By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Thursday, September 1, 2016.

Pakistan might sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. What does The Hague have to do with child custody?

In Pakistan, The Hague Convention has received approval almost unanimously by the Cabinet. The only words of reluctance for it have been, predictably, from the Council of Islamic Ideology.

“As with the Women’s Protection Act, and the honor crimes bills, the necessity is to continue on the right path, despite the whimpering and protests of an archaic group.”

The Hague Abduction Convention is a treaty that many countries, including the United States, have joined. The purposes of the Convention are to protect children from abduction by a parent by:

(1) Encouraging the prompt return of abducted children to their country of habitual residence, and

(2) Securing rights of access to a child.

I’ve written about child custody issues before, The basic idea behind The Hague Convention is that child custody and visitation matters should generally be decided by the proper court in the country of the child’s habitual residence.

The Convention does not apply to every international parental child abduction case. First and foremost, your country must be a signatory country to the Convention. Additionally, you must show:

– That your child was wrongfully removed to or retained in another Convention country;

– The Convention was in force between the two countries when the wrongful removal or retention occurred

– The child is under the age of 16 at the time of filing of the application.

Under the Convention, a country may refuse to return an abducted child or grant access to the child if:

– There is a grave risk that the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation in his or her country of habitual residence;

– The child objects to being returned and has reached an age and degree of maturity at which the court can take account of the child’s views; or

– The return would violate the fundamental principles of human rights and freedoms of the country where the child is being held.

In Pakistan, the Convention is required if Pakistani children are stranded abroad and a parent with custody wants to force the child’s return. Many countries – such as the U.S. – advise against traveling to Pakistan because Pakistan is a non-signatory country.

The article in The Nation is here.

On behalf of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Child Custody on Friday, December 14, 2012.

Many international child child custody cases are governed by the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention is a treaty signed by the United States and 88 other members. It protects children from abduction across international lines by providing a procedure to quickly return them. But after the child has been returned, how does a parent appeal if they think the trial court got it wrong?

Most people don’t know this, but it is extremely rare to have your case heard by the United States Supreme Court. In family law cases, it is even rarer. However, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case this term: the appeal of U.S. Army Sergeant Jeff Chafin, whose wife, Lynn, left the U.S. for Scotland with the couple’s daughter after a U.S. district court allowed it.

In Chafin, the question is whether the case is moot after the child has been returned to their country of habitual residence. Mrs. Chafin returned to Scotland with the child after a federal trial judge allowed it. The trial court determined Scotland was the child’s habitual residence. Sgt. Chafin appealed the order, claiming the U.S. was the habitual residence. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta dismissed his appeal as moot. The 11th Circuit happens to be the federal appeals court governing Florida.

But appellate courts are split on whether to keep jurisdiction or dismiss them as moot. For example, the 4th Circuit in Virginia has ruled that removal of the child did not make the case moot. During oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. I think correctly observed:

It seems to me, and I may be taking the opposite position from one of my colleagues, but the — the best thing is to hold things up briefly, so that the child doesn’t go overseas and then have to be brought back, particularly if you have situations where there can be an expeditious appeal.