## Facts

- Ulrich G. Bader (father) and Sonja Kramer (mother) married and lived in Germany; their daughter, C.J.B., was born in 1999.
- The couple separated in 2000; C.J.B. lived primarily with Kramer in Germany.
- Bader served a German prison sentence on weapons charges for about three and a half years.
- The parties divorced in 2002; in March 2003, a German court set a visitation schedule for Bader and ordered child support, which Bader paid.
- In April 2003, during a visit by C.J.B. with Bader at his home, Kramer took C.J.B. to the United States without Bader’s knowledge or consent.
- In December 2003, a German court granted sole custody to Bader.
- Bader sought C.J.B.’s return under the Hague Convention and ICARA by filing a petition in federal court in the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether Bader was “actually exercising” his rights of custody at the time Kramer removed C.J.B. from Germany, making the removal “wrongful” under the Hague Convention and ICARA.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order requiring C.J.B.’s return to Germany.
- The court held that Bader was “actually exercising” his custody rights when Kramer removed the child.
- The court adopted a liberal standard: a parent with de jure custody rights is deemed to exercise them unless the parent clearly and unequivocally abandoned the child.
- The record showed regularized legal visitation and support obligations, Bader’s payment of support, and that C.J.B. was visiting Bader at the time of removal; there was no abandonment.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hague Convention/ICARA, a removal is “wrongful” if it breaches custody rights under the law of the child’s habitual residence and those rights were being exercised at the time of removal.
- “Exercise” of custody rights is construed broadly; courts should not assess parenting quality or engage in custody-merits determinations when deciding return.
- A parent with valid custody rights fails to “exercise” them only through clear and unequivocal abandonment; limited, imperfect, or irregular contact is generally insufficient to negate exercise.
- When wrongful removal is established and no convention defense applies, the proper remedy is return to the country of habitual residence for custody adjudication there.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the return order because the father’s custody rights under German law were being exercised at the time of removal under a broad, abandonment-focused standard, making the mother’s unilateral move to the United States a wrongful removal requiring the child’s return to Germany.


Bader v. Kramer, 484 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2007)