In the Matter of Kl (A Child) (U.K. Sup. Ct.) & X v. Latvia (Eur. CT. H.R.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-396
Author(s):  
Keith Loken
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Hague Convention

On December 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled in In the Matter of KL that a child brought to the UK pursuant to a U.S. district court order–subsequently overturned by a U.S. court of appeals–in a proceeding under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) must be returned to the United States. One week earlier, in a 9-8 decision issued on November 26, 2013, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), upholding the judgment of the ECHR Chamber below, ruled in X v. Latvia that the actions of the Latvian courts, ordering Ms. X to return her daughter E. to Australia under the Hague Convention, constituted an infringement of Ms. X’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Human Rights Convention). These cases provide an interesting contrast in approaches to the international abduction of children.

Monasky v. Taglieri (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 873-887
Author(s):  
Linda Silberman
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Critical Aspects

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided four cases under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Child Abduction (hereinafter the Hague Convention), the most recent one coming this term in Monasky v. Taglieri. The Hague Convention, adopted in 101 countries, requires the judicial or administrative authority of a country that is party to the Convention to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained to the country of the child's habitual residence.The Convention also provides for a limited number of defenses to return. The obligation of return is a “provisional” remedy, in that the merits of any custody dispute will be determined by a court in the country of habitual residence. One of the most critical aspects of the Convention is this concept of “habitual residence,” which was the issue presented to the Court in Monasky.

Is the Jurisdiction of England and Wales Correctly Applying the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Central Authority ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Hague Convention

The jurisdiction of England and Wales is vastly experienced in application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction1 (the Convention). The UK2 was the fifth3 Contracting State to the Convention, which now boasts 70 State Parties,4 and England and Wales consistently handles a significant proportion of annual Convention applications. In terms of applications, which were processed by Central Authorities, England and Wales was the second busiest Convention jurisdiction in 1999.5 The USA handled 466 applications, England and Wales 329, and Germany 210. Indeed the Central Authority for England and Wales handled more applications than any other, the USA having split incoming and outgoing applications between two separate bodies.6

Protecting the Best Interests of the Child: International Child Abduction and the European Court of Human Rights

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Keller ◽  
Corina Heri
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Viable Approach ◽  
The Hague Convention

In its case law on international child abduction, the European Court of Human Rights (ecthr) seeks to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) in conformity with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Both instruments safeguard the best interests of abducted children, but in different ways. This article explores the progress made by the ecthr in harmonising the conflict between the Hague Convention and Article 8 echr. While the ecthr’s approach to the abducted child’s best interests in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland was met with strong criticism, the Court seems to have found a viable approach in X. v. Latvia. The ecthr’s current tactic allows it to continue its dialogue with national authorities and international bodies by imposing procedural requirements, thereby contributing to a harmonised approach appropriate to the best interests of abducted children without negatively impacting the functioning of the Hague Convention.

scholarly journals Some Moot Points on the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 683
Author(s):  
Nigel Lowe
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

This article discusses the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which, despite having been in existence for over 30 years, continues to present a number of uncertainties for Contracting States. The article focuses on the issues around appealing return orders after a child has been taken out of the jurisdiction, the concept of “habitual residence”, and the non-enforcement of return orders with reference to recent case law from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document