Sunday, August 25, 2013
Hague Convention
8:04 AM
| | Edit Post
The Hague Convention:
The Hague Convention is a treaty
between the United States and many foreign countries. As of May 2013, 89 Countries including the
United States were signatories to the Hague Convention. The actual name of the convention is The Hague
Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction. However many people refer to
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction as simply “The Hague
Convention”. It should be briefly
noted however that there are many other treaty’s which have been adopted by the
Hague Conference on Private International Law which deal with issues other than
international child abduction and which may also be referred to as the “ Hague Convention”. It is therefore
prudent for a parent seeking the return of child who has been abducted to use
the formal name of the treaty when seeking assistance in the return of the
child(ren).
In the United States, The Hague Convention ,or the Hague Convention
of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has
been incorporated into Federal Law with the adoption of the International Child
Remedies Abduction Act ( 42 USC 11601 et seq). Pursuant to 42 USC 11603 the provisions of
the Hague Convention are enforceable
in both Federal Courts and state courts. Section 42 USC 11603 provides as follows
11USC 11603 : Judicial remedies
(a) Jurisdiction
of courts
The courts of the States and the
United States district courts shall have concurrent original jurisdiction of
actions arising under the convention.
In Ohio, The Hague Convention and its provisions are enforceable in Ohio pursuant
to Ohio Revised Code R.C. Section 3127.32.
Ohio Revised Code Section 3127.32 provides that a juvenile court or
other court with appropriate jurisdiction may enforce an order for the return
of a child made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.
The purpose of The Hague Convention is to provide a legal process whereby a child(
ren) who is/are wrongfully removed or
wrongfully retained ( as those terms are defined by Article 3 of the
Convention) can be returned to the child’s country of habitual residence ( and
as that term is defined by Article 4 of the Convention). However, in
considering an action for the return of
a child who has been wrongfully retained or wrongfully removed ( abducted), it is
necessary that a parent must consider a number of factors before filing a
petition for the return of a child pursuant to the provisions of The Hague
Convention.
A
parent considering an action for the return of a child pursuant to The Hague Convention must take into
consideration a number of factors. First
a parent must consider whether his/her country is a member of The Hague Convention. In order to invoke the provisions of The Hague Convention both the country
where the child has been removed /or retained and the country to which the
child is to be returned must be signatories ( members) to The
Hague Convention. If both countries
are not signatory’s to The Hague
Convention ( a member) then the provisions of The Hague Convention do not apply.
A list of the countries which are members of the Hague Convention can be found at the Hague Convention Web Site
which is www.hcch.net .
The second factor which a parent
must consider is what is the “ Habitual Residence” of the child immediately prior to the
wrongful removal or wrongful retention.
Generally a parent seeking the return of a child is seeking to have the
child returned to that parent’s country of residence. Habitual residence is a term that is defined
by Article 4 of the Hague Convention. Article 4 of the Hague Convention defines
when a child is a habitual resident of a country. Article 4 of the Hague Convention states:
The Convention shall apply to any
child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any
breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when
the child attains the age of 16 years.
Finally a parent who
is seeking the return of the child who has been abducted must consider whether
there has been a wrongful removal or retention under Article 3 of the Hague Convention. If a child is
determined to be a habitual resident of a country then a parent seeking the
return of a child to the child’s country of habitual residence must determine
whether the child has been wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained. Article 3 of the Hague Convention defines a wrongful removal and a wrongful
retention as follows:
Article 3: The removal or the retention of a child is to
be considered wrongful where -
a) it is in breach of rights of custody
attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or
alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident
immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those
rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so
exercised but for the removal or retention.
The rights of custody mentioned in
sub-paragraph a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by
reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having
legal effect under the law of that State.
Since 1996 when
the law firm of Gary J. Gottfried Co LPA was lead counsel in the land mark case
of Friedrich v Freidrich, 78 F.3d 1060( 6th Cir. 1996), the Law
Firm of Gary J. Gottfried Co LPA has continued to be counsel for many families
seeking the return of children pursuant to the Hague Convention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment