22 C.F.R. § 94.7

Procedures for children abducted from the United States

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

Upon receipt of an application requesting access to a child or return of a child abducted from the United States and taken to another country party to the Convention, the U.S. Central Authority shall—

(a) Review and forward the application to the Central Authority of the country where the child is believed located or provide the applicant with the necessary form, instructions, and the name and address of the appropriate Central Authority for transmittal of the application directly by the applicant;

(b) Upon request, transmit to the foreign Central Authority requests for a report on the status of any court action when no decision has been reached by the end of six weeks;

(c) Upon request, facilitate efforts to obtain from appropriate U.S. state authorities and transmit to the foreign Central Authority information regarding the laws of the child's state of habitual residence;

(d) Upon request, facilitate efforts to obtain from appropriate U.S. state authorities and transmit to the foreign Central Authority a statement as to the wrongfulness of the taking of the child under the laws of the child's state of habitual residence;

(e) Upon request, facilitate efforts to obtain from appropriate U.S. state authorities and transmit to the foreign Central Authority information relating to the social background of the child;

(f) Upon request, be available to facilitate possible arrangements for temporary foster care and/or travel for the child from the foreign country to the United States;

(g) Monitor all cases in which assistance has been sought; and

(h) Perform such additional functions as the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs may from time to time direct.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1994–2009 · leading case: Ogawa v. Ogawa, 221 P.3d 699 (Nev. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ogawa v. Ogawa, 221 P.3d 699 (Nev. 2009). “” 22 C.F.R. § 94.7 (2009). Thus, the Hague Convention’s network of international child abduction laws “can operate only between two signatory states.”

De Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2007). “” 22 C.F.R. § 94.7 . “If a child is taken from a signatory country and is retained in a non-signatory country, it appears that there is no remedy under either [ICARA, 42 U.”

Mezo Ex Rel. Mezo-Elmergawi v. Elmergawi, 855 F. Supp. 59 (E.D.N.Y 1994). · cites it 2× “One of the regulations promulgated by the Department of State sets forth the procedures to be followed in situations involving a child abducted from the United States (See 22 C.F.R. § 94.7 ). This regulation specifically states that it applies only when the De *63 partment of…”

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.