When a child is taken across an international border—or kept in another country after an authorized visit—a parent may suddenly face an unfamiliar legal system, an expedited court proceeding, and the possibility of being separated from the child for months or years.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a legal process for determining whether a child who was wrongfully removed or retained must be returned to the child’s country of habitual residence. In the United States, the Convention is implemented through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, commonly known as ICARA.
These proceedings are not ordinary child-custody cases. They frequently move at extraordinary speed. A federal court may impose travel restrictions, require the surrender of passports, authorize expedited discovery, and schedule a final evidentiary hearing within weeks. The outcome can depend on evidence gathered—and strategic decisions made—during the first few days of the case.
Attorney William Roelke represents parents on both sides of Hague Convention proceedings:
Roelke Law, P.A., is based in Jacksonville and represents parents in Hague Convention and ICARA proceedings throughout Florida. We may also accept matters elsewhere in the United States when admission, association with local counsel, or admission pro hac vice can be arranged.
URGENT MATTERS: If your child has been taken internationally, or if you have been served with a Hague Convention petition, call (904) 758-4333 as soon as possible to request a case strategy session.
The Hague Convention addresses the wrongful removal or retention of children under the age of 16 between countries for which the Convention is in force.
A “wrongful removal” may occur when one parent takes a child from the child’s country of habitual residence in violation of another person’s custody rights. A “wrongful retention” may arise when an initially authorized trip or visit becomes unlawful—for example, when one parent refuses to return the child after permission to remain abroad has expired.
The central issue ordinarily is not which parent is better or where the child would enjoy a better life. Instead, the court decides whether the child must be returned so that custody questions can be resolved in the appropriate country.
Under ICARA, a Hague Convention proceeding may be brought in a state or federal court with jurisdiction where the child is located. Many Florida cases are litigated in the United States District Courts for the Northern, Middle, or Southern District of Florida.
A parent requesting return generally must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that:
The Supreme Court has explained that habitual residence depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case. Courts may examine where the child lived, the duration and stability of that residence, school and community connections, parental agreements, immigration circumstances, the child’s age, and other evidence showing where the child was “at home.”
Habitual residence is therefore intensely fact-specific. A written parental agreement can be important, but it may not be conclusive. The parents’ intentions also may matter, particularly for an infant, but courts generally do not apply a rigid rule requiring proof that both parents subjectively agreed on a permanent home.
If the petitioning parent proves wrongful removal or retention, return is generally required unless the responding parent establishes a defense or exception recognized by the Convention.
Being served with a Hague petition does not necessarily mean the child will be returned. The Convention recognizes several exceptions, although courts interpret them in light of the Convention’s objective of promptly restoring the pre-abduction status quo.
Article 13(b) provides that a court is not bound to order return when the responding parent proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
This exception may arise in cases involving:
A criminal conviction or formally substantiated child-protection finding is not an express prerequisite to asserting grave risk. But allegations alone ordinarily will not carry the demanding clear-and-convincing burden. The court evaluates the admissible evidence, including credibility, corroborating records, contemporaneous communications, foreign investigations, expert testimony, the child’s behavior and statements, and the practical availability of protection after return.
Expert psychological evidence can be important, particularly when the asserted danger is psychological rather than physical. The expert’s role, the methodology used, the limits of the evaluation, and the connection between the clinical findings and the predicted harm must be developed carefully.
If grave risk is established, the court may consider whether workable protective measures could sufficiently reduce the risk. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Golan v. Saada, however, a court is not categorically required to examine every conceivable protective measure before denying return. Any proposed measures must be evaluated in light of the evidence, the need for prompt resolution, and the Convention’s purposes.
A court may decline return if the petitioning parent consented to the child’s removal or retention.
Consent ordinarily concerns what the petitioner agreed to before the challenged conduct. Relevant evidence may include text messages, emails, travel authorizations, visa applications, recorded conversations, testimony about the parents’ agreement, and conduct showing what each parent understood would occur.
Permission for a vacation is not necessarily permission for a permanent relocation. Similarly, conditional consent may cease to provide authorization when the stated conditions are violated.
Acquiescence generally examines the petitioning parent’s words or conduct after the removal or retention. The court may consider whether that parent accepted the child’s continued residence in the new country or instead took reasonably prompt steps to secure the child’s return.
Consent and acquiescence are related but distinct defenses. Their success often depends on the precise language, timing, and context of the parties’ communications.
A court may consider a child’s objection if the child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take the child’s views into account.
This is not a rule allowing every child to choose where to live. Courts distinguish between a particularized objection to being returned and a general preference for one parent, home, school, or country. They may also examine the child’s maturity, consistency, reasoning, experiences, and possible parental influence.
Even when the exception is established, the decision whether to refuse return remains discretionary.
If Hague proceedings begin more than one year after the wrongful removal or retention, a respondent may attempt to prove that the child is now settled in the new environment.
This inquiry may involve the child’s:
The Hague Convention does not create a one-year statute of limitations. A return petition may still be filed after one year. The passage of one year instead makes the well-settled exception potentially available, and establishing that exception does not automatically require the court to deny return.
Because delay can significantly change the litigation, a left-behind parent should seek legal assistance immediately.
Article 20 allows a court to refuse return when return would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested country relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This is a narrowly applied provision. It is not ordinarily enough to show that the foreign country uses different custody rules or procedures than an American court would use.
A left-behind parent should act promptly, but speed must be combined with careful preparation. Important early steps may include:
The court may be asked to prohibit removal of the child from the jurisdiction, require surrender of travel documents, authorize expedited service, permit focused discovery, and set an accelerated hearing.
A parent should not assume that filing an application with a Central Authority eliminates the need for legal representation. Central Authorities facilitate cooperation under the Convention, but they do not serve as the parent’s private litigation counsel.
A parent facing a return petition should not wait for the hearing date before consulting counsel. The schedule may leave very little time to investigate the allegations, obtain foreign records, retain an expert, conduct discovery, or secure testimony from witnesses in another country.
The responding parent should immediately:
Statements made in an ordinary state-court custody proceeding, immigration filing, police report, or communication with the other parent can affect the Hague case. Legal advice should be obtained before making unnecessary substantive statements about contested events.
These cases frequently require evidence spanning multiple countries, languages, legal systems, and professional disciplines. Depending on the issues, relevant evidence may include:
The existence of relevant evidence does not guarantee its admission. Hearsay, authentication, privilege, translation accuracy, expert methodology, remote testimony, and foreign-document issues should be addressed before the evidentiary hearing.
A Hague return order can create an immediate appellate emergency. Filing an appeal does not automatically stay the return order. A party seeking to prevent the child’s departure during appellate review may need to request relief first from the trial court and then, if necessary, from the appropriate appellate court.
The stay analysis can require briefing on likelihood of success, irreparable harm, injury to the opposing party, and the public interest. The practical timeline may be measured in days rather than months.
Roelke Law’s Hague Convention experience includes conducting contested federal evidentiary hearings involving foreign child-protection investigations, allegations of child trauma, expert psychological testimony, grave-risk issues, proposed protective measures, emergency stay practice, and appellate proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Every case is different, and prior experience does not promise or guarantee a particular result. It does, however, inform our understanding of how quickly these cases develop and how thoroughly the evidence and legal issues must be prepared.
Financial exposure should be considered at the beginning of a Hague case.
When a court orders a child’s return, ICARA generally directs the court to award the successful petitioner necessary expenses associated with securing the return, including court costs, legal fees, and transportation expenses, unless the respondent establishes that an award would be clearly inappropriate.
The potential fee award can be substantial in a case involving emergency motions, foreign evidence, experts, translations, discovery, and a contested evidentiary hearing. A responding parent should understand this risk when evaluating litigation and possible resolution.
Some cases can be resolved through a negotiated return, voluntary dismissal, structured parenting arrangement, or agreement addressing safeguards associated with the child’s travel and transition.
A workable resolution may require participation by foreign counsel and careful consideration of whether particular promises or protective provisions will be recognized and enforced in the other country. No parent should agree to an international return or retention arrangement without understanding its legal consequences in both jurisdictions.
When settlement is possible, early negotiations may reduce expense, uncertainty, and disruption to the child. When it is not possible, counsel must be prepared for expedited litigation.
Hague cases combine international family law with intensive federal litigation. They require counsel to absorb a large factual record quickly, identify the controlling issues, work with foreign materials and experts, and present the case under an unusually compressed schedule.
William Roelke is an experienced trial lawyer and former federal judicial law clerk. His Hague Convention work has included:
Clients work directly with Mr. Roelke. The firm accepts a limited number of matters so that each case receives focused attention.
No. A Hague court ordinarily decides where the custody dispute should be heard, not which parent should ultimately receive custody.
No. It covers wrongful retention as well as wrongful removal. A lawful trip can become a wrongful retention when permission expires and the child is not returned.
No. There is no one-year statute of limitations. After one year, however, the respondent may attempt to establish that the child is now settled in the new environment.
Yes. Depending on the severity and supporting evidence, exposure to domestic violence, credible threats, or resulting psychological trauma may be relevant to the Article 13(b) grave-risk analysis.
Not necessarily. A Hague court evaluates the evidence presented in its own proceeding. An inconclusive investigation may be important, but it does not automatically establish that misconduct did or did not occur. The court will examine the circumstances, reliability, corroboration, and evidentiary record as a whole.
Not automatically. The court must determine whether the child genuinely objects and has attained a sufficient age and maturity. Even then, refusing return is discretionary.
Potentially within weeks. The Convention calls for expeditious proceedings, and courts may sharply limit the time available for discovery, experts, and hearing preparation.
Yes. ICARA gives state and federal courts concurrent jurisdiction over Hague Convention return proceedings.
The firm handles Hague matters throughout Florida. Representation elsewhere may be possible depending on the court, the circumstances of the case, and arrangements for local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
International child-abduction cases demand immediate and focused action. Important evidence may disappear, the child may be moved again, and the court may schedule a final hearing before the parties have fully processed what has happened.
Whether you are seeking the return of a child to another country or defending against a demand that your child be removed from the United States, Roelke Law can evaluate the allegations, applicable defenses, evidentiary needs, emergency issues, and procedural options.
REQUEST A CASE STRATEGY SESSION: Call Roelke Law, P.A., at (904) 758-4333 or use the website’s contact form. If a hearing has been scheduled, a passport has been surrendered, the child may be moved, or an international return is imminent, advise the firm immediately.
This page provides general legal information and is not legal advice. Hague Convention cases are highly fact-specific. Reviewing this page or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, and past experience does not guarantee a particular result.
