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

22 U.S.C. § 9003

Judicial remedies

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Jurisdiction of courts

The courts of the States and the United States district courts shall have concurrent original jurisdiction of actions arising under the Convention.

(b) Petitions

Any person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the Convention for the return of a child or for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access to a child may do so by commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief sought in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.

(c) Notice

Notice of an action brought under subsection (b) shall be given in accordance with the applicable law governing notice in interstate child custody proceedings.

(d) Determination of case

The court in which an action is brought under subsection (b) shall decide the case in accordance with the Convention.

(e) Burdens of proof(1) A petitioner in an action brought under subsection (b) shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence—(A) in the case of an action for the return of a child, that the child has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention; and(B) in the case of an action for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access, that the petitioner has such rights.(2) In the case of an action for the return of a child, a respondent who opposes the return of the child has the burden of establishing—(A) by clear and convincing evidence that one of the exceptions set forth in article 13b or 20 of the Convention applies; and(B) by a preponderance of the evidence that any other exception set forth in article 12 or 13 of the Convention applies.(f) Application of ConventionFor purposes of any action brought under this chapter—(1) the term “authorities”, as used in article 15 of the Convention to refer to the authorities of the state of the habitual residence of a child, includes courts and appropriate government agencies;(2) the terms “wrongful removal or retention” and “wrongfully removed or retained”, as used in the Convention, include a removal or retention of a child before the entry of a custody order regarding that child; and(3) the term “commencement of proceedings”, as used in article 12 of the Convention, means, with respect to the return of a child located in the United States, the filing of a petition in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.(g) Full faith and credit

Full faith and credit shall be accorded by the courts of the States and the courts of the United States to the judgment of any other such court ordering or denying the return of a child, pursuant to the Convention, in an action brought under this chapter.

(h) Remedies under Convention not exclusive

The remedies established by the Convention and this chapter shall be in addition to remedies available under other laws or international agreements.

(Pub. L. 100–300, § 4, Apr. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 438.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (f) to (h), 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 under section 9001 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 11603 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 362 cases (230 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Guimaraes v. Brann, 562 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Guimaraes v. Brann, 562 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “" 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (a) ; A.V.P.G. , 251 S.W.”
Hugo Castellanos Monzon v. Ingrid De La Roca, 910 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 11× “" 20 "Once the petitioner meets its initial burden, the respondent may oppose the child's return by proving one of [the] five affirmative defenses" as listed under ICARA provision 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (e)(2)(A) and (B). 21 Section 9003(e)(2) provides: (e) Burdens of proof .”
Karen Berenguela-Alvarado v. Eric Castanos, 950 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “22 U.S.C. § 9003 (a)–(b), (e)(1)(A). “The central feature of the Convention is the return remedy by which a wrongfully removed child is to be repatriated to her home country for custody determinations.”
Anthimos Panteleris v. Aalison Panteleris, 601 F. App'x 345 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 10× “22 U.S.C. § 9003 (e)(1)(A). Once the petitioner establishes wrongful removal, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish an exception.”
Kevin Coe v. Seon Hwa Coe, 788 S.E.2d 261 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “22 U.S.C. § 9003 (a). Any person seeking the return of a child pursuant to the Convention may commence a civil action by filing a petition in a court where the child is located.”
Mohácsi v. Rippa, 346 F. Supp. 3d 295 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 8× “"[D]etermining the child's country of habitual residence is a threshold issue in nearly all Hague Convention cases, because the laws of that country determine the custody rights recognized by the Convention.”
Leonard v. Lentz, 297 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Iowa 2017). · cites it 6× “22 U.S.C. § 9003 (e)(2). Thus, as the first affirmative defense relating to consent or acquiescence falls under Article 13a, respondent bears the burden of establishing this affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Xochitl Velasco Padilla v. Joe Troxell, 850 F.3d 168 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (e)(2)(B). Neither the Hague Convention nor its implementing statute, ICARA, define consent or acquiescence.”
Mauvais v. Herisse, 772 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d at 11 ; see also 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (e)(2). On appeal, we review the district court’s findings of fact with deference, overturning a factual finding for clear error “only if it ‘hit[s] us as more than probably wrong — it must prompt, a strong, unyielding belief, based on the…”
Pierre Salame Ajami v. Veronica Tescari Solano, 29 F.4th 763 (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “See 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (e)(2); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.”
Domenico Taglieri v. Michelle Monasky, 907 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “It is possible that, after the district court analyzes the facts under the shared parental intent standard, the court will conclude that it is unclear whether the parents shared an intent.”
Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (2020). “to Italy under the Hague Convention, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (b), on the ground that Italy was her habitual residence.”
Show all 362 citing cases →
— 22 U.S.C. § 9003(a) — 2 cases
McIntyre v. Smith (D. Minnesota 2021).
Jung Wook Na v. Jasmine Pearl Na (C.D. Cal. 2025).
— 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b) — 5 cases
Velozny v. Velozny (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
Braude v. Zierler (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
In the Matter of Senay Akin & Nedim Suljevic (N.H. 2022).
Dominguez Ochoa v. Ochoa Perez (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
Dominguez Ochoa v. Ochoa Perez (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
— 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(1) — 1 case
In the Matter of Senay Akin & Nedim Suljevic (N.H. 2022).
— 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(1)(A) — 1 case
Bandzius v. Sulcaite (N.D. Ill. 2018).
— 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B) — 1 case
Michele H.P. Xamplas v. Peter Xamplas, 2025 ME 92 (Me. 2025).
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.