The U.S. Supreme court granted a father’s request in an international child custody case. The short version is Mom and Dad are in Chile, and have a typical child visitation plan, she had what is called primary physical custody, the daily care and control, and he had a visitation schedule or parenting plan. They held joint legal custody, meaning each had a right to the child’s medical and school records, and a right to determine where the child lived.
Mom moved to Texas, but claims that since she had primary physical custody she had the SOLE right to make the determination as to where the would live. The Chilean Court disagreed with mom, and said she cannot move without dad’s permission.
The U.S. Supreme court agreed:
As the parties agree, the Convention applies to this dispute. A. J. A. is under 16 years old; he was a habitual resident of Chile; and both Chile and the United States are contracting states. The question is whether A. J. A. was “wrongfully removed” from Chile, in other words, whether he was removed in violation of a right of custody. This Court’s inquiry is shaped by the text of the Convention; the views of the United States Department of State; decisions addressing the meaning of “rights of custody” in courts of other contracting states; and the purposes of the Convention. After considering these sources, the Court determines that Mr. Abbott’s ne exeat right is a right of custody under the Convention.
The U.S. Supreme court agreed with Chile under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of Child Custody to which both the United States of America and Chile are signatories, and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) which is U.S. law.
The case is ABBOTT V. ABBOTT decided May 17, 2010 ABBOTT v. ABBOTT ( No. 08-645 ) 542 F. 3d 1081