## Facts

- Timothy Abbott (father) and Jacquelyn Abbott (mother) married in 1992, had a son (A.J.A.) in 1995, and later moved to Chile.
- After separation, a Chilean family court granted the mother daily care and control and granted the father visitation.
- The Chilean court imposed a ne exeat restriction barring removal of the child from Chile without the other parent’s consent or court authorization; Chilean law required the visiting parent’s authorization for international removal once visitation was granted.
- In 2005, while Chilean proceedings were ongoing, the mother took the child from Chile to Texas without the father’s consent and without Chilean court permission.
- The father filed a petition in federal court seeking the child’s return to Chile under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA).

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s ne exeat right (the right to consent before a child is removed from the country) is a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention and ICARA.
2. Whether removal of a child from the habitual-residence country in violation of a ne exeat right is a “wrongful removal” requiring the Convention’s return remedy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court held that the father’s ne exeat right conferred a “right of custody” within the meaning of the Hague Convention.
- The mother’s removal of the child from Chile without the father’s consent breached rights of custody under Chilean law and therefore was a wrongful removal under the Convention.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of any applicable Convention defenses.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hague Convention, “rights of custody” include the right to determine the child’s place of residence; a ne exeat right falls within that definition when it gives a parent joint authority over the child’s country of residence.
- The law of the child’s habitual residence supplies the content of the parent’s rights, while the Convention determines whether those rights qualify as “rights of custody.”
- Executive-branch treaty interpretations are entitled to great weight in construing the Convention’s terms.
- Decisions from courts in other Contracting States may be given considerable weight to support uniform interpretation of the Convention.
- A finding of “wrongful removal” triggers the Convention’s return framework, subject to any proven defenses under the Convention.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a ne exeat right is a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention and ICARA, so international removal of a child from the habitual-residence country without the other parent’s consent in violation of that right is wrongful and may require the child’s return.


Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)