Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Displaying 111 - 120 of 129, sorted by most recent

form.antibot { display: none !important; } You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form.

Case Commentary: Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013)

James D. Garbolino

February 2, 2016

Mootness | Stays | Expeditious Handling

Case Commentary: Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)

James D. Garbolino

January 21, 2016

Interpreting the Convention | Custody Rights | Ne Exeat Clauses^{^[1]}

Case Commentary: Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Order Compelling Parent to Return | Recognition or Enforcement of Custody Orders | No Retroactive Wrongful Retention | Habitual Residence

Case Commentary: Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Consent and Acquiescence

Article 13 establishes a defense to return when the left-behind parent has consented or acquiesced to the removal or retention of the child. Consent or acquiescence, however, must be clearly established.

Facts

Case Commentary: Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Abstention | Child Well Settled | Equitable Estoppel | Delay

Case Commentary: Mendez v. May, 778 F.3d 337 (1st Cir. 2015)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence

Facts

Case Commentary: E.R.S.C. v. Carlwig (In re A.L.C.), 607 Fed. Appx. 658 (9th Cir. 2015)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence

Facts

Case Commentary: Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2006)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence

Case Commentry: Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich I), 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993), & Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich II), 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence | Rights of Custody | Grave Risk | Consent and Acquiescence

Case Commentary: Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour I), 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002), & Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour II), 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Grave Risk | Sexual Abuse of Child

The Danaipour cases deal with the responsibilities of trial courts to hear and rule on defenses to return as opposed to relying upon the courts or services of the habitual residence to inquire into allegations of abuse.

Federal Judicial Center

You are here

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Case Commentary: Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013)

Case Commentary: Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)

Case Commentary: Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013)

Case Commentary: Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010)

Case Commentary: Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998)

Case Commentary: Mendez v. May, 778 F.3d 337 (1st Cir. 2015)

Case Commentary: E.R.S.C. v. Carlwig (In re A.L.C.), 607 Fed. Appx. 658 (9th Cir. 2015)

Case Commentary: Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2006)

Case Commentry: Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich I), 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993), & Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich II), 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996)

Case Commentary: Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour I), 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002), & Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour II), 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004)

Pages