Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

New Hague Abduction Convention Case before the United States Supreme Court

August 13, 2012/in /by Charles Kotuby
image_pdfimage_print

The Supreme Court on Monday added one new case to its docket for the new Term. Chafin v. Chafin (docket 11-1347) concerns whether an appeal in a Hague Abduction Convention case becomes moot if the child involved has returned to his or her home country. As reported at SCOTUSBlog, this is a very rare mid-Summer order before the first formal Conference on the new Term on September 24. The order is linked here.

The newly granted case involves a U.S. Army sergeant and a Scottish woman he had married while stationed in Germany. The couple later moved to Alabama, and after their divorce, disputed the care of their daughter, who is now five years old. After obtaining a federal court order under the Hague Convention declaring that Scotland was the girl’s country of habitual residence, Mrs. Chafin returned to Scotland with the child. Sgt. Chafin appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit, but that court dismissed the case as moot because the child had already returned to Scotland, and was outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The federal appeals courts are split on the mootness issue under the Hague Convention, which led the Supreme Court to grant the case.

Petitioner’s Brief is available HERE.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Charles Kotuby https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Charles Kotuby2012-08-13 20:33:552012-08-14 15:08:32New Hague Abduction Convention Case before the United States Supreme Court

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • The Philippines: Recognition of Foreign Divorces and Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court October 21, 2026
  • Mozambican Supreme Court Recognises an Indian Adoption: A Teleological Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Acts October 19, 2026
  • Egyptian Supreme Court Enforces Italian Judgment: The Right Outcome despite Some Reservations October 14, 2026
  • Talaq Divorce Cases in the United States October 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia (Lemuel L Lopez) October 5, 2026
  • Zamzam on Egyptian Private International Law (in Arabic): Towards Reviving the Golden Age of Egyptian Private International Law October 2, 2026
  • Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment September 22, 2026
  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
Link to: La Ley-Unión Europea, July 2012 Link to: La Ley-Unión Europea, July 2012 La Ley-Unión Europea, July 2012 Link to: On What an Embassy is (for the Purposes of Regulation 44/01) Link to: On What an Embassy is (for the Purposes of Regulation 44/01) On What an Embassy is (for the Purposes of Regulation 44/01)
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top