Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T13:19:09.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

U.S. Interpretation of "Rights of Custody" Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

Sean D. Murphy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 207
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, TIAS 11,670, 1343 UNTS 98 [hereinafter Hague Convention]. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. §§11601-11610 (2000).

2 See Hague Convention, supra note 1, Arts. 12, 13, 20; 42 U.S.C. §11603(e) (2) (2000).

3 See Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2002). The quoted clause is known as a ne exeat clause, referring to a writ that forbids a person to whom it is addressed from leaving the country, the state, or the jurisdiction of the court.

4 Id. at 948.

5 Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000).

6 311 F.3d at 948-54.