MARIA JOSÉ CARRASCOSA v. LEO P. MCGUIRE, SHERIFF, BERGEN COUNTY; PETER W. INNES; Prosecutor JOHN L. MOLINELLI
No: 07-1748/4130
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
March 20, 2008
FUENTES, JORDAN, and O‘NEILL, Circuit Judges
Precedential; Argued January 3, 2008
2008 Decisions
Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
3-20-2008
Carrascosa v. McGuire
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 07-1748
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
Recommended Citation
“Carrascosa v. McGuire” (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1343. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1343
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 07-1748/4130
MARIA JOSÉ CARRASCOSA, Appellant v. LEO P. MCGUIRE, SHERIFF, BERGEN COUNTY; PETER W. INNES; Prosecutor JOHN L. MOLINELLI (Intervenors in D.C.)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 07-cv-00355) District Judge: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise
Argued January 3, 2008
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN, Circuit Judges and O‘NEILL*, District Judge.
(Filed March 20, 2008)
Danielle R. Pasquale [ARGUED], Office of Bergen County Counsel, One Bergen County Plaza - Rm. 580, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Counsel for Leo McGuire
*Honorable Thomas N. O‘Neill, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Annmarie Cozzi, Carol V. Catuogno [ARGUED], Office of County Prosecutor, Bergen County, 10 Main Street - Rm. 215, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Counsel for John L. Molinelli
Jerome J. Shestack [ARGUED], Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 1650 Arch Street - 22nd Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19103
Alan S. Pralgever, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 101 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Gov‘t Valencia Spain
OPINION OF THE COURT
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Maria José Carrascosa appeals from the District Court‘s denial and dismissal with prejudice of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which sought to end her detention in the Bergen County, New Jersey jail for violating a civil contempt order issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey. At the heart of this sad case, which raises questions of international and federal law under the Hague Convention‘s Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670 (Nov. 7, 1988) (the “Hague Convention“), is a custody battle over a young girl who has not seen either of her parents in years. Because we agree with the skillful analysis of the District Court, we must affirm.
I. Jurisdiction and Scope of Review
Before reaching the merits of Carrascosa‘s appeal, we first address two threshold issues. The first involves whether the appeal should be dismissed as time-barred, pursuant to
1. Jurisdictional defect
The District Court denied Carrascosa‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 8, 2007 and entered a final order on February 11, 2007. On February 23, 2007, Carrascosa filed a Motion for Reconsideration. She then timely filed a Notice of Appeal in the District Court on March 12, 2007 which stated:
Notice is hereby given that Petitioner Maria José Carrascosa, through her undersigned attorneys, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and28 U.S.C. § 2253 , from a final Order entered in this action on February 11, 2007.Notice is further given that such Order entered on February 11, 2007 is currently subject to a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to District of New Jersey Local Rule 7.1(i). Petitioner shall withdraw this Notice of Appeal, or file an amended notice of appeal, as may become necessary.
(11.8.07 Ltr. Br.1, Ex. B.) The appeal was assigned Docket No. 07-1748. On March 20, 2007, this Court stayed the appeal and remanded to the District Court for the sole purpose of either issuing a certificate of
Carrascosa‘s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on May 15, 2007. She then filed what she styled an “Amended Notice of Appeal” in the District Court on October 23, 2007, which stated:
Notice is hereby given that, MARIA JOSÉ CARRASCOSA, Plaintiff in the above case, hereby amends the Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, timely filed on March 12, 2007, from the Final Order entered in this action on February 11, 2007, to include the Final Order on Reconsideration entered in this action on May 15, 2007.
(11.8.07 Ltr. Br., Ex. C.) That second Notice of Appeal was assigned a new docket number, 07-4130. On November 1, 2007, the Office of the Clerk of this Court notified Carrascosa‘s counsel that her appeal in Docket No. 07-4130 may be subject to possible dismissal for a jurisdictional defect because it was not filed within thirty days of the District Court‘s May 15, 2007 denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, as required by
Carrascosa‘s counsel submitted a letter brief on November 8, 2007 in opposition to dismissal of her appeal in Docket No. 07-4130. The letter brief explains that, on April 23, 2007, her previous attorney had filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, and that Carrascosa entered her own appearance, pro se, the same day. Another attorney argued her motion for reconsideration on May 15, 2007, even though the notice of substitution of counsel was not filed until May 18, 2007. Carrascosa‘s current counsel was retained on July 26, 2007.
Counsel candidly admits that,
[a]t the time this firm was retained, the time to file an amended or a new Notice of Appeal of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration under the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, heard on May 15, 2007, had expired. Additionally, the time to file a motion requesting an extension of time to file an untimely Notice of Appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(5) had also expired.
(11.8.07 Ltr. Br. at 6.) Carrascosa argues, however, that her first Notice of Appeal, though filed prematurely on March 12, 2007, “specifically referenced the pending reconsideration motion,” thereby signaling her intention “to seek an appeal of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.” (11.8.07 Ltr. Br. at 7.) Carrascosa also submits that the Amended Notice of Appeal was filed only “for the purpose of a complete procedural record” because she “filed all the necessary documents for the appeal not [filed by previous counsel]” (11.8.07 Ltr. Br. at 6), and that this Court should not have assigned the Amended Notice of Appeal a new docket number, as it is nothing more than an additional piece of Carrascosa‘s original appeal under Docket No. 07-1748. We disagree.
Carrascosa‘s first Notice of Appeal referenced her then-pending Motion for Reconsideration and recognized the need to file a further Notice of Appeal once the District Court decided that motion. Obviously, Carrascosa was aware of the statutory requirement to timely file a new or amended notice of appeal after the District Court denied her Motion for Reconsideration on May 15, 2007. As we explained in United States v. McGlory,
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) provides that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of one of the motions specified inRule 4(a)(4)(A) 2, including a [motion for reconsideration3], will become effective upon entry of the order disposing of the motion.
Because McGlory filed his notice of appeal from the court‘s January 3, 1997 order while the [motion for reconsideration] was pending, the notice of appeal became effective on September 22, 1998 - the date that the District Court entered its order denying that motion. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) 4. However, in order to contest the denial of a [motion for reconsideration], a new or amended notice of appeal must be filed. Thus, when the District Court denied McGlory‘s [motion for reconsideration] on September 22, 1998, McGlory could proceed with his appeal of the January 3, 1997 order ... without further filing, but if he wanted the appeal to encompass any challenge to the order of September 22, 1998, he was required to file an amended notice of appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) 5. ...
202 F.3d 664, 668 (3d Cir. 2000) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). In this case, Carrascosa‘s Notice of Appeal became effective on May 15, 2007 (Pa. 53)6, the date that the District Court entered its order denying her Motion for Reconsideration (Pa. 28). As we made clear in McGlory, if Carrascosa wanted her appeal “to encompass any challenge to” the District Court‘s denial of that motion, she was required to file a new or amended notice of appeal within the thirty day time limit imposed by the Federal Rules. Id.;
Recently, in Bowles v. Russell, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 127 S. Ct. at 2366. That holding is rooted in the fact that the time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandated by statute. Id. at 2364. It is undisputed that Carrascosa‘s October 23, 2007 Amended Notice of Appeal, which sought review of the District
2. Exhaustion
The issue of exhaustion is relevant to our scope of review because, if a petitioner‘s claim is exhausted and has been adjudicated on the merits by a State court, her petition may not be granted unless the State court‘s adjudication of the claim resulted in “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” or “a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”
During the proceedings before the District Court, Respondent-Appellee Sheriff Leo P. McGuire (“the State“) argued that Carrascosa‘s habeas petition was barred for failure to exhaust state remedies. Carrascosa v. McGuire, No. 07-0355, 2007 WL 496459, at * 5 (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2007) (“Carrascosa I“); see
Section 2254(b)(2) provides that “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the
There is, however, a difference between granting an unexhausted habeas claim on the merits and denying such a claim on the merits, as recognized by the plain language of section 2254(b)(2) and our subsequent decision in Lambert, 387 F.3d 210, 260 n.42. Denying an unexhausted claim on the merits is consistent with the statute.
Though Carrascosa had not exhausted her state remedies at the time she sought habeas relief from the District Court, on appeal, she asserts that “all state remedies have now been exhausted,” and that any question “of non-exhaustion of remedies is now moot.”11 (Pet. Br. at 1.) The State has not challenged that assertion, nor has it made any arguments pertaining to the exhaustion requirement. While the State has not expressly waived the issue of exhaustion, see
The District Court properly proceeded pursuant to section 2254(b)(2), and issued a certificate of appealability on March 27, 2007. Carrascosa v. McGuire, No. 07-0355, 2007 WL 951956 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2007). Therefore, we have jurisdiction to review the District Court‘s decision denying Carrascosa‘s petition on the merits pursuant to
II. Standards of Review
We apply a plenary standard of review when, as in this case, the District
III. Background
The factual background of this case is set forth in painstaking detail in the April 3, 2007 decision of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reported at Innes v. Carrascosa, 918 A.2d 686 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007), as well as in the prior decisions of the District Court, see Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 (denying habeas petition); Carrascosa v. McGuire, No. 07-0355, 2007 WL 1456205 (D.N.J. May 15, 2007) (“Carrascosa II“) (denying motion for reconsideration). We will therefore set forth only the facts most pertinent to our discussion, even though this truncated version fails to fully capture the toxic air of acrimony that permeates the case.
Carrascosa, a citizen of Spain, and Peter Innes,15 a United States citizen, were married in a Catholic ceremony in Spain on March 20, 1999. Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *1. Their daughter, Victoria, was born on April 17, 2000, in Seacaucus, New Jersey, and has dual citizenship in Spain and the United States. Id. “Innes and Carrascosa separated in early 2004.” Id.
On October 8, 2004, Innes and Carrascosa, both represented by counsel, signed a “Parenting Agreement.”16 Id. The Parenting Agreement reflected their attempts to resolve custody issues pertaining to Victoria and memorializes “the terms of a proposed interim resolution of parenting time for Mr. Innes.” (Pa. 59.) It specifically prohibited either of them from “traveling outside of the United States with Victoria without the written permission of the other party.” (Pa. 59-60.)17 The parties did not seek any court‘s imprimatur for the Parenting Agreement. Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *1.
On December 10, 2004, Innes filed an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking a divorce from Carrascosa. Id. Shortly thereafter, on December 15, 2004, Carrascosa filed an action in Spain seeking “nullification” of the marriage.18 Id. The event at the heart of this case occurred on January 12, 2005, when Carrascosa took Victoria to Spain, without Innes‘s permission or knowledge. Id.
Shortly thereafter, on February 4, 2005, Judge Parsons of the Superior Court of New Jersey entered an order governing the divorce proceedings that Innes had initiated. Id. at *2. In particular, the judge ordered that Victoria “be returned from Spain immediately” and that, upon her return, the parties were to abide by the terms of the Parenting Agreement. Id. Carrascosa‘s appeal of that order was denied on March 14, 2005. Id. On March 22, 2005, Judge Parsons granted Innes temporary custody of Victoria, again ordered that she be returned from Spain, and, if she were not, ordered a warrant to issue automatically for Carrascosa‘s arrest. Id.
On June 14, 2005, Innes filed an application in Spain seeking the immediate return of Victoria to New Jersey and enforcement of Judge Parsons’ orders. Id. However, Innes also made the contradictory request “that Victoria not be permitted to leave Spain” because he apparently “fear[ed] that she would be taken to a third country.” Innes, 918 A.2d at 694. While plainly not what Innes had in mind, the Spanish
Court of First Instance, No. 9 (“Spanish Court No. 9“) responded with an order on June 24, 2005, prohibiting Victoria from leaving Spain until her eighteenth birthday. Id.; Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *2. Innes appealed that decision and, on November 11, 2005, Spanish Court No. 9 reversed itself, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Victoria‘s country of habitual residence was the United States.19 Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *3. By December 9, 2005, a different Superior Court judge in New Jersey, Judge Torack, had been assigned to the case and “ordered Carrascosa to [bring] Victoria [home] by December 22, 2005, or face sanctions.” Id. He also ordered Innes and Carrascosa to each submit to a standard custody evaluation, which Innes did, but Carrascosa refused to do. Id.
In the meantime, Carrascosa appealed the November 11, 2005 decision of Spanish Court No. 9. Id. On January 18, 2006, Spanish Appellate Court No. 10 (“Spanish Court No. 10“) found that the October 8, 2004 Parenting Agreement implicitly assigned full custody of Victoria to Carrascosa. See id. (Spanish Court No. 10 finding that the “assignment of custody [to Carrascosa] is indeed implicitly stated in [the Parenting Agreement]” ... .). Spanish Court No. 10 then reinstated the order of Spanish Court No. 9 prohibiting Victoria from leaving Spain until her eighteenth birthday. Id. at *4.
Trial on the divorce proceedings began in the Superior Court of New Jersey on
Carrascosa petitioned the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to
Before us is Carrascosa‘s appeal from that February 8, 2007 decision denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. She argues that the District Court erred both in finding that the Spanish courts departed from the mandate of the Hague Convention and in failing to afford comity to the decisions of the Spanish courts.23
A. The Spanish Courts Disregarded the Mandates of the Hague Convention and the District Court Did Not Err in Refusing to Afford Comity to Their Decisions
The Hague Convention “reflects a universal concern about the harm done to children by parental kidnapping and a strong desire among [the countries who are signatories to the Hague Convention] to implement an effective deterrent to such behavior.”24 Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Hague Convention, Preamble;
a. 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 ... and
b. at the time of removal ... those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal ... .
Hague Convention, Article 3. Rights of custody “may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.” Id.
In short, the Hague Convention is designed to put all participants in a custody dispute back into the positions they would have been in but for one parent‘s wrongful removal of the child. It is not, and was never meant to be, a vehicle for determining custody rights. Indeed, Article 19 of the Hague Convention provides that “[a] decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody dispute.” Hague Convention, Article 19; see also, e.g.,
The District Court‘s decision denying Carrascosa‘s petition properly applied the law of the Convention and its implementing legislation. The Court first recognized that “[t]here is no dispute that [Victoria‘s] place of habitual residence, prior to Carrascosa‘s removal of her to Spain, was the United States, in particular New Jersey.”27 Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *7; accord Feder, 63 F.3d at 224 (“... a child‘s habitual residence is the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has a ‘degree of settled purpose’ from the child‘s perspective.“). This is a fact impossible to deny on the record, and Spanish Court No. 9 agreed that Victoria‘s “habitual residence was in the United States ... .” Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *7.
As to the question of whether Victoria‘s removal to Spain was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the District Court examined, first, whether Innes‘s custody rights were breached by Victoria‘s removal and, second, whether Innes was exercising those rights at the time of her removal. Id. at *7-*8 (citing Feder, 63 F.3d at 225). The Court noted that, “[a]lthough Innes and Carrascosa signed [the
To determine whether Innes was exercising custody rights, the District Court looked at whether he had “any sort of regular contact with [Victoria]” prior to her removal. Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *7 (citing Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1065). The Court then found that, “[w]ithout a doubt,” Innes had regular contact with Victoria prior to his separation from Carrascosa and that, after their separation, he continued having regular contact with Victoria. Id. at *8. The District Court concluded that Innes “exercis[ed] his custody rights in accordance with the [Parenting Agreement] until Carrascosa prevented him from doing so” by taking Victoria to Spain. Id. at *8; Innes, 918 A.2d at 698. Because Innes had custody rights under New Jersey law and was exercising those rights at the time of Victoria‘s removal, and Carrascosa breached those rights by removing Victoria to Spain without Innes‘s consent, Victoria‘s removal was “wrongful” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. See Feder, 63 F.3d at 226 (holding that, when parents are exercising joint custody over their child, one parent‘s unilateral decision to take that child to another country is wrongful within the meaning of the Convention).
The District Court then analyzed Spanish Court No. 10‘s decision, observing that it recited certain provisions of the Hague Convention, Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *9, but that there was a “glaring departure ... from the mandate of the Hague Convention” in its “total failure to determine Innes‘s rights of custody under New Jersey law ... .” Id. For example, Spanish Court No. 10 openly acknowledged that it was applying Spanish law when it found part of the October 8, 2004 Parenting Agreement was invalid:
Therefore, when, or about, January 12, 2005, the mother brought her daughter to Spain, she breached the [October 8, 2004 Parenting Agreement]. However, in Spain such agreement could only be considered a letter of intent therefore no solution whatsoever could be imposed for such breach of contract, as it was an agreement limiting the fundamental rights contained in Article 19 of the Constitution that guarantees all Spanish citizens the right to freely choose their place of residence and the use of such expression in the agreement can not be deemed valid. The incompatibility of this restrictive clause with Spanish law regarding fundamental rights, under the autonomous system of the Civil Procedure Act, implies grounds for a public litigation order and from the standpoint of Article 20 of the [Hague] Convention, in justification for a refusal to return the child, as has been requested.28
Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *9.
Given the “bald statement that [Spanish Court No. 10] would apply Spanish law in
The Spanish courts never applied New Jersey law in this case, despite their recognition that Victoria‘s habitual place of residence was New Jersey. Spanish Court No. 10, in particular, paid lip service to the Hague Convention and then proceeded to apply Spanish law in its analysis. Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *10. The record demonstrates that the Spanish courts made custody determinations in direct contravention of both the letter and the spirit of the Hague Convention.29 See, e.g., id. at *3 (determination that Parenting Agreement assigned full custody to Carrascosa). We therefore agree with the District Court that the Spanish courts “were not acting in accordance with the Hague Convention” and there was “no obligation on American courts to enforce their judgments.” Id. at *7.
In sum, the “Spanish courts departed from the requirements of the Hague Convention in not returning [Victoria] to New Jersey so that ... custody ... could be litigated there.” Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *7; see Feder, 63 F.3d at 221, n.5 (“The Hague Convention ... does not settle custody disputes... .“) (other citations omitted); Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1063-64 (“[A] court in the abducted-to nation has jurisdiction to decide the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody dispute.“); Hague Convention, Article 19;
B. Carrascosa‘s Due Process Arguments
Carrascosa argues that she was denied due process during the divorce and custody proceedings in the Superior Court because she was not permitted to present evidence, or testify, or cross-examine witnesses on the issue of custody. These arguments were not presented to the District Court in Carrascosa‘s habeas petition. They did, however, feature prominently during oral argument, as they were raised for the first time in Valencia‘s amicus brief, an oddity acknowledged therein.30 We are tempted to address these arguments
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court‘s denial of Carrascosa‘s petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed.
Notes
After the District Court denied her habeas petition, Carrascosa filed on February 23, 2007 a Motion for Reconsideration of the District Court‘s decision and, on March 12, 2007, her first Notice of Appeal. We stayed her appeal on March 20, 2007, pending the District Court‘s issuance of the certificate of appealability, which was issued on March 27, 2007. Carrascosa v. McGuire, No. 07-0355, 2007 WL 951956 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2007). On April 3, 2007, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued its opinion affirming the Superior Court‘s divorce and custody decisions. Innes, 918 A.2d at 716. The District Court denied Carrascosa‘s Motion for Reconsideration on May 15, 2007. Carrascosa II, 2007 WL 1456205 at *2. Carrascosa‘s petition for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey was denied without opinion on June 21, 2007. Innes v. Carrascosa, 926 A.2d 857 (N.J. 2007). Carrascosa then filed her Amended Notice of Appeal on October 23, 2007.
Carrascosa also argued, through the amicus brief of the Government of the Comunidad Valenciana Region (“Valencia“), that she was denied due process during the divorce and custody proceedings in the Superior Court. Valencia, a constituent province of Spain, participated as amicus on appeal by consent of the parties and with leave of this Court. As explained in more detail, infra at p. 28, we are also without jurisdiction to review that argument.
We are told that Article 19 of the Spanish Constitution states that “Spaniards have the right to freely choose their place of residence and to freely move about within the national territory.” (Valencia Br. at 15 (citing Constitucion, C.E. chap 2, sec. 19).) Article 20 of the Hague Convention provides that “the return of [an abducted] child ... may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Spanish Court No. 10 determined that the Parenting Agreement restricted the rights of Spanish citizens to freely choose where they travel and live and hence was a “justification for a refusal to return the child ... .” Carrascosa I, 2007 WL 496459 at *9.
If one assumes that Carrascosa is the one about whom Spanish Court No. 10 was concerned – and some comments at oral argument by Valencia‘s counsel indicated that that may have been the case – we can only note that the argument has no basis in fact because, prior to her running afoul of the New Jersey child abduction laws and court orders, Carrascosa was free to travel where and when she liked. Nothing in New Jersey law or the Parenting Agreement purported to restrict her travel at all. If, however, the Spanish Court was commenting on Victoria‘s right to travel, there are a number of problems with its conclusion, not least of which is that small children like Victoria do not make international travel decisions. They are taken on trips by adults, in this case wrongfully. Leaving that aside, however, a fundamental logical problem remains. To say that a country can decline to return a child to the child‘s habitual residence on the theory that the child‘s right to travel is a “fundamental freedom” that would be violated by the return has the effect of rendering the Hague Convention meaningless. Construing an exception in a way that swallows the main purpose of a treaty is inconsistent with what we take to be commonly understood rules for construing legal instruments.
The Second Circuit succinctly stated the issue in Croll as follows: “If Mr. Croll has custody rights, courts in the United States have jurisdiction to order return of Christina to Hong Kong, as the district court has done, and the duty to do so. If, however, Mr. Croll has the lesser rights of access, jurisdiction is lacking and Mr. Croll must rely on other remedies.” Id. at 136. The Second Circuit ultimately determined that, because of the court order conferring sole custody upon Mrs. Croll, Mr. Croll did not have “custody rights” as contemplated by the Hague Convention. Id. at 143. In sharp contrast to those facts, there was no such court order in this case, and, as already discussed, Innes had and was exercising his rights to custody of Victoria at the time she was wrongfully removed to Spain. Under the Hague Convention, the remedy for such wrongful removal is to return Victoria to the United States. Id. at 136, 137.