Chafin v. Chafin

Citation568 U.S. 165,133 S.Ct. 1017,185 L.Ed.2d 1
Decision Date19 February 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11–1347.,11–1347.
Parties Jeffrey Lee CHAFIN, Petitioner v. Lynne Hales CHAFIN.
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

568 U.S. 165
133 S.Ct. 1017
185 L.Ed.2d 1

Jeffrey Lee CHAFIN, Petitioner
v.
Lynne Hales CHAFIN.

No. 11–1347.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Dec. 5, 2012.
Decided Feb. 19, 2013.


Michael E. Manely, Marietta, GA, for Petitioner.

Nicole A. Saharsky, for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Petitioner.

Stephen J. Cullen, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Michael E. Manely, Counsel of Record, John P. Smith, The Manely Firm, P.C., Marietta, GA, Stephanos Bibas, James A. Feldman, Nancy Bregstein Gordon, Philadelphia, PA, Stephen B. Kinnaird, Lisa A. Nowlin, Sean M. Smith, Michelle E. Yetter, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner Jeffrey Lee Chafin.

133 S.Ct. 1021

Bruce A. Boyer, Counsel of Record, Civitas ChildLaw Center, Chicago, IL, Timothy Scott, QC, David Williams, Jacqueline Renton, Counsel for The Centre for Family Law and Practice.

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

568 U.S. 168

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction generally requires courts in the United States to order children returned to their countries of habitual residence, if the courts find that the children have been wrongfully removed to or retained in the United States. The question is whether, after a child is returned pursuant to such an order, any appeal of the order is moot.

I

A

The Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in 1980. T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11. In 1988, the United States ratified the treaty and passed implementing legislation, known as the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 102 Stat. 437, 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq. See generally Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, –––– – ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1983, 1989–1990, 176 L.Ed.2d 78 (2010).

The Convention seeks "to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State" and "to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States." Art. 1, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11, at 7. Article 3 of the Convention provides that the "removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful" when "it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention" and "at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention." Ibid.

568 U.S. 169

Article 12 then states:

"Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith." Id., at 9.

There are several exceptions to that command. Return is not required if the parent seeking it was not exercising custody rights at the time of removal or had consented to removal, if there is a "grave risk" that return will result in harm, if the child is mature and objects to return, or if return would conflict with fundamental principles of freedom and human rights in the state from which return is requested. Arts. 13, 20, id., at 10, 11. Finally, the Convention directs Contracting States to "designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are imposed by the Convention." Art. 6, id., at 8; see also Art. 7, ibid .

Congress established procedures for implementing the Convention in ICARA. See 42 U.S.C. § 11601(b)(1). The Act

133 S.Ct. 1022

grants federal and state courts concurrent jurisdiction over actions arising under the Convention, § 11603(a), and directs them to "decide the case in accordance with the Convention," § 11603(d). If those courts find children to have been wrongfully removed or retained, the children "are to be promptly returned." § 11601(a)(4). ICARA also provides that courts ordering children returned generally must require defendants to pay various expenses incurred by plaintiffs, including court costs, legal fees, and transportation costs associated with the return of the children. § 11607(b)(3). ICARA instructs the President to designate the U.S. Central Authority, § 11606(a), and the President has designated the Office of Children's Issues in the

568 U.S. 170

State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, 22 CFR § 94.2 (2012).

Eighty-nine nations are party to the Convention as of this writing. Hague Conference on Private Int'l Law, Status Table, Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, http://www.hcch.net. In the 2009 fiscal year, 324 children removed to or retained in other countries were returned to the United States under the Convention, while 154 children removed to or retained in the United States were returned to their countries of habitual residence. Dept. of State, Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 6 (2010).

B

Petitioner Jeffrey Lee Chafin is a citizen of the United States and a sergeant first class in the U.S. Army. While stationed in Germany in 2006, he married respondent Lynne Hales Chafin, a citizen of the United Kingdom. Their daughter E.C. was born the following year.

Later in 2007, Mr. Chafin was deployed to Afghanistan, and Ms. Chafin took E.C. to Scotland. Mr. Chafin was eventually transferred to Huntsville, Alabama, and in February 2010, Ms. Chafin traveled to Alabama with E.C. Soon thereafter, however, Mr. Chafin filed for divorce and for child custody in Alabama state court. Towards the end of the year, Ms. Chafin was arrested for domestic violence, an incident that alerted U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to the fact that she had overstayed her visa. She was deported in February 2011, and E.C. remained in Mr. Chafin's care for several more months.

In May 2011, Ms. Chafin initiated this case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. She filed a petition under the Convention and ICARA seeking an order for E.C.'s return to Scotland. On October 11 and 12, 2011, the District Court held a bench trial. Upon the close

568 U.S. 171

of arguments, the court ruled in favor of Ms. Chafin, concluding that E.C.'s country of habitual residence was Scotland and granting the petition for return. Mr. Chafin immediately moved for a stay pending appeal, but the court denied his request. Within hours, Ms. Chafin left the country with E.C., headed for Scotland. By December 2011, she had initiated custody proceedings there. The Scottish court soon granted her interim custody and a preliminary injunction, prohibiting Mr. Chafin from removing E.C. from Scotland. In the meantime, Mr. Chafin had appealed the District Court order to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In February 2012, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Mr. Chafin's appeal as moot in a one-paragraph order, citing Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (2001). App. to Pet. for Cert. 1–2. In Bekier, the Eleventh Circuit had concluded that an appeal of a Convention return order was moot when the child had been returned to the foreign country,

133 S.Ct. 1023

because the court "became powerless" to grant relief. 248 F.3d, at 1055. In accordance with Bekier, the Court of Appeals remanded this case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot and vacate its order.

On remand, the District Court did so, and also ordered Mr. Chafin to pay Ms. Chafin over $94,000 in court costs, attorney's fees, and travel expenses. Meanwhile, the Alabama state court had dismissed the child custody proceeding initiated by Mr. Chafin for lack of jurisdiction. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, relying in part on the U.S. District Court's finding that the child's habitual residence was not Alabama, but Scotland.

We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 567 U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2012).

II

Article III of the Constitution restricts the power of federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." Accordingly,

568 U.S. 172

"[t]o invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990). Federal courts may not "decide questions that cannot affect the rights...

To continue reading

Request your trial
628 cases
  • Motley v. Taylor
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • March 31, 2020
    ...parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot." Chafin v. Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (first quoting Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. , 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) ; and then ......
  • Marland v. Trump
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 30, 2020
    ...Order, as any ruling as to these hypothetical future acts would at present be impermissibly advisory. See Chafin v. Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) ("Federal courts may not ... give ‘opinion[s] advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of fact......
  • Californians for Renewable Energy v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Scott Pruitt
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 30, 2018
    ..."As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot." Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013). "Because mootness turns on the ability of the district court to award effective relief, [the court] first consider[s] the que......
  • Holloway v. City of Va. Beach
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • March 31, 2021
    ...address Plaintiffs’ Section 2 claims of voter dilution which means that the issues are still live. See Chafin v. Chafin , 568 U.S. 165, at 172, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) ("There is thus no case or controversy, and a suit becomes moot, ‘when the issues presented are no longer ‘liv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
7 books & journal articles
  • Where Is the Child at Home? Determining Habitual Residence after Monasky
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Family Law Quarterly No. 54-2, July 2020
    • July 1, 2020
    ...(last visited Oct. 20, 2020). 3. Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010); Chain v. Chain, 568 U.S. 165 (2013); Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014). See generally Ann Laquer Estin, The Hague Abduction Convention and the United States Supreme Court , 48 FAM. L.Q. 235 (2014). 128 Family L......
  • VACATUR PENDING EN BANC REVIEW.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 3, December 2021
    • December 1, 2021
    ...at *10 (6th Cir. June 10, 2020). When a case becomes moot, courts cannot hand down a ruling on the case's merits. See Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013); see also infra Section I.A. But a court may issue orders necessary for disposing of the moot case. U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bon......
  • Mooting Unilateral Mootness.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 4, February 2023
    • February 1, 2023
    ...experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights...."). (26.) Id. (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). (27.) Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (28.) See discussion infra Sections III.B, III.C. (29.) Rachel Bayefsky, Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relie......
  • STANDING MATTERS: BRACKEEN, ARTICLE III, AND THE LURE OF THE MERITS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Vol. 23 No. 1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...(state taxpayers lacked Article III standing to challenge award of state franchise tax credit to manufacturer). (88.) Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172 (2013) (citations (89.) Dep't of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2565 (2019) (internal quotes omitted). (90.) 141 S. Ct. 2104 (202......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT