a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ySg-RK3MUak/SNG96SH3K4I/AAAAAAAAA68/Ff_vxBi4rxw/s1600-h/Chile.jpg"img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ySg-RK3MUak/SNG96SH3K4I/AAAAAAAAA68/Ff_vxBi4rxw/s200/Chile.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247183849858214786" border="0" //abr /span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"The Fifth Circuit has followed the Second Circuit?s ruling in /spani style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"Croll v. Croll/ispan style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" and has ruled that a ?/spani style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"ne exeat/ispan style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"? right does not constitute a ?right of custody? for purposes of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. /spanspan style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"span style="font-style: italic;"(/spanAbbott v. Abbott/spanspan style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);", handed down on September 16, 2008)./spanbr /p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"/p p class="MsoNormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"o:p/o:pThe case concerned a British father and American mother who lived with their child in st1:country-region st="on"st1:place st="on"Chile/st1:place/st1:country-region. When the parents separated the Chilean courts awarded sole custody to the mother with visitation rights to the father and entered a subsequent order (the ?ine exeat /iorder?) prohibiting the child?s removal from Chile by span style=""eitheri /i/spanparent without their mutual consent. The mother concededly breached that order by taking the child to st1:state st="on"st1:place st="on"Texas/st1:place/st1:state and keeping him there without the father?s consent and without notice whilst the parties were in the midst of disputes over visitation and other issues./p p class="MsoNormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"The Hague Convention provides the remedy of return of a child only if the child?s removal or retention from its habitual residence breached ?rights of custody attributed to a person.? o:p/o:pThe Fifth Circuit was required to determine whether to follow the three federal appellate courts that have determined that ine exeat /iorders and statutory ine exeat /iprovisions do not create ?rights of custody? under the Convention (iFawcett v. McRoberts, /i326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003); iGonzalez v. Gutierrez, /i311 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2002); iCroll v. Croll, /i229 F.3d 133, 138?39 (2d Cir. 2000)) or whether to follow the Eleventh Circuit which has reached the opposite conclusion. (iFurnes v. Reeves, /i362 F.3d 702, 719 (11th Cir. 2004)). The Eleventh Circuit?s view has received further support in the First Circuit in iWhallon v. Lynn/i, 230 F.3d 450, 458 n.9, 459 (1st Cir. 2000) and span style="font-style: italic;"Croll/span has been criticized in most of the academic literature.o:p/o:p/pp class="MsoNormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"o:p/o:pThe Fifth Circuit also noted that the iFurnes /icourt had ?catalogued? the foreign opinions on the issue, noting that courts in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and Israel have held that ine exeat /irights do constitute ?rights of custody? under the Hague Convention, while Canadian and French courts have reached the opposite conclusion. iFurnes, /i362 F.3d at 717?18./p p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"span style="font-size:10;"o:p/o:p/spanThe decision of the Fifth Circuit is that it follows the majority rule. It held that:o:p/o:p/pp class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"br /o:p/o:p/pp class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt;"o:p/o:pspan style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"?We find persuasive /spani style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"Croll/ispan style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"?s reasoning that the Hague Convention clearly distinguishes between ?rights of custody? and ?rights of access? and that ordering the return of a child in the absence of ?rights of custody? in an effort to serve the overarching purposes of the Hague Convention would be an impermissible judicial amendment of the Convention. We hold that /spani style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"ne exeat /ispan style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"rights, even when coupled with ?rights of access,? do not constitute ?rights of custody? within the meaning of the Hague Convention. The Hague Convention provides a remedy of return only for a parent who holds ?rights of custody.? The father in this case did not hold such rights.?/spano:p/o:p/p p class="MsoNormal"o:p /o:p/p p class="MsoNormal"o:p /o:p/p
