Turning our backs on the children: Implications of recent decisions regarding the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was enacted in 1988, with the goal of ensuring that children wrongfully abd ucted across international borders are promptly returned according to the l egal rights and procedures of the proper state. The interpretation of the C onvention standards over the last ten years, by the United States and other joined countries, has been varied. After a brief overview of the policies underlying the Convention, the author examines the core terms and procedure s for returning a wrongfully abducted child and how the courts have subsequ ently applied these standards. The focus of this note is on one particular exception that is the source of much of the present confusion, the exceptio n that wrongfully abducted children be returned unless returning would caus e a grave risk of harm to the child. The author sets forth the various inte rpretations of when a grave risk of harm to the child arises, highlighting inconsistencies among different courts and the dangerous implications of th ese interpretations, especially for the children involved. At the center of the author's concern is the recent decision in Blondin v. Dubois, where th e Second Circuit significantly narrowed the interpretation of the grave ris k exception, adding a further step of analysis to the grave risk determinat ion. The author proposes adopting a broader interpretation of what constitu tes a grave risk of harm and demonstrates not only why her proposal would b e well within the scope of the Convention, but also why it is essential in furthering the Convention's fundamental purpose, to protect the interests o f the children who have been abducted.