Chafin v. Chafin

Last updated

Chafin v. Chafin
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 2012
Decided February 19, 2013
Full case nameJeffrey Lee Chafin v. Lynne Hales Chafin
Docket no. 11-1347
Citations568 U.S. 165 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 1017; 185 L. Ed. 2d 1
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Decision Opinion
Case history
PriorChafin v. Chafin, No. 11-15355-CC, 2012 WL 9083825 (11th Cir. Feb. 6, 2012); cert. granted, 567 U.S. 960(2012).
SubsequentChafin v. Chafin, No. 11-15355-CC, 742 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2013)
Questions presented
Whether an appeal of a district court order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, providing for return of a child to the country of the child’s habitual residence, becomes moot if the child is returned pending appeal. [1]
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceGinsburg, joined by Scalia, Breyer
Laws applied
International Child Abduction Remedies Act

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. [2] 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.

Contents

Background

Sergeant First Class Jeffrey Lee Chafin, an American soldier, married Lynne Hales Chafin in Scotland in March 2006. [3] They had a daughter together, who went to live with her mother in Scotland while her father was serving in Afghanistan. [4] After Chafin's deployment was over, the family reunited in Alabama. There, in 2010, Jeffrey Chafin filed for divorce, as well as seeking temporary custody of his daughter after Ms. Chafin was arrested for domestic assault. [5]

After her arrest, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement learned that Ms. Chafin had overstayed her visa, and she was deported. [6] She then sued in American court, demanding that her daughter be returned to Scotland, so that a Scottish court could decide the custody issue under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Lower courts

Ms. Chafin's lawsuit was heard in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. There, following a bench trial, the district court granted her request, ordering that the daughter be returned to Scotland. [4] Mr. Chafin announced his intention to appeal the decision, and asked that the court's order be stayed until the appeal was heard. However, the court declined to stay the ruling pending an appeal. [4] The daughter left for Scotland the same day.

The district court separately ordered Mr. Chafin to pay Ms. Chafin $100,000 to cover legal fees and travel expenses. [7]

Mr. Chafin appealed the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. But the appeals court declined to hear his challenge, refusing to consider the merits of the appeal. Instead, the appeals court declared that the case was moot, given that his daughter had already returned to Scotland. [8] As a result, it denied his appeal, instead ordering the district court to vacate the return order and dismiss the entire case. [9]

Mr. Chafin then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which accepted the case. [10] One of the factors in the Court's decision to accept the case was that the Eleventh Circuit's decision that the case was moot did not match the views of the Fourth Circuit, which in 2003 ruled that appeals courts did retain jurisdiction in such situations. [11] This disagreement created a circuit split, which increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will accept a case. [12]

Supreme Court decision

Issue

The case hinged on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Specifically, the Convention seeks "to establish procedures to ensure [the] prompt return [of children] to the State of their habitual residence." [13] The United States is a signatory to the convention. [14] [15] The District Court, in keeping with the United States' obligation under the convention, decided that the Chafins' daughter should be returned to Scotland, which was her habitual residence. The issue on appeal, however, was whether the case was moot as a result of her departure from the United States, rather than the underlying decision on the merits of the case. [14]

However, the Convention does not address the situation that arose in this case, where one party seeks to contest a finding of the child's "habitual residency". [16]

Ruling

The Court concluded that despite leaving the country, U.S. courts still maintained jurisdiction over Ms. Chafin. Thus, in a decision authored by John Roberts, it held that the American judicial system could still order her to return the child. [3] Accordingly, the Supreme Court unanimously held that "such return does not render this case moot." [2] [17] The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's decision and remanded the case back to the Eleventh Circuit to evaluate the merits of the appeal. [4] It further noted that, even if Ms. Chafin were to ignore an adverse result, that alone did not preclude the case from being appealed, [3] and that the Scottish courts that were simultaneously deciding the custody dispute could be influenced by the result of the case. [18]

Roberts further argued that, if such appeals were moot, parents might be inclined to immediately leave the United States after securing custody of a child, to prevent the possible loss of an appeal. [19] Such attempts to evade American jurisdiction could prompt judges to stay their rulings as a preventative measure to retain jurisdiction, in which case "a child would lose precious months when she could have been readjusting to life in her country of habitual residence, even though the appeal has little chance of success." [20] The Court also concluded that the legal fees Mr. Chafin had been ordered to pay meant that the case was not mooted by the daughter's departure to Scotland, since Mr. Chafin had not yet paid the $100,000 to his ex-wife. [21]

Subsequent developments

The Eleventh Circuit, hearing the case for a second time, then considered the underlying merits of the appeal. The court ruled against Mr. Chafin. In a per curiam decision, the appeals court affirmed the original judgment, deferring to the district court's decision that the child's "habitual residence" was Scotland. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words had been added by a 1954 act of Congress that changed the phrase "one nation indivisible" into "one nation under God, indivisible". After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "under God", the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

The Office of the Official Solicitor is a part of the Ministry of Justice of the Government of the United Kingdom. The Official Solicitor acts for people who, because they lack mental capacity and cannot properly manage their own affairs, are unable to represent themselves and no other suitable person or agency is able or willing to act. The Official Solicitor acts for England and Wales only, as Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems and judiciaries.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

Danny Julian Boggs is an American attorney and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its Chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In conflict of laws, habitual residence is the standard used to determine the law which should be applied to determine a given legal dispute or entitlement. It can be contrasted with the law on domicile, traditionally used in common law jurisdictions to do the same thing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children</span>

The Hague Convention on parental responsibility and protection of children, or Hague Convention 1996, officially Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children or Hague Convention 1996 is a convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It covers civil measures of protection concerning children, ranging from orders concerning parental responsibility and contact to public measures of protection or care, and from matters of representation to the protection of children's property. It is therefore much broader in scope than two earlier conventions of the HCCH on the subject.

Paternity fraud, also known as misattributed paternity or paternal discrepancy, occurs when a man is incorrectly identified as the biological father of a child. The underlying assumption of "paternity fraud" is that the mother deliberately misidentified the biological father, while "misattributed paternity" may be accidental. Paternity fraud is related to the historical understanding of adultery.

<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.

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.

In the Goldman child abduction case David Goldman fought for his son Sean Goldman to be returned to the United States after his abduction by his mother to Brazil in 2004. After years of court battles, Sean was returned to his father five and a half years later in 2009. This case of international child abduction gained significant attention in the media and from U.S. politicians.

<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.

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 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. 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.

The International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) is a United States federal law. H.R. 3971 29 April 1988, was assigned Public law 100-300 in 22 U.S.C. 9001 et seq.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance</span>

The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, also referred to as the Hague Maintenance Convention or the Hague Child Support Convention is a multilateral treaty governing the enforcement of judicial decisions regarding child support extraterritorially. It is one of a number of conventions in the area of private international law of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in 2007. The convention is open to all states as well as to Regional Economic Integration Organizations as long as they are composed of sovereign states only and have sovereignty in the content of the convention. The convention entered into force on 1 January 2013 between Norway and Albania, with Bosnia-Herzegovina (2013), Ukraine (2013), the European Union, Montenegro (2017), United States (2017), Turkey (2017), Kazakhstan (2017), Brazil (2017), Honduras (2017), Belarus (2018), Guyana (2020), Nicaragua (2020), United Kingdom (2021), Serbia (2021), New Zealand (2021), Ecuador (2022), Botswana (2022) and Azerbaijan (2023) following suit. Because the EU acceptance of the convention applies in 27 EU countries, the convention applies in 45 countries worldwide.

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.

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with nominal damages to be awarded to individuals whose right to freedom of speech has been suppressed by an entity but subsequently rendered moot due to intervening circumstances. In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that such nominal damages satisfy the Article Three requirement of redressability, when awarded for a past violation of a legal rights.

Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The case reviewed if all ameliorative measures must be taken into consideration before denying a Hague Convention petition once it is found that the child could face harm when returned to a foreign country.

References

  1. ↑ "Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner" (PDF). U.S. Department of State.
  2. 1 2 Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013).
  3. 1 2 3 "Chafin v. Chafin". Oyez. Archived from the original on February 6, 2019. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Soshnick, Andrew; Wilson, Jane (February 19, 2013). "Supreme Court Decides Chafin v. Chafin". Faegre Baker Daniels. Archived from the original on January 5, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  5. ↑ "Chafin v. Chafin". Opinion. The New York Times. December 11, 2012. Archived from the original on January 30, 2018. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  6. ↑ Vieites, Monique (February 12, 2014). "Chafin v. Chafin: Protecting a U.S. Parent's Power to Litigate International Abductions" (PDF). Inter-American Law Review. University of Miami School of Law. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 8, 2017. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  7. ↑ Fuchs, Erin (December 5, 2012). "The Nation's Highest Court Is Hearing A Bitter Custody Battle". Business Insider. Archived from the original on May 18, 2013. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  8. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (August 13, 2012). "Court grants one new case". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on January 13, 2016. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  9. ↑ "Supreme Court of the United States October Term 2012 Preview" (PDF). Georgetown Law. Supreme Court Institute, Georgetown University Law Center. September 7, 2012. p. 38. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 18, 2018. Retrieved February 8, 2019.
  10. ↑ Manely, Michael (July 29, 2013). Shepherd, Diana (ed.). "Chafin v. Chafin". Family Lawyer Magazine. Archived from the original on June 5, 2016. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  11. ↑ Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491( United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit April 15, 2003). Text
  12. ↑ Wasby, Stephen L. (Winter 2002). "Intercircuit Conflicts in the Courts of Appeals". Montana Law Review. 63 (1): 119–196. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  13. ↑ "Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". Convention No. 1-XII-1983 of October 25, 1980. Hague Conference on Private International Law. Archived from the original on December 4, 2018. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  14. 1 2 Howe, Amy (December 4, 2012). "Argument preview: When mootness and international family law collide". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on December 23, 2016. Retrieved January 5, 2019.
  15. ↑ Estin, Ann Laquer (Summer 2014). "The Hague Abduction Convention and the United States Supreme Court". Family Law Quarterly. 48 (2): 235–251. JSTOR   44734353.
  16. ↑ Cavaliere, Victoria (December 6, 2012). "Supreme Court to rule on international custody dispute involving 5-year-old girl in Scotland". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on June 4, 2013. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  17. ↑ "Case files: Chafin v. Chafin". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on July 2, 2017. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  18. ↑ "Supreme Court steps into international custody battle". Reuters. December 5, 2012. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  19. ↑ Barnes, Robert. "Justices consider court role in international custody cases". Washington Post. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  20. ↑ Holl, Jesse J. "Court: US custody case not moot with child abroad". AP NEWS. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
  21. ↑ Garbolino, James D. (February 2, 2016). "Chafin v. Chafin (Case Analysis)". Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  22. ↑ Chafin v. Chafin, 742F.3d934 , 5:11-cv-01461-IPJ( United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit December 18, 2013). PDF

PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain : Chafin v. Chafin (2013), Slip Opinion

Further reading

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.