U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 97— INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION REMEDIES

22 U.S.C. § 9001

Findings and declarations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress makes the following findings:(1) The international abduction or wrongful retention of children is harmful to their well-being.(2) Persons should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention.(3) International abductions and retentions of children are increasing, and only concerted cooperation pursuant to an international agreement can effectively combat this problem.(4) The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague on October 25, 1980, establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained, as well as for securing the exercise of visitation rights. Children who are wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention are to be promptly returned unless one of the narrow exceptions set forth in the Convention applies. The Convention provides a sound treaty framework to help resolve the problem of international abduction and retention of children and will deter such wrongful removals and retentions.(b) DeclarationsThe Congress makes the following declarations:(1) It is the purpose of this chapter to establish procedures for the implementation of the Convention in the United States.(2) The provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in lieu of the provisions of the Convention.(3) In enacting this chapter the Congress recognizes—(A) the international character of the Convention; and(B) the need for uniform international interpretation of the Convention.(4) The Convention and this chapter empower courts in the United States to determine only rights under the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.(Pub. L. 100–300, § 2, Apr. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 437.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act” meaning Pub. L. 100–300, Apr. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 437, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 11601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–370, § 1, Oct. 25, 2004, 118 Stat. 1750, provided that: “This Act [amending section 9006 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Prevention of Child Abduction Partnership Act’.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 100–300, § 1, Apr. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 437, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 663 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare] may be cited as the ‘International Child Abduction Remedies Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 428 cases (273 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020). · cites it 5× “437 , as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. , implements our Nation's obligations under the Convention.”
Michelle Berezowsky v. Pablo Ojeda, 652 F. App'x 249 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “This begs the question. Rendon only would have had to challenge the mandate if it forbade the relief he now seeks.”
Roque Jacinto Fernandez v. Christy Nicole Bailey, 909 F.3d 353 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “See 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001 (b)(1), 9003(a). For a parent whose child has been abducted to a foreign country, taking advantage of this return remedy is no easy task.”
Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666 (2022). · cites it 2× “437 , as amended, 22 U. S. C. §9001 et seq. ICARA permits a parent (or other individual or institution) seeking relief under the Convention to file a petition for return of a child in state or federal court, §§9003(a)–(b), and directs courts to “decide the[se] case[s] in…”
Jose Candido Diaz Palencia v. Marilis Yaneth Velasquez Perez, 921 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “89, implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq. -the district court concluded that Marilys Velasquez Perez had wrongfully retained her son, H.”
Marks Ex Rel. SM v. Hochhauser, 876 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “89, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq., for the allegedly wrongful retention in the United States of the parties’ minor children, S.”
Pierre Salame Ajami v. Veronica Tescari Solano, 29 F.4th 763 (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “437 , as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. The Convention attempts “[t]o address ‘the problem of international child abductions during domestic disputes.”
Domenico Taglieri v. Michelle Monasky, 907 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. A parent may petition a federal or state court to return abducted children to their country of habitual residence.”
Marcelllinus Pfeiffer v. Rachel Bachotet, 913 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “Among other functions, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction "establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained.”
Anthimos Panteleris v. Aalison Panteleris, 601 F. App'x 345 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “Anthimos Panteleris, a citizen of Australia, and Aalison Panteleris, a citizen of the United States, married in the United States in 2005.”
Johan Sebastian Alzat Calixto v. Hadylle Yusuf Lesmes, 909 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “89, as implemented in the United States through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, *1083 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. Mr. Calixto had signed a travel consent form allowing M.”
Hayet Naser Gomez v. Alfredo Jose Salvi Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “” 22 U.S.C. § 9001 (b)(4); Baran, 526 F.3d at 1344 .”
Show all 428 citing cases →
— 22 U.S.C. § 9001(a)(4) — 1 case
In the Matter of Senay Akin & Nedim Suljevic (N.H. 2022).
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.