{
  "id": "R41094",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41094",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 361526,
      "date": "2010-03-04",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T01:54:57.785332",
      "title": "Abbott v. Abbott: Is a Ne Exeat Right a \u201cRight of Custody\u201d Under the Hague Convention?",
      "summary": "International child custody disputes figure to increase in frequency as the global society becomes more integrated and mobile. A child custody dispute between two parents can become a diplomatic imbroglio between two countries. Thus in 2000, Members of Congress and Vice President Al Gore backed legislation to grant Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez permanent residency status, even after President Fidel Castro demanded the boy\u2019s return. More recently, in the 111th Congress, both houses passed resolutions (S.Res. 37 and H.R. 125) calling on the Brazilian government to return Sean Goldman, the son of New Jersey resident David Goldman, to the United States.\nIn the case of the Goldman family, the father\u2019s legal argument for return was based on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (\u201cHague Convention\u201d). This treaty was entered into force in the United States in 1988, and has since been the principal mechanism for enforcing parental rights in international custody disputes. However, judicial interpretation of certain Hague Convention provisions has been inconsistent among federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. The lives of one British-American family\u2014the Abbotts\u2014and the lives of families similarly situated may be affected by how the United States Supreme Court resolves this circuit split in Abbott v. Abbott.\nIn this case, the Court will determine whether a ne exeat, or \u201cno exit\u201d order granting one parent the right to veto another parent\u2019s decision to remove their child from his or her home country is a \u201cright of custody\u201d under the Hague Convention. Such a determination is necessary to determine the Convention\u2019s applicability, as it only provides for a child\u2019s return to the country which issued the ne exeat order if the removal was \u201cwrongful\u201d and in breach of \u201crights of custody.\u201d\nThis report discusses the circuit split on the treaty interpretation issue, the arguments made before the Supreme Court in Abbott, and the significance of the case.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41094",
          "sha1": "b808d6478ac633406ca8dfbcf4828869f6945170",
          "filename": "files/20100304_R41094_b808d6478ac633406ca8dfbcf4828869f6945170.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41094",
          "sha1": "018580a5c7606a0cedd9998e299e5d3295f89029",
          "filename": "files/20100304_R41094_018580a5c7606a0cedd9998e299e5d3295f89029.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}