Uprooting Children in the Name of Equity

This Article ultimately recommends that courts should reign in, if not abandon, the doctrine of equitable estoppel as it is used in Hague child abduction cases. This Article supports its thesis in four parts. Part I describes the equitable estoppel argument as it has emerged within the Hague Convention framework. Part II then examines the Convention\u27s legislative history and argues that the doctrine is incompatible with that history. Part III analyzes the principle policy basis offered in support of the doctrine: the deterrence of concealment. Part IV focuses on the best way to address concealment within the confines of the Convention structure

Strengthening Article 20

THE HAGUE CONVENTION on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( the Hague Convention ) t is a private international treaty in force in approximately seventy-five countries. 2 The Hague Convention addresses international child abduction and generally requires that an abducted child be promptly returned to his or her habitual residence, unless the abductor can invoke one of several defenses set forth in the Hague Convention

Intolerable Situations and Counsel for Children: Following Switzerland\u27s Example in Hague Abduction Cases

In the twilight days of 2007, Switzerland took decisive action to protect children who were being harmed by the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( Hague Abduction Convention or Convention ). 1 Its Parliament passed the Federal Act on International Child Abduction and the Hague Conventions on the Protection of Children and Adults ( Swiss Act ). 2 The Swiss Act, which should enter into force in mid-2009, 3 gives important and necessary guidance to Swiss courts about the phrase intolerable situation in Article 13(b) of the Hague Abduction Convention. 4 The Swiss Act also directs courts to appoint representatives for children in Hague child abduction proceedings. 5 The United States should follow Switzerland\u27s example and adopt similar reforms. The United States need not pass legislation to do so, but rather U.S. courts should follow Switzerland\u27s lead as the opportunities arise in individual cases. This Article describes the Swiss law and the context for its adoption and then examines the doctrinal and practical significance of its provisions. A few recent U.S. cases are used to illustrate the need for courts in the United States to follow Switzerland\u27s example. For example, the Swiss interpretation of intolerable situation might have changed the 2007 decisions of the federal district court in Adan v. Avans. 6 The Swiss approach to appointing counsel for children in Hague child abduction proceedings might also have altered the outcome of a 2008 federal district court decision, Mendez-Lynch v. Pizzutello. After considering potential drawbacks to the Swiss reforms, the Article concludes that the U.S. courts have little to lose, and much to gain by incorporating these Swiss ideas into the adjudication of Hague cases