Judicial remedies · 22 U.S.C. § 9003 — Florida Dependency Law Finder

Judicial remedies22 U.S.C. § 9003

Chapter 97 · International Child Abduction Remedies · International Child Abduction Remedies Act (Hague Convention) · United States Code, 2024 edition
Also cited as § 42/11603, its former number: those opinions are included (5 as § 42/11603).

7 opinions cite 22 U.S.C. § 9003

Order

Lops v. Lops 140 F.3d 927 · CA11-97-9381 · 11th Cir. 1998
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 20 times: (a), (b), (e)(1)(A), (e)(2), (e)(2)(B), and the section generallyCited as § 42/11603, now § 22/9003; § 42/11603(b), now § 22/9003(b); § 42/11603(e)(1)(A), now § 22/9003(e)(1)(A); § 42/11603(e)(2), now § 22/9003(e)(2); § 42/11603(e)(2)(B), now § 22/9003(e)(2)(B); § 42/11603(a), now § 22/9003(a)

· cited by 111 in all courts

…jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed. 42 U.S.C. § 11603 (b). ICARA further pro- . vides that a petitioner has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner was exercising custody rights…
Seaman v. Peterson 766 F.3d 1252 · CA11-11-10243 · 11th Cir. 2014
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 4 times: (3)(2)(B), (e), (e)(2)(A)Cited as § 42/11603(e), now § 22/9003(e); § 42/11603(e)(2)(A), now § 22/9003(e)(2)(A); § 42/11603(3)(2)(B), now § 22/9003(3)(2)(B)

· cited by 36 in all courts

…the child’s place of residence” (Convention, Art. 5). Under this framework, Seaman was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (42 U.S.C. § 11603(e)): (1) that the children were habitually resident in Mexico at the time Peterson removed them to the United States; (2) that the removal was without Seaman’s…
Abbott v. Abbott 560 U.S. 1 · US560-1 · U.S. Supreme Court 2010
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 4 times: (a), (b), (d), and the section generallyCited as § 42/11603, now § 22/9003; § 42/11603(a), now § 22/9003(a); § 42/11603(b), now § 22/9003(b); § 42/11603(d), now § 22/9003(d)

· cited by 516 in all courts

…seeks a child’s return to file a petition in state or federal court and instructs that the court “shall decide the case in accordance with the Convention.” 42 U. S. C. §§ 11603 (a), (b), (d). If the child in question has been “wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention,” the ehild shall be “promptly…
Baran v. Beaty 526 F.3d 1340 · CA11-07-12762 · 11th Cir. 2008
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 3 times: (b), (e)(2)(A)Cited as § 42/11603(b), now § 22/9003(b); § 42/11603(e)(2)(A), now § 22/9003(e)(2)(A)

· cited by 72 in all courts

…of International Child Abduction (the “Convention”) and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 (“ICARA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11603(b). In the district court, Respondent-Appellee Susan Beaty, the child’s mother, conceded she wrongfully removed her son from Australia, his country of habitual…
Monasky v. Taglieri 589 U.S. 68 · US589-68 · U.S. Supreme Court 2020
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 2 times: (b)

· cited by 252 in all courts

…to Ohio. Taglieri petitioned the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for A. M. T.’s return to Italy under the Convention, pursuant to 22 U. S. C. §9003(b), on the ground that the child had been wrongfully removed from her country of “habitual residence.” The District Court granted Taglieri’s petition,…
Golan v. Saada 596 U.S. 666 · US596-666 · U.S. Supreme Court 2022
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 1 time: (d)

· cited by 106 in all courts

…instructs courts to “decide the case in accordance with the Convention” and accordingly leaves undisturbed the discretion recognized in the Convention. 22 U. S. C. §9003(d). The longstanding interpretation of the Depart- ment of State offers further support for the view that the Convention vests a court with discretion to…
Bekier v. Bekier 248 F.3d 1051 · CA11-99-13347 · 11th Cir. 2001
This opinion cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003 1 time, the section generallyCited as § 42/11603, now § 22/9003

· cited by 39 in all courts

…Hague Convention, may petition in any court authorized to exercise jurisdiction “in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.” 42 U.S.C. § 11603 (b); see also Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 936 (11th Cir.1998). The district court initially had jurisdiction over this dispute because, at…

0 admin code rules cite 22 U.S.C. § 9003

DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it.

No admin code rule cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003.

0 CFOPs cite 22 U.S.C. § 9003

How DCF carries it out. A page opens in the CFOP reader with the citation highlighted.

No CFOP cites 22 U.S.C. § 9003.

3 sections of law cite 22 U.S.C. § 9003

Florida statutes and court rules that cite it, and federal law that cites it or is issued under it.

Shading

Shading shows how often opinions cite each provision: rarely sometimes often most. Click a provision to list the opinions citing it.

(a) Jurisdiction of courts. The courts of the States and the United States district courts shall have concurrent original jurisdiction of actions arising under the Convention.

(b) Petitions. Any person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the Convention for the return of a child or for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access to a child may do so by commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief sought in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.

(c) Notice. Notice of an action brought under subsection (b) shall be given in accordance with the applicable law governing notice in interstate child custody proceedings.

(d) Determination of case. The court in which an action is brought under subsection (b) shall decide the case in accordance with the Convention.

(e) Burdens of proof. (e)

(1) A petitioner in an action brought under subsection (b) shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence—

(A) in the case of an action for the return of a child, that the child has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention; and

(B) in the case of an action for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access, that the petitioner has such rights.

(2) In the case of an action for the return of a child, a respondent who opposes the return of the child has the burden of establishing—

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that one of the exceptions set forth in article 13b or 20 of the Convention applies; and

(B) by a preponderance of the evidence that any other exception set forth in article 12 or 13 of the Convention applies.

(f) Application of Convention. For purposes of any action brought under this chapter—

(1) the term "authorities", as used in article 15 of the Convention to refer to the authorities of the state of the habitual residence of a child, includes courts and appropriate government agencies;

(2) the terms "wrongful removal or retention" and "wrongfully removed or retained", as used in the Convention, include a removal or retention of a child before the entry of a custody order regarding that child; and

(3) the term "commencement of proceedings", as used in article 12 of the Convention, means, with respect to the return of a child located in the United States, the filing of a petition in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.

(g) Full faith and credit. Full faith and credit shall be accorded by the courts of the States and the courts of the United States to the judgment of any other such court ordering or denying the return of a child, pursuant to the Convention, in an action brought under this chapter.

(h) Remedies under Convention not exclusive. The remedies established by the Convention and this chapter shall be in addition to remedies available under other laws or international agreements.

Source. (Pub. L. 100–300, §4, Apr. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 438.)