& THE HAGUE
By Maury D. Beaulier, Esq.
Divorce rates continue to rise and our world grows smaller with each leap in
technology making international travel commonplace. With these societal
changes, a dramatic increase has been seen in child abductions and child
kidnappings by custodial and non-custodial parents. The goal of the abductor in
such child abduction and parental kidnapping cases is to frustrate court
proceedings regarding custody. Political and judicial differences between
countries as well as differing societal views on men's and women's role in
society make child abduction cases difficult at best. To address growing
concerns regarding child abduction, many countries have adopted a treaty
designed to expedite the return of children wrongfully removed to their home
country. This treaty is called the Hague Convention.
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction seeks to curb international abductions of
children by providing judicial remedies to those seeking the return of a child
who has been wrongfully removed or retained. The Convention provides a
simplified procedure for seeking the return of a child to its legal custodian.
However, there are limitations to the treaty's application. The Convention
applies only between those countries that have adopted it as "Contracting
States." Under the treaty, each subscribing state sets up a "Central
Authority" to serve as a liaison with the other Contracting States. An
aggrieved parent may then file an application with either the Central Authority
of the home country or the country where the child is located. Upon application,
the Central Authority must take all appropriate measures to discover the
whereabouts of the child, prevent harm to the child, protect the interests of
the lawful custodian or applicant, and secure the voluntary return of the child.
If a judicial proceeding is initiated, the court must act expeditiously.
Article 11 gives the applicant or the Central Authority of the Requested State
the right to demand a statement from the court detailing the reasons for delay
if a decision has not been made within six weeks from the commencement of
proceedings. There need not be a custody decree in effect in order to trigger
the return provisions under the Convention.
The elements of a cause of action for the return of an abducted child under
the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of child abduction and International
Child Abduction Remedies Act are that:
- child was habitually resident of the country from which the child was
- petitioning parent had either sole or joint rights of custody of the
child either through a custody order or du jure (by operation of law), and
- at time of wrongfully removal, petitioning parent was exercising those
International Child Abduction Remedies Act, Section 4 (e)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C.
Section 11603 (e)(2)(A).
The burden of proof in proving the application of the Hague Convention falls
upon the Petitioning party and must be shown by a preponderance of the
evidence. If the Court
determines that a Petitioning party has proved the criteria for Application of
the Hague Convention, the burden of proof tips to the opposing party. The
Responding parent then may still prove that an affirmative defense prevents the
return of the child under the Hague Convention. 42 U.S.C. Section 11603 (e)(2)(A)(b);
Hague Convention Art. 12, 13(b) and 20. See also Friedrich v.Friedrich,
983 F.2d 11396 (6th Cir. 1993).
Affirmative defenses under the Hague Convention include the claim that the
parents seeking relief under the Hague Convention was aware of the Child's
presence in the new country and failed to act for more than a year. Additional
defenses that may be raised include claims that the petitioning parent was not
exercising any custodial rights, by his/her own choice, when the child was
removed from the home country. Finally, Court's may refuse to return a child to
a Petitioning parent and that child's home country under the Hague Convention
if it finds that "there is a grave risk that if returned child would be expose
to physical and psychological harm or otherwise placed in to an intolerable
situation." It is significant that the 8th Circuit Courtís decision
in Rydder v. Rydder, F.3d 369, 373(8th cir.1995), suggests that "specific
evidence of potential harm" to a child as a result of separation from a primary
care giver may constitute grave risk of harm under the Hague Convention. In that
case a mother relied upon several authorities "that recognized that separating a
child from his or her primary care giver creates a risk of psychological harm."
DivorceInteractive.com tries to provide
quality information, but cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or adequacy
of the information, opinions or other content posted on the site. It is not
intended as a substitute for and should not be relied upon as legal, financial,
accounting, tax, medical or other professional advice. It should not be
construed as establishing a professional-client or professional-patient
relationship. The applicability of legal principles is subject to amendment by
the legislature, interpretation by the courts and different application by
different judges and may differ substantially in individual situations or
different states. Before acting on what you have read, it is important to obtain
appropriate professional advice about your particular situation and facts.
Access to and use of DivorceInteractive.com is subject to additional
Terms and Conditions. DivorceInteractive.com
is a secure site and respects your Privacy.
Advertise With Us |
Professional & Resource Directory
Divorce News | Glossary | Divorce Discussion Forums
DivorceInteractive.com All Rights Reserved.