Term: 2009
Docket: 08-645
Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott v. Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott
- Pro
08-645 ABBOTT V. ABBOTT DECISION BELOW: 542 F.3d 1081 CERT. GRANTED 6/29/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction requires a country to return a child who has been "wrongfully removed" from his country of habitual residence. Hague Convention art. 12. A “wrongful removal" is one that occurs "in breach of rights of custody." Id. art. 3. The question presented is: Whether a ne exeat clause (that is, a clause that prohibits one parent from removing a child from the country without the other parent's consent) confers a "right of custody" within the meaning of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-50967
In the case of Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott v. Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott, 2009, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting an international child custody dispute under The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Mr. Abbott, a British citizen and Ms. Abbott, an American citizen were married in England but separated while living in Chile where they had joint custody over their son; however, Mrs. Abbots relocated to Texas with her son without Mr.Abbott's consent which led him to file a lawsuit for his son's return based on his right of access and ne exeat rights (a Latin term meaning he should not leave) granted by Chilean courts that prevented either parent from taking their child out of the country without mutual agreement or court permission. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether ne exeat rights constituted "rights of custody" under The Hague Convention - if so then Mrs.Abbott’s removal would be wrongful thus requiring her to return their son back to Chile. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Abbott holding that ne exeat rights did constitute as “rights of custody” within The Hague Convention because it included both care for children and determining their place residence hence Mrs.Abbotts actions were deemed wrongful.
In the case of Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott v. Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott, 2009, Justice Stevens was the only justice to dissent from the majority opinion. He argued that a ne exeat right does not fit within the definition of "rights of custody" under The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction because it is more accurately described as a veto power over another parent's decision regarding where their child will live rather than an affirmative right to determine that place. Furthermore, he contended that interpreting this right as a custodial one could potentially disrupt domestic relations law by giving too much weight to rights typically considered minor in comparison with physical custody and legal decision-making authority about major life decisions for children.
