## Facts

- Jeffrey Lee Chafin (a U.S. citizen and servicemember) and Lynne Hales Chafin (a U.K. citizen) were divorcing parents of a minor child, E.C.
- The parents married in Germany, where E.C. was born.
- During Mr. Chafin’s deployment to Afghanistan, Ms. Chafin took E.C. to Scotland.
- Mr. Chafin was later transferred to Alabama; Ms. Chafin eventually came to Alabama with E.C.
- Mr. Chafin filed for divorce and child custody in Alabama state court.
- Ms. Chafin was deported for overstaying her visa; E.C. remained in Alabama with Mr. Chafin.
- Ms. Chafin petitioned in federal district court under the Hague Convention and ICARA for E.C.’s return to Scotland so Scottish courts could decide custody.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Scotland to be E.C.’s habitual residence and ordered E.C. returned; it denied a stay pending appeal.
- Ms. Chafin left for Scotland with E.C., then initiated custody proceedings there and received interim custody and an order restricting removal of E.C. from Scotland.
- The district court also awarded Ms. Chafin costs, attorney’s fees, and travel expenses under ICARA.

## Issues

1. Whether an appeal from a Hague Convention return order becomes moot under Article III once the child has been returned to a foreign country pursuant to that order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s mootness dismissal.
- The Court held that return of a child abroad pursuant to a Hague Convention return order does not, by itself, render an appeal moot.
- The case remained a live controversy because the parents continued to contest where the child would be raised.
- A federal court could still grant effectual relief, including ordering the child’s return to the United States if the return order were reversed and enforcing that order through personal jurisdiction over the prevailing parent, including sanctions.
- Uncertainty about the likelihood of obtaining or enforcing relief concerned practical consequences, not Article III mootness.
- Monetary relief (ICARA fees and costs) also provided an additional basis showing the dispute was not moot.

## Legal Principles

- A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party.
- A party’s concrete interest, even if small, is sufficient to avoid mootness.
- Execution of a judgment does not automatically moot an appeal when a court can still provide meaningful relief, including orders directed at parties subject to its personal jurisdiction.
- In Hague Convention cases, treating executed return orders as categorically moot would improperly eliminate appellate review and conflict with the scheme’s preference for prompt resolution.

## Conclusion

Because a federal court could still award effectual relief—most notably a potential order requiring the child’s re-return and enforceable directives against a party within the court’s jurisdiction—an appeal of a Hague Convention return order is not moot merely because the child has already been returned abroad.


Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013)