## Facts

- A Colombian father and mother lived with their daughter in London.
- In November 2008, the mother left the shared home with the child and went to a women’s shelter.
- In July 2009, the mother took the child from the United Kingdom and ultimately resettled in New York; the father did not know their location.
- In November 2010, more than one year after the removal, the father located the mother and child in New York and promptly filed a return petition in federal court under the Hague Convention and its U.S. implementing statute.
- Under Article 12, petitions filed within one year require an order returning the child “forthwith,” while petitions filed after one year require return unless the child is “now settled” in the new environment.
- The district court treated the petition as filed after one year, found the child “now settled” in New York, and denied return; it also rejected equitable tolling of Article 12’s one-year period.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review limited to whether Article 12’s one-year period is subject to equitable tolling.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 12’s one-year period under the Hague Convention is subject to equitable tolling when the abducting parent conceals the child’s whereabouts.
2. Whether the U.S. implementing statute authorizes equitable tolling or otherwise alters Article 12’s one-year framework.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- Article 12’s one-year period is not subject to equitable tolling.
- A petition filed more than one year after the wrongful removal does not regain the “forthwith” return mandate; instead, the court proceeds under the post-one-year framework, including the “now settled” inquiry.
- The implementing statute does not add equitable tolling or modify the treaty’s substantive standards.
- Concealment may be relevant, if at all, only to the fact-specific determination whether the child is “now settled,” not to tolling the one-year period.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty interpretation turns on the intent of the contracting states, determined from text, structure, and context, rather than domestic interpretive presumptions applicable to federal statutes of limitations.
- Article 12’s one-year period is not a statute of limitations barring relief; it is a timing rule that changes the applicable decision framework by requiring consideration of the child’s settlement after one year.
- The treaty’s text reflects a balance between prompt return to deter abduction and protection of a child’s stability after a substantial period in a new environment; equitable tolling would alter that balance.
- When implementing legislation provides procedures and jurisdiction but does not address tolling or modify treaty terms, it does not supply additional substantive defenses or extensions inconsistent with the treaty.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Article 12’s one-year period under the Hague Convention is not equitably tolled, even where the removing parent concealed the child; once the petition is filed after one year, the court must consider the “now settled” exception rather than apply an automatic return rule.


Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014)