Chafin v. Chafin
2013 U.S. LEXIS 1122, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1, 568 U.S. 165 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appeal of a return order issued under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not rendered moot simply because the child has been returned to their country of habitual residence.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Lee Chafin, a U.S. Army sergeant, and Lynne Hales Chafin, a U.K. citizen, were married in Germany and had a daughter, E.C., in 2007.
- While Jeffrey was deployed to Afghanistan, Lynne took E.C. to Scotland.
- The family later reunited in Huntsville, Alabama, where Jeffrey was transferred in February 2010.
- Shortly after, Jeffrey filed for divorce and child custody in an Alabama state court.
- Following an arrest for domestic violence, Lynne, who had overstayed her visa, was deported to the U.K. in February 2011.
- E.C. remained in Jeffrey's care in Alabama for several months after her mother's deportation.
- In May 2011, Lynne filed a petition under the Hague Convention seeking an order for E.C.'s return to Scotland.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynne Chafin filed a petition under the Hague Convention in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, seeking her child's return to Scotland.
- The District Court, after a bench trial, granted the petition and ordered the child returned to Scotland.
- The District Court denied Jeffrey Chafin's motion to stay the order pending appeal.
- Lynne Chafin immediately took the child to Scotland.
- Jeffrey Chafin (appellant) appealed the return order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, vacated the District Court's order, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eleventh Circuit's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an appeal of a return order issued under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction rendered moot when the child has already been returned to their country of habitual residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No, an appeal of a Hague Convention return order is not rendered moot by the child's return to the foreign country. A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party, and such relief remains possible here. The court reasoned that an appellate court could still provide meaningful relief in at least two ways. First, if the district court's decision were reversed, the court could order the custodial parent to 're-return' the child to the United States. Even if enforcement is uncertain because the parent and child are in a foreign country, the U.S. court retains personal jurisdiction over the parent and can use sanctions to compel compliance. Second, the district court ordered the losing parent (Mr. Chafin) to pay over $94,000 in fees and expenses. Reversing the underlying return order could lead to the vacatur of this financial award, which constitutes effectual relief. The Court concluded that treating such appeals as moot would undermine the Convention's goal of 'prompt return' by encouraging routine stays of return orders pending appeal.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No, the case is not moot and reversal could provide Mr. Chafin with meaningful relief. However, the prospect of 'shuttling children back and forth' across international borders is unsettling and contrary to the Convention's goals. This case highlights the need for both speed and certainty in Hague Convention proceedings. To prevent the protraction and uncertainty seen in this case, U.S. courts should expedite these appeals. Justice Ginsburg suggests that Congress and judicial rulemakers could consider adopting procedures used in other countries, such as requiring leave to appeal rather than allowing an appeal as of right, to ensure that only meritorious appeals proceed and that final decisions are reached quickly for the child's welfare.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and establishes that the physical location of a child does not divest U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a Hague Convention case. By focusing on the possibility of 'any effectual relief,' however uncertain, the Court preserved the right to appellate review for losing parents. The ruling discourages a categorical mootness rule that could have incentivized prevailing parents to flee the jurisdiction immediately to thwart an appeal. It firmly places the burden on lower courts to manage these cases through traditional judicial tools like expedited proceedings and a standard four-factor stay analysis, rather than through a constitutional mootness determination, thereby balancing due process with the Convention's aim for promptness.
Unlock the full brief for Chafin v. Chafin