You are here

International Law & Litigation

Displaying 41 - 50 of 108
Contains
Contains
Format: 2019
Greater than or equal to
March 23, 2016

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Special Commission, which studied the implementation, operation, and efficacy of the Convention. 

This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

March 23, 2016

This report, published in March 2003, presents the findings of the Special Commission, which studied the operation and efficacy of the Convention. 

This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

March 23, 2016

This 2001 report presents the findings and recommendations from the Fourth Special Commission, which studied the operation and efficacy of the Convention. 

This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

March 23, 2016

ICARA is the federal law that implements the Hague Convention. Pursuant to ICARA (22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9011), both state and federal courts have original concurrent jurisdiction to hear cases arising under the Convention. ICARA also sets forth the structure for hearing return cases, burdens of proof applicable to the case for return and defenses, relaxed rules for admissibility of documents, and establishes guidelines for the award of fees and costs.

March 16, 2016

This document contains sample provisions for various orders relating to Hague Conventions cases.

Judge James Garbolino has prepared the attached sample order for this website. The sample order does not represent official policy or recommendations of the Federal Judicial Center.

This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

Downloadable files:
March 16, 2016

This order is a “bare bones” form, providing that a child be returned to his or her habitual residence in the company of either the mother or the father.  

Judge James Garbolino has prepared the attached sample order for this website. The sample order does not represent official policy or recommendations of the Federal Judicial Center.

This document is part of The 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for Judges, a Special Topic Webpage.

Downloadable files:
March 15, 2016

This form is for a consent order of return.  It sets forth precise dates and times for the child to be transported back to the habitual residence along with standard boilerplate provisions directing law enforcement’s assistance in enforcing the order.

Judge James Garbolino has prepared the attached sample order for this website. The sample order does not represent official policy or recommendations of the Federal Judicial Center.

March 15, 2016

This form is a Safe Harbor Order.  It is designed to detail the conditions that will exist in the habitual residence upon the child’s return. 

This order presumes

     (1) the parties are agreeable to the conditions of return, and

     (2) will obtain an order from the appropriate court in the habitual residence that accepts the parties agreement and will order them to comply with it. 

Downloadable files:
March 15, 2016

How do I determine whether the treaty is “in force” between the U.S. and the other country involved?

The issue whether the Convention is “in force” between states can be complex. There are differences between the processes by which a state can be bound by the treaty, specifically between those who are “member states” and those who become “party states.” Member states are those states that were members of The Hague Conference on Private International Law at the time of adoption of the Child Abduction Convention at the 14th Session in 1980.

Pages

Subscribe to International Law & Litigation