairly representative of this line of decisions,
[tjhere is ... reason to doubt that the Convention provides a judicial remedy for violations of a parent’s visitation rights. Article 12 of the Convention, which addresses procedures to effectuate the return of a wrongfully removed child, specifically refers to action by the “judicial or administrative authority” of a member nation. See Hague Convention, art. 12. In contrast, Article 21 of the Convention, which deals with “organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access” to a child, makes no mention of recourse to a judicial authority. Hague Convention, art. 21. Rather, a parent must apply to the “Central Authorit[y]” of a nation to secure enforcement of his or her rights of access.
Id. at 1010-11. This view of Article 21 is consistent with scholarly commentary criticizing the failure of the Hague Convention to provide a clear substantive remedy for *210non-custodial parents who are being denied their rights of access under the Hague Convention. See, e.g., Linda Sil-berman, Patching Up the Abduction Convention: A Call for a New International Protocol and a Suggestion for Amendments to ICARA, 38 Tx. Int’l L.J. 41, 48-49 (2003) (explaining that “enforcement of access rights” is “a serious deficiency in the Convention”); Note, Croll.v. Croll and the Unfortunate Irony of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: Parents with “Rights of Access” Get No Rights to Access Courts, 30 Brook. J. Int’l L. 641 (2005). See also Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d at 861 n. 5 (collecting articles).
II.
Despite the weight of authority, I am unconvinced, based on the language of ICARA, that federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate Cantor’s claim. In my view, even assuming for analytical purposes that the Hague Convention itself does not afford the non-custodial parent a judicial forum to enforce his rights to access, Congress nevertheless has done so.
In determining whether a judicial forum exists for the enforcement of access rights, I would not relegate the analysis solely to the text of the Hague Convention but instead would begin with the language of ICARA’s judicial remedies provision and refer to the language of the Convention to inform my understanding of ICARA. The Convention is not self-executing and therefore “do[es] not create judieially-enforeeable rights unless ... first given effect by implementing legislation.” Ridge, 395 F.3d at 132 n. 7; see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 111(3) (“Courts in the United States are bound to give effect to ... international agreements of the United States, except that a ‘non-self-executing’ agreement will not be given effect as law in the absence of necessary implementation.”). Congress gave the Convention domestic legal effect through ICARA, requiring the primary focus for purposes of jurisdiction to be on the statutory language:
The issue in any legal action concerning a statute implementing a treaty is the intended meaning of the terms of the statute. The treaty has no independent significance in resolving such issues, but is relevant insofar as it may aid in the proper construction of the statute. Thus, where courts have been persuaded as to the proper interpretation of an implementing statute, that judgment has not been affected by the claim that the reading given the statute was inconsistent with the intent of the parties to the treaty.
Hopson v. Kreps, 622 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir.1980); see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 111 comment h (explaining that “it is the implementing legislation, rather than the agreement itself, that is given effect as law in the United States”). If a preexisting treaty and a subsequent act of Congress cannot be construed consistently, allowing both to remain valid law, “the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null” in the domestic context. Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 376, 118 S.Ct. 1352, 140 L.Ed.2d 529 (1998) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As I noted previously, section 11603(b) unquestionably permits — in straightforward and unambiguous language — judicial proceedings alleging the wrongful removal of a child in violation of custody rights or the denial of the non-custodial parent’s rights of access to the child, or both. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(b). ICARA directs a person “seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the Convention for the return of a child or for arrangements for *211organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access ” to “commenc[e] a civil action ... in any court which has jurisdiction of such action.” Id. (emphasis added). I cannot find anything in the statutory text or its structure that would permit me to excise petitions to secure the effective exercise of access rights from the scope of the judicial remedies provision. This conclusion is underscored, in my view, by the creation of separate proof requirements for custody rights and access rights “in an action brought under subsection (b) of [the Judicial remedies] section.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(e)(1).3 The unambiguous language of this section does not mandate that a claim for access rights be pursued administratively via the Central Authority. Rather, it clearly provides a judicial forum for such a claim, and “when the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, [a court’s] inquiry ends,” leaving only a “duty of enforcing the terms of the statute as Congress has drafted it.” Sigmon Coal Co. v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 291, 305 (4th Cir.2000), aff’d sub nom. Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002).
Despite the foregoing, Cohen would look solely to the Convention to determine whether a judicial forum is available to Cantor. Cohen argues that ICARA does not add to the remedies set forth in the Hague Convention any additional means by which an aggrieved parent can enforce existing access rights. He relies on the preamble to ICARA which declares that the purpose of ICARA is “to establish procedures for the implementation of the Convention in the United States” and that “[t]he Convention and [ICARA] empower courts in the United States to determine only rights under the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11601(b)(1) and (4). Because ICARA authorizes courts to adjudicate “only rights under the Convention,” Cohen argues, we must refer to the language of the Convention to determine whether jurisdiction exists to adjudicate this claim. In turn, Article 21 makes no provision for the initiation of judicial proceedings to determine rights of access.
I cannot subscribe to Cohen’s argument. First, it runs contrary to settled principles of statutory construction by elevating a general policy statement in the preamble over the operative portions of ICARA. “[Pjreambles in statutes ... are to be looked at at best only when ... the enacting language is unclear or ambiguous.” White v. Investors Mgm’t Corp., 888 F.2d 1036, 1042 (4th Cir.1989). If “the enacting or operative parts of a statute are unambiguous, the meaning of the statute cannot be controlled by language in the preamble.” Id. (quoting Jurgensen v. Fairfax County, Va., 745 F.2d 868, 885 (4th Cir.1984)); see Wyoming Outdoor Council v. United States Forest Serv., 165 F.3d 43, 53 (D.C.Cir.1999). The language in ICARA’s Judicial remedies section is unambiguous and cannot be altered by the general policy pronouncements in the preamble.
Furthermore, the language of the preamble in any case does not preclude a judicial remedy. ICARA declares that *212courts are empowered “to determine only rights under the Convention.” The Convention, however, identifies only two classes of substantive rights — custody rights and access rights. ICARA does not create new rights or expand these rights as they are defined in Article 5 of the Convention, which is made clear by the preamble’s reference to the policy against disturbing the merits of an underlying order. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 11601(b)(4). Distinct from these substantive rights under the Convention are the judicial or administrative proceedings used to secure these rights. Congress did not, in its policy declaration upon which Cohen relies, declare that the “proceedings” or “procedures” provided by the Convention would determine whether courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims based on rights under the Convention. In my view, therefore, the creation of a judicial forum under ICARA for the securing of access rights is not inconsistent with the congressional declarations of purpose in the preamble. Indeed, the preamble declares that “[t]he provisions of [ICARA] are in addition to and not in lieu of the provisions of the Convention.” 42 U.S.C.A. 11601(b)(2).
Finally, Cohen argues that the unambiguous language of section 11603(b) does not permit an action in federal court because there is no substantive remedy even if a court were to determine that rights of access were being denied. Even though ICARA grants concurrent state and federal jurisdiction, see 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(a), Cohen suggests that the language indicating a petition may be filed “in any court which has jurisdiction of such action” refers only to remedies and procedures available in family court, which is historically the appropriate forum for visitation matters to be decided. See Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d at 862; Wiggill, 262 F.Supp.2d at 690. According to Bromley, federal courts lack jurisdiction because there is no substantive remedy under the Convention; “the proper jurisdiction for [such an] action is a state court that has the full authority to enforce and modify the original ... decree.” 30 F.Supp.2d at 861.
The first problem with this view of section 11603(b) is that it contradicts Cohen’s argument that the Convention does not afford a judicial forum to ensure the exercise of access rights. He concedes, as he must, that the language set forth in ICARA does indeed provide a judicial forum. But ICARA draws absolutely no distinction between state and federal courts in this regard. Moreover, contrary to the assumption that an action to secure access rights will force federal courts into the business of domestic law, the inquiry called for under section 11603(e) is very limited — the court need only decide whether “the petitioner has such rights” of access. 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(e)(1)(B). Where Congress has clearly established a cause of action, the district court has the power to fashion an appropriate order that returns the parties to the status quo according to the existing rights of the parties. See Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 189, 122 S.Ct. 2097, 153 L.Ed.2d 230 (2002) (“[W]here legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). This limited inquiry does not require federal courts to plumb the depths of family law; in fact, it requires no greater degree of entanglement with family law than does the determination of whether a child has been removed in violation of existing custody rights. Such a limited inquiry is consistent with Convention policy goals that the status quo be returned rapidly, without regard to the underlying merits, and en*213forced until a court of competent jurisdiction revisits the merits.
III.
For these reasons, I would conclude that our jurisdictional inquiry is governed by the unambiguous terms of ICARA, and that under ICARA federal courts may adjudicate claims to secure the exercise of access rights. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. "International treaties are not presumed to create rights that are privately enforceable" without enabling legislation from Congress. Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, 968 (4th Cir.1992); see Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 252, 104 S.Ct. 1776, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984). "An international agreement of the United States is 'non-self-executing' ... if the agreement manifests an intention that it shall not become effective as domestic law without the enactment of implementing legislation.” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 111(4)(a). Article 2 of the Hague Convention directs "Contracting States [to] take all appropriate measures to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention.” Such language does not *208evidence an intent that the agreement be self-executing; congressional action was thus necessary. See Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 132 n. 7 (3d Cir.2005).

. In order to demonstrate wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the petitioner must prove that the children were " 'habitually resident' ” in the country from which they were removed, that "the removal was in breach of [the petitioner's] custody rights,” and that the petitioner "had been exercising those rights at the time of removal.” Miller, 240 F.3d at 398; see Hague Convention, art. 3, 19 I.L.M. at 1501 (defining "wrongful” removal).

. Subsection (e) provides in relevant part:
(e) Burdens of proof
(1) A petitioner in an action brought under [section 11603(b) ] shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence—
(A) in the case of an action for the return of a child, that the child has been wrongfully removed or retained ...; and
(B) in the case of an action for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access, that the petitioner has such rights.
42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(e)(1) (emphasis added).