Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:50:18.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation of Convention on International Child Abduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 897 - 899
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, opened for signature Oct. 25, 1980, TIAS No. 11, 670, 1343 UNTS 89 [hereinafter Child Abduction Convention]. For an analysis of the Convention, see Paul, R. Beaumont & Peter, E. Mceleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (1999)Google Scholar.

2 Child Abduction Convention, supra note 1, pmbl.

3 42 U.S.C. §§11601–11610 (Supp. V 1999).

4 Child Abduction Convention, supra note 1, Art. 3 (emphasis added).

5 Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).

6 Id. at 1069. The oldest of the children decided to return to Israel, and did so by mutual agreement of the parents. Id.

7 Mozes v. Mozes, 19 F.Supp.2d 1108 (CD. Cal. 1998).

8 239 F.3d at 1071 (quoting C v. S, [1990] 2 All E.R. 961, 965 (H.L.)).

9 Id. at 1072.

10 Id. at 1073–74, 1076, 1081. “Habitual residence is intended to be a description of a factual state of affairs, and a child can lose its habitual attachment to a place even without a parent’s consent.” Id. at 1081.

11 Id. at 1084.

12 See 42 U.S.C. §11603(e)(2)(A), (B); see also Child Abduction Convention, supra note 1, Arts. 12, 13(b), 20.

13 Child Abduction Convention, supra note 1, Art. 13(b).

14 Blondin v. Dubois, 19 F.Supp.2d 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this initial decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, asking the district court to determine whether any arrangements might be made that would mitigate the risk of harm to the children from repatriation. Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999). The district court then found that return to France under any circumstances would cause the children psychological harm. Blondin v. Dubois, 78 F.Supp.2d 283, 297 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

15 Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 2001).

16 Id. at 162.

17 Id. (quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich 78 F.3d 1060, 1069 (6th Cir. 1996)).

18 Id. at 160–61.

19 Id. at 166; see Child Abduction Convention, supra note 1, Art. 13.

20 234 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000).

21 Id. at 272. For other recent cases dealing with the exceptions to repatriation, see March v. March, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 7110 (6th Cir. Apr. 19, 2001); Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11 th Cir. 2001); Pesin v. Rodriguez, 244 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2001) (precluding consideration of the matter under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine); Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2001); Dorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001); Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 2000 WL 1721800 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2000); Kanth v. Kanth, 2000 WL 1644099 (10th Cir. Nov. 2, 2000); Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000); Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d204 (1st Cir. 2000); Toren v. Toren, 191 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1999); Shalitv. Coppe, 182F.3dll24 (9th Cir. 1999).