22 C.F.R. § 94.6

Procedures for children abducted to the United States

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The U.S. Central Authority, or an entity acting at its direction, shall perform the following operational functions with respect to all Hague Convention applications seeking the return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in the United States or seeking access to children in the United States:

(a) Receive all applications seeking return of children wrongfully retained in the United States or seeking access to children in the United States;

(b) Confirm the child's location or, where necessary, seek to ascertain its location;

(c) Seek to ascertain the child's welfare through inquiry to the appropriate state social service agencies and, when necessary, consult with those agencies about the possible need for provisional arrangements to protect the child or to prevent the child's removal from the jurisdiction of the state;

(d) Seek through appropriate authorities (such as state social service agencies or state attorneys general or prosecuting attorneys), where appropriate, to achieve a voluntary agreement for suitable visitation rights by the applicant or for return of the child;

(e) Assist applicants in securing information useful for choosing or obtaining legal representation, for example, by providing a directory of lawyer referral services, or pro bono listing published by legal professional organizations, or the name and address of the state attorney general or prosecuting attorney who has expressed a willingness to represent parents in this type of case and who is employed under state law to intervene on the applicant's behalf;

(f) Upon request, seek from foreign Central Authorities information relating to the social background of the child;

(g) Upon request, seek from foreign Central Authorities information regarding the laws of the country of the child's habitual residence;

(h) Upon request, seek from foreign Central Authorities a statement as to the wrongfulness of the taking of the child under the laws of the country of the child's habitual residence;

(i) Upon request, seek a report on the status of court action when no decision has been reached by the end of six weeks;

(j) Consult with appropriate agencies (such as state social service departments, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state attorneys general) about possible arrangements for temporary foster care and/or return travel for the child from the United States;

(k) Monitor all cases in which assistance has been sought and maintain records on the procedures followed in each case and its disposition;

(l) Perform such additional functions as determined by the U.S. Central Authority, deemed advisable to maintain U.S. treaty compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

[53 FR 23608, June 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 66074, Dec. 21, 1995; 73 FR 47831, Aug. 15, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Robert Hechter Silverman v. Julie Hechter Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robert Hechter Silverman v. Julie Hechter Silverman, 338 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003). “See also 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 . Egervary v. Young, 159 F.”

Egervary v. Young, 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D. Pa. 2001). · cites it 3× “See also 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 . State Department regulations implementing the Convention further clarify these duties.”

State v. Sisson, 883 A.2d 868 (Del. Super. Ct. 2005). “ng missing and exploited children; assists the United States Department of State in certain cases of international child abduction in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; offers training programs to law-enforcement and…”

Sarah Claudia Aragon Cantor v. Andrew Cohen, 442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2006). “See 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 . . Article 21 does leave open the possibility that Central Authorities "may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings.”

March v. Levine, 136 F. Supp. 2d 831 (M.D. Tenn. 2000). · cites it 2× “at ¶ 24 , Pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 (f) 45 and in the interest of evaluating “the surround *851 ings to which the child is to be sent and the basic personal qualities of those located there,” see Tahan, 613 A.”

Robert Hechter Silverman v. Julie Hechter Silverman, 267 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2001). “22 C.F.R. § 94.6 . 4 . Julie was served the day of the hearing in the afternoon.”

Sasson v. Shenhar, 667 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2008). “See 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 (2006). Shenhar also contested Sasson's right of custody, asserting that the order of the Spanish court awarding him custody of Ilan was invalid.”

Mezo Ex Rel. Mezo-Elmergawi v. Elmergawi, 855 F. Supp. 59 (E.D.N.Y 1994). “Alternatively, in situations where a child is retained in the United States, the only procedures that are set forth in the regulations promulgated by the Department of State are those which apply when a request for the child’s return is made from another signatory country (See…”

Yaman Ex Rel. Ky v. United States Dep't of State, 786 F. Supp. 2d 148 (D.D.C. 2011). “7(f),(a); see also 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 (b) (explaining with respect to applications under the Convention that the U.”

Zajaczkowski v. Zajaczkowska, 932 F. Supp. 128 (D. Maryland 1996). “”); 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 (h) (1995) (requiring United States authorities, upon request by a petitioner, to seek a report on the status of court action when no decision has been reached by the end of six weeks).”

In the Interest of A.V.P.G. & C.C.P.G., Minor Child., 251 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App. 2008). “See 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 . 2 . The United States Department of State has stated that an "intolerable situation" was not intended to encompass situations such as return to a home where money is in short supply, or where educational or other opportunities are more limited than in the…”

In re Parentage of M.V.U., 2020 IL App (1st) 191762 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 22 C.F.R. § 94.6 (e) (2008). As Rocio notes, Jose was assigned pro bono legal representation from a large family law firm.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.