22 U.S.C. § 9004
Provisional remedies
In furtherance of the objectives of article 7(b) and other provisions of the Convention, and subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, any court exercising jurisdiction of an action brought under section 9003(b) of this title may take or cause to be taken measures under Federal or State law, as appropriate, to protect the well-being of the child involved or to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of the petition.
No court exercising jurisdiction of an action brought under section 9003(b) of this title may, under subsection (a) of this section, order a child removed from a person having physical control of the child unless the applicable requirements of State law are satisfied.
Section was formerly classified to section 11604 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (39 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Cunningham v. Cunningham, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2017). “On October 28, 2016, at the Mother's request and pursuant to this Court’s authority under 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a), the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.”
González v. Preston, 107 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (M.D. Ala. 2015). “22 U.S.C. § 9004 (b). Because 1975 Ala.Code §§ 30-3B-302 and 30-3B-308(c) provide authority for courts to order the return of a child as outlined under the Hague Convention, the court adheres to Alabama law by complying with the Convention.”
Romanov v. Soto (M.D. Fla. 2021). “” See 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a). Upon review of the Verified Petition, the Court determines that some relief is warranted to assure the continued availability of the Minor Children pending a hearing on the merits of the Verified Petition.”
Badilla Meza v. Nunez Reyes (M.D. Fla. 2024). “” 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a). To succeed on a petition filed under the Hague Convention, Petitioner must establish (1) that the Child was habitually resident in Chile at the time Respondent removed them to the United States; (2) that the removal was without Petitioner’s consent and…”
Bouillon v. Garcia (D. Idaho 2022). “BACKGROUND On March 23, 2022, Bouillon filed a Verified Petition for return of child and for provisional relief pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980 (the “Hague Convention”) and the 1 Requests for…”
McIntyre v. Smith (D. Minnesota 2021). “” 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a). In doing so, the court must ensure that the measures taken satisfy the applicable requirements of state law.”
Guzman v. Brazon (W.D.N.C. 2024). “” 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a). Having reviewed the Petitioner’s Motion, and the record before the Court, the Court concludes that Petitioner has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, as Petitioner has shown that the Child was a habitual resident of Peru at the time of wrongful…”
Saada v. Golan (E.D.N.Y 2024). “because the petitioner did not make the requisite showing under 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (b), which prohibits courts entertaining Hague petitions from ordering that a child “be removed from a person having physical control of the child unless the applicable requirements of State law are…”
Pawananun v. Pettit (N.D. Ohio 2020). “See 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a). The facts of this case have been discussed in previous Court Orders.”
Jorge Guevara-Martinez v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “” 22 U.S.C.A. § 9004 (a). Thus, even if the Hague Convention were implicated as father asserts, and even if he filed a petition accordingly, the court’s concurrent jurisdiction over that claim would not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction under Virginia Code § 16.”
Jorge Guevara-Martinez v. Alexandria Dep't of Cmty. & Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2024). “” 22 U.S.C.A. § 9004 (a). Thus, even if the Hague Convention were implicated as father asserts, and even if he filed a petition accordingly, the court’s concurrent jurisdiction over that claim would not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction under Virginia Code § 16.”
Martinez v. Martinez (W.D. Wash. 2025). “” 22 U.S.C. § 9004 (a); see 24 also Gabriel, 2022 WL 566601 , at *1.”
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.