The Hague Child Abduction Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act: Comments for U.S. Practice

George K. Walker

Volume 41 - Issue 4, Summer 2016, Page 744

Abstract

This article’s basic premise is that “there is little if any support” in the Convention or ICARA to justify federal courts’ refusal to hear access claims. Walker inquires into “the [domestic relations] exception to federal jurisdiction for matters relating to divorce, maintenance, and child custody,” suggesting that “federal courts have appropriated to themselves authority to determine jurisdiction based on their own assessment of state courts’ competencies, what is called . . . a ‘latent’ domestic relations exception to federal question jurisdiction.” The following discussion deals only with “ICARA jurisdiction" and the comments that follow focus on four issues: (1) original and supplemental jurisdiction in the federal courts; (2) venue, venue transfer and choice of law, and choice of forum clause problems; (3) court management advantages for litigants who file under ICARA and also assert state law-based claims; and (4) the resolution of service of process and factual issues in the federal courts.

Cite as: George K. Walker, The Hague Child Abduction Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act: Comments for U.S. Practice, 41 N.C. J. Int'l L. 744 (2016).
UNC School of Law | Van Hecke-Wettach Hall | 160 Ridge Road, CB #3380 | Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380 | 919.962.5106 | Accessibility


If you are seeing this, you are either using a non-graphical browser or Netscape 4.x (4.7, 4.8, etc.) and this page appears very plain. If you are using a 4.x version of Netscape, this site is fully functional but lacks styles and optimizations available in other browsers. For full functionality, please upgrade your browser to the latest version of Internet Explorer or Firefox.