Home      Login


Hague Convention Cases  


Author:  Anne L.  Perry, Esq..


Source: Volume 18, Number 01, October/November 2012 , pp.5-7(3)




Domestic Violence Report

< previous article |next article > |return to table of contents

Abstract: 

Domestic Violence Report last reviewed Hague Convention cases in 16 DVR 6 (Aug/Sept 2011). The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, implemented through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq. , was adopted to “secure the prompt return of children either wrongfully removed or retained in any contracting state.” The Convention procedures do not govern the merits of a child custody dispute, but rather provide a mechanism for the return of the child so that custodial decisions are made in the child’s country of “habitual residence.” A petitioner under the Hague Convention must prove that the child was removed to, or retained in, a different State, in breach of the petitioner’s custody rights which were exercised at the time of removal. If a court finds the child was wrongfully removed, the Convention requires the child shall be “promptly returned” to the country of habitual residence in all but a few exceptional circumstances. This article discusses procedural matters and the cases: Mauricio R. v. L.C. , No. B229324 (Cal. Ct. App. 011); Khan v. Fatima, No. 12-1692 (7th Cir. 2012); Acosta v. Acosta , Civil No. 12-342 (D. Minn. 2012) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Keywords: California Court of Appeal: Grave Risk Found, But Undertakings Cannot Be Contingent on Abducting Parent’s Cooperation; Seventh Circuit: Child’s Return Vacated Due to Lack of Grave Risk Findings; District of Minnesota: Grave Risk of Harm to Childr

Affiliations:  .

Subscribers click here to open full text in PDF.
Non-subscribers click here to purchase this article. $10

< previous article |next article > |return to table of contents