JURISDICTION FRICTION AND THE FRUSTRATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION: WHY INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION CASES SHOULD BE HEARD EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL COURTS

Abstract

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction confronts the growing problem of international parental child abduction by providing for the prompt return of the child to their home country. However, the legislation that implements the Hague Convention in the United States confers concurrent state and federal court jurisdiction for cases brought under the Treaty. This vast jurisdictional grant has contributed to delay in case resolution, inconsistent interpretation, and unresolved cases and has frustrated the original intent of the Hague Convention which seeks to expedite the child's return. At their core, Hague Convention proceedings are choice of forum cases in an international context and the Convention depends on reciprocity and respect for the rule of law among Contracting States. Consolidating Hague Convention proceedings within the federal system would encourage uniform interpretation of Treaty provisions and allow expertise to develop among judges. This will promote the interests of parent and child victims by facilitating the prompt return and eventual resolution of the underlying custody controversy while strengthening the effectiveness of performance under the Hague Convention.