Chafin v. Chafin
133 S. Ct. 1017
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Hague Convention requires prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained and ICARA implements it in the U.S.
- District Court found E. C.’s habitual residence to be Scotland and ordered return; stay pending appeal denied.
- Chafin appealed; Eleventh Circuit treated appeal as moot after return and remanded to dismiss.
- District Court later vacated its return order and ordered Chafin to pay substantial expenses; Alabama custody proceeding dismissed.
- Question presented: whether the appeal remains live and whether relief like a re-return or expense-vacatur can be afforded despite return.
- Court holds the dispute remains live and appellate relief may be available; the case is remanded for expeditious proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot after return of the child? | Chafin contends mootness does not apply; re-return relief may be possible | Chafin argues that a live controversy no longer exists once returned | No; live controversy remains and appeal not moot |
| Whether a re-return order or equivalent relief is available on appeal | Chafin seeks reversal and possible re-return to the United States | Chafin’s relief request is not categorically unavailable; merits not yet decided | Relief potentially available; mootness depends on effectiveness of relief on remand |
| Whether the district court’s expense awards should be vacated if judgment is reversed | Vacatur of expense orders may be appropriate on remand | Expense awards hinge on prevailing party status after reversal | Vacatur may be warranted; not moot so long as relief is possible on remand |
| Whether the case should be expedited to align with Convention goals | Expedition essential to avoid prolonged disruption for the child | Expedition should balance interests; stays should not be routine | Courts should ensure expeditious handling and consider stays judiciously for child welfare |
| Whether permitting stay or expedited appellate review aligns with Convention objectives | Expedited review better serves prompt return and welfare | Stays may undermine prompt return if overused | Yes; adopt expedited procedures and stay considerations consistent with Convention goals |
Key Cases Cited
- Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2001) (mootness doctrine applied to Convention return orders but not to merits)
- Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (mootness and injury in fact in appellate contexts)
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (backpay as a non-mootness preserving device; merits not mootness issue)
- Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (concept of events during litigation not rendering case moot if relief possible)
- Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (1895) (early mootness principle related to relief obtainable by court)
- Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2012) (considerations about return orders and cross-border custody disputes)
- United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (1983) (principles on court authority and enforcement across borders)
- Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149 (1996) (partial relief can avoid mootness and preserve appeal)