Abbott v. Abbott

Last updated
Abbott v. Abbott
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 2010
Decided May 17, 2010
Full case nameTimothy Mark Cameron Abbott, Petitioner v. Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott
Docket no. 08-645
Citations560 U.S. 1 ( more )
130 S. Ct. 1983; 176 L. Ed. 2d 789
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior495 F. Supp. 2d 635 (W.D. Tex. 2007); affirmed, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008); cert. granted, 557 U.S. 933(2009).
ProceduralWrit of certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Holding
A parent's ne exeat right is a right to custody under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor
DissentStevens, joined by Thomas, Breyer
Laws applied
42 U.S.C.   § 11601 et seq.

Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a parent's ne exeat right (in this case: the right to prevent a child to leave the country) is a "right to custody" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the US International Child Abduction Remedies Act. [1] The child thus should have been returned to Chile, the country of "habitual residence" because the mother violated the ne exeat right of the father when taking the child to the United States without the father's consent.

Contents

Background

History

In 1995, "A.J.A." was born in Hawaii to parents Timothy Abbott, a British citizen, and Jacquelyn Abbott, a U.S. citizen. The family subsequently moved to Chile for Mr. Abbott's work with a U.S. Observatory, where the parents separated. Mrs. Abbott was awarded full care and custody of A.J.A, and Mr. Abbott was granted weekend visitation and partial summer possession of the child. The Chilean family court entered a decree with a ne exeat order prohibiting either parent from removing the child from Chile at the request of Mrs. Abbott. [2]

In July 2005, Mr. Abbott sought to modify the court's visitation order and expand his visitation rights. Mrs. Abbott removed A.J.A. to Texas without Mr. Abbott's prior consent. Mrs. Abbott did not request permission from the Chilean court to take the child out of Chile or to override Mr. Abbott's ne exeat right. [2]

Mr. Abbott brought suit in the US Federal District Court seeking an order compelling A.J.A's return to Chile under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The district court denied Mr. Abbott's requested order and held that the child's removal did not violate the father's rights of custody, as defined by the Hague Convention. [3] Mr. Abbott appealed the district court ruling to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. [4]

Amicus curiae

In support of Mr. Abbott's position, amicus curiae briefs were filed by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Laws, [5] United States of America, [6] the State of California, [7] the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, [8] S&W International ChildFind Program, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Justice for Children, Pathways for Children, Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, and Emerge. [9]

In support of Ms. Abbott's position, amicus curiae briefs were filed by Delegates Lawrence H. Stotter and Matti Savolainen on the Drafting and Negotiating of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, [10] the University of Cincinnati College of Law Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order Clinic, [11] eleven law professors, [12] the Domestic Legal Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, the Battered Women's Justice Project- Domestic Abuse Interviention Programs, Inc., the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum, and the National Network to End Domestic Violence. [13]

In support of neither party, an amicus curiae brief was filed by Reunite International Child Abduction Center. [14]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Anthony Kennedy Official.jpg
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

On May 17, 2010, Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito and Sotomayor, delivered the opinion of the Court in holding that a parent's ne exeat right is a "right to custody" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Remedies Act. In so finding, the Supreme Court overruled the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings in conformity with the Supreme Court ruling. [1]

The threshold question considered by the Court was whether the child at issue, A.J.A., was "wrongfully removed" from Chile in violation of a parent's "right of custody" so as to trigger the applicable compulsory return provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In determining whether the child was "wrongfully removed," the Court considered the plain language of the Hague Convention, the position of the U.S. Department of State, Chilean law, rulings of several foreign jurisdictions that had considered the issue, and the purpose of the Hague Convention. The Court found broad acceptance for the view that a ne exeat right, or a right to prevent a child's removal from his country of residence, is "decisionmaking authority regarding a child's relocation", which is specifically mentioned as classifying for (joint) "right of custody" under the definition of the convention.

Accordingly, when A.J.A. was removed from Chile in violation of Mr. Abbott's ne exeat right, the child was "wrongfully removed" within the meaning of the Hague Convention. Under such circumstances, the Convention compels A.J.A.'s return to Chile unless Mrs. Abbott can establish an exception under the Hague Convention based on the child's need for emergency protection. To determine whether such emergency circumstances exist, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. [1]

Stevens' dissent

Justice Stevens delivered the dissenting opinion. John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Justice Stevens delivered the dissenting opinion.

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Breyer, delivered the dissenting opinion of the Court. The dissent concluded that reliance on the Hague Convention to compel A.J.A.'s return to Chile was improper; in a situation like the Abbotts', the Hague Convention provides recourse for the non-custodial parent to exercise his "rights of access" internationally, but the Convention does not provide a non-custodial parent the right to compel the child's return to its habitual country of residence. [1]

The dissenting opinion noted that Mr. Abbott's rights are limited to visitation and the right to restrict the child's travel outside of Chile. The dissent also emphasized the fact that Mrs. Abbott has the exclusive right to make decisions about the child's education, medical care and day-to-day life. Contrary to the majority view, the dissent concluded that Mr. Abbott's limited parental rights fall well short of the Hague Convention's requirements for compulsory return of a child. Mr. Abbott had neither a right to determine the child's residence nor a right to make decisions about the child's care; Mr. Abbott's limited rights do not elevate his status to that of a custodial parent. According to the dissent, Mr. Abbott is not a custodial parent and cannot satisfy the requirements set forth in the Hague Convention for compulsory return of a child to his home country. [1]

Subsequent developments

The Abbott case was ultimately dismissed because the child turned 16 and was no longer subject to the compulsory return provisions of the Hague Convention. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

Family law is an area of the law that deals with family matters and domestic relations.

Child custody, conservatorship and guardianship describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent and the parent's child, such as the right of the parent to make decisions for the child, and the parent's duty to care for the child.

Child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other similar relationship. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, or a guardian.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants having their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and so have attracted litigation even when there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction</span> Treaty on child abduction

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member country to another. The convention was drafted to ensure the prompt return of children who have been abducted from their country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained in a contracting state not their country of habitual residence.

Child custody is a legal term regarding guardianship which is used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent or guardian and a child in that person's care. Child custody consists of legal custody, which is the right to make decisions about the child, and physical custody, which is the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child. Married parents normally have joint legal and physical custody of their children. Decisions about child custody typically arise in proceedings involving divorce, annulment, separation, adoption or parental death. In most jurisdictions child custody is determined in accordance with the best interests of the child standard.

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where both parents have joint physical custody.

The fathers' rights movement has simultaneously evolved in many countries, advocating for shared parenting after divorce or separation, and the right of children and fathers to have close and meaningful relationships. This article provides details about the fathers' rights movement in specific countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International child abduction in Japan</span>

International child abduction in Japan refers to the illegal international abduction or removal of children from their country of habitual residence by an acquaintance or family member to Japan or their retention in Japan in contravention to the law of another country. Most cases involve a Japanese parent taking their children to Japan in defiance of visitation or joint custody orders issued by Western courts. The issue is a growing problem as the number of international marriages increases. Parental abduction often has a particularly devastating effect on parents who may never see their children again.

The fathers' rights movement in Australia focus on issues of erosion of the family unit, child custody, shared parenting, child access, child support, domestic violence against men, false allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, the reintroduction of fault into divorce proceedings, gender bias, the adversarial family court system and secrecy issues.

International matrimonial law is an area of private international law. The area specifically deals with relations between spouses and former spouses on issues of marriage, divorce and child custody. In the last 50 years, the States Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law have attempted to harmonize domestic matrimonial laws and judicial rulings across international borders in these areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International child abduction in Mexico</span>

Mexico is amongst the world's most popular sources and destinations for international child abduction while also being widely regarded as having one of the least effective systems of protecting and returning internationally abducted children within its borders.

The term international child abduction is generally synonymous with international parental kidnapping,child snatching, and child stealing. However, the more precise legal usage of international child abduction originates in private international law and refers to the illegal removal of children from their home by an acquaintance or family member to a foreign country. In this context, "illegal" is normally taken to mean "in breach of custodial rights" and "home" is defined as the child's habitual residence. As implied by the "breach of custodial rights," the phenomenon of international child abduction generally involves an illegal removal that creates a jurisdictional conflict of laws whereby multiple authorities and jurisdictions could conceivably arrive at seemingly reasonable and conflicting custodial decisions with geographically limited application. Such a result often strongly affects a child's access and connection to half their family and may cause the loss of their former language, culture, name and nationality, it violates numerous children's rights, and can cause severe psychological and emotional trauma to the child and family left behind.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International child abduction in Brazil</span>

International child abduction in Brazil comprises cases in which the removal of a child by one of the joint holders of custody or non-custodial or contested parents to Brazil in contravention of other laws of other countries and/or the desires of other custody claimants. The phenomenon of international child abduction is defined in international law and legislated on by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which entered into force in Brazil on January 1, 2000 and aims to trace abducted children, secure their prompt return to the country of habitual residence and organize or secure effective rights of access. In 2010 Brazil was accused by the US State Department of being non-compliant with the Hague Convention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act</span>

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act 1993 (IPKCA) is a United States federal law. H.R. 3378, approved December 2, was assigned Public Law No. 103-173 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 2, 1993. This law makes it a federal crime to remove a child from the United States or retain a child outside the United States with the intent to obstruct a parent's custodial rights, or to attempt to do so This crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. The law provides an affirmative defense where the abducting parent acted pursuant to a valid court order obtained under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act, or where the abducting parent was fleeing domestic violence, or where the failure to return the child resulted from circumstances beyond the taking parent's control and the taking parent made reasonable efforts to notify the left behind parent within 24 hours and returned the child as soon as possible. Since its enactment, the law has only been used in a very small minority of international child abduction cases prompting parents of internationally abducted children to claim an abuse of or prosecutorial discretion on the part of federal prosecutors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International child abduction in the United States</span>

As a result of its high level of immigration and emigration and its status as common source and destination for a large amount of international travel the United States has more incoming and outgoing international child abductions per year than any other country. To address this issue the United States played an active role in the drafting of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Although the United States was one of the first nations to sign the Convention in 1981 the Convention did not enter into force for the US until 1988 with the enactment by Congress of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act which translated the Convention into US law.

Supervised visitation allows parents in high conflict or high risk situations access to their children in a safe and supervised environment. The noncustodial parent has access to the child only when supervised by another adult. Supervised visitation is used to protect children from potentially dangerous situations while allowing parental access and providing support for the parent child relationship.

Parental child abduction is the hiding, taking, or keeping hold of a child by a parent while defying the rights of the child's other parent or another family member.

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the appeal of a district court's decision to return a child to his country of residence is not precluded by the child's departure from the United States. It arose from the divorce proceedings of Mr. and Ms. Chafin; she wanted their daughter to live with her in Scotland, while he wanted her to remain in the United States with him.

Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a child's "habitual residence" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction should be determined based on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, and should not be based on categorial requirements.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010).
  2. 1 2 "Abbott v. Abbott (08-645)". Legal Information Institute of the Cornell University Law School. January 4, 2010. Retrieved December 3, 2011.
  3. ↑ Abbott v. Abbott, 495F. Supp. 2d635 ( W.D. Tex. 2007).
  4. ↑ Abbott v. Abbott, 542F.3d1081 ( 5th Cir. 2008).
  5. ↑ "Brief for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Laws in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). September 22, 2009.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ↑ "Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). September 2009.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ↑ "Brief for the State of California in Support of Petitioner" (PDF). September 22, 2009.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. ↑ "Brief for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Support of Reversal" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ↑ "Brief for the S&W International ChildFind Program, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Justice for Children, Pathways for Children, Children's Law Center of Los Angeles, and Emerge in Support of Reversal" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. ↑ "Brief for Delegates Lawrence H. Stotter and Matti Savolainen on the Drafting and Negotiating of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in Support of Respondent" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ↑ "Brief for the University of Cincinnati College of Law Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order Clinic in Support of Respondent" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ↑ "Brief for Eleven Law Professors in Support of Respondent" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  13. ↑ "Brief for the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DV LEAP), the Battered Women's Justice Project – Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Inc., the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum, and the National Network to End Domestic Violence in Support of Respondent" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ↑ "Brief for Reunite International Child Abduction Center in Support of Neither Party" (PDF).{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. ↑ "Child at center of high court fight over custody gets closure". Iowa State Daily. Retrieved March 9, 2023.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.