Supreme Court of the United States

Chafin v. Chafin

February 19, 2013568 U.S. 165

Summary

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that a child's return to her country of habitual residence pursuant to a Hague Convention return order does not render an appeal of that order moot, because the parents retain a concrete, adversarial interest in where the child will be raised and effectual appellate relief remains available both through reversal and possible re-return of the child and through vacatur of over $94,000 in expense orders. The Court rejected arguments conflating mootness with the merits, concluding that uncertain enforceability of a re-return order does not defeat jurisdiction because United States courts retain personal jurisdiction over the taking parent and may back commands with sanctions. It further advised courts to apply the four traditional stay factors rather than imposing routine mootness-driven stays, and to decide Convention cases expeditiously, vacating the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of the appeal and remanding. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Scalia and Breyer, concurred, agreeing on the result while stressing the Convention's demand for speedy and certain appellate handling and urging consideration of expedited procedures and leave-to-appeal mechanisms for future cases.

Holding

  • Whether a child's return to a foreign country pursuant to a Convention return order renders an appeal of that order moot.. No. The return of a child to a foreign country pursuant to a Convention return order does not render an appeal of that order moot.
  • Whether the possibility that Scotland would ignore a re-return order renders the requested relief ineffectual and the case moot.. No. Even if Scotland were to ignore a re-return order or decline to assist in enforcing it, the case would not be moot: United States courts continue to have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Chafin, may command her to act under threat of sanctions, and enforcement uncertainty does not typically render cases moot.
  • Whether Mr. Chafin's failure to pursue separate appeals of the expense orders, entered as separate judgments, precludes vacatur of those orders and thereby moots the case.. No. Vacatur of the expense orders is common relief on appeal; because there is authority that failure to appeal such separately entered judgments does not preclude relief, the request is not so implausible as to be disregarded on jurisdiction, and even a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent the case from being moot.

Docket 11-1347

Cited authorities

  • Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Ab
  • Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Inter
  • Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in 1980
  • Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 6
  • Hague Convention
  • Hague Convention
  • Hague Convention
  • Hague Convention

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF