As a result of its high level of immigration and emigration and its status as common source and destination for a large amount of international travel the United States has more incoming and outgoing international child abductions per year than any other country. To address this issue the United States played an active role in the drafting of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (commonly referred to as the Hague Abduction Convention or simply the Abduction Convention.) Although the United States was one of the first nations to sign the Convention in 1981 the Convention did not enter into force for the US until 1988 with the enactment by Congress of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act which translated the Convention into US law.

Under the Hague Abduction Convention the United States is required to fulfill many requirements designed to protect children from the harmful effects of international child abduction. Domestic and foreign parents and attorneys have criticized the United States for its alleged failures to adequately fulfill these obligations on behalf of foreign and domestic families and children and in violation of international law.

United States Legal System and International Abduction

The law of the United States consists of many levelsSee Stephen Elias and Susan Levinkind, Legal Research: How to Find & Understand The Law, 14th ed. (Berkeley: Nolo, 2005), 22. of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.

The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.William Burnham, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2006), 41. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism. Most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3rd ed. (New York: Touchstone, 2005), 307 and 504-505.Graham Hughes, "Common Law Systems," in Fundamentals of American Law, ed. Alan B. Morisson, 9-26 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 33.

At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally derived largely from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.Hughes, 12. However, U.S. law has since diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure, and has incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

States are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions, state governments, and state courts (including state supreme courts).U.S. Const., Amend. X. They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari.See .

In 1922, the Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in the case of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), that the Federal government's ability to make treaties is supreme over any State concerns that such treaties might abrogate states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

Hague Abduction Convention

The Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty (in force since December 1, 1983) aimed at providing an expeditious method to return children who are victim of international child abduction. The convention was drafted "to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State" diverse from their country of habitual residence, and "ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States."

Although the United States was one of the first nations to sign the Convention in 1981 the Convention did not enter into force for the United States until 1988 with the ratification of the treaty and enactment by Congress of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act which translated the Convention into US law. This was 5 years after the entry into force of the treaty.

Courts empowered to hear Hague Abduction Convention cases The United States has two separate court systems, a Federal court system and a State court system. Both types of courts have authority to hear a Hague Abduction Convention case, as established by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. It is up to the parents of abducted children and their attorneys to decide whether to file a petition for return in State or Federal court.

Although the exact implementation varies by state (also because states are free to adopt their own organizational scheme for judicial matters), trial courts are the general court of first instance to hear a Convention case within the State court system.

United States legal precedents in Hague Convention cases

Since the enactment of the ICARA and simultaneous ratification of the treaty by the United States Congress allowed it to enter into force in 1988, a number of important, and precedent setting decisions have been made on the Hague Convention's interpretation within the United States by federal courts.

Abbott v. Abbott

The first Hague Abduction Convention case to be considered by the United States Supreme Court revolved around whether or not a child from Chile was "wrongfully removed," as understood by the convention, when a ne exeat order existing forbidding the custodial parent from removing the child from the country. The Court found broad acceptance for the view that a ne exeat right, or a right to prevent a child's removal from his country of residence, is roughly equal to "joint custody" and is, thus, a "right of custody." Accordingly, when the child was removed from Chile in violation of Mr. Abbott's ne exeat right, the child was "wrongfully removed" within the meaning of the Hague Convention.

United States Abduction Statistics

The US State department publishes yearly reports are known as the Hague Abduction Convention Compliance Reports (or: Compliance Reports) in which statistics are presented on child abduction. The publication is a requirement by the US Congress and treats both compliance with the convention by member states and information on child abduction cases in non-member states. The reports highlight countries that they are non-compliant with the convention or exhibit a "pattern of noncompliance." Since 1999, Mexico has been cited every year as being non-compliant or exhibiting "patterns of noncompliance". The reports form the basis for statistics on the United States and international child abduction.

An overview about the number of cases involved is shown in the Table below. The table is followed by a country-specific evaluation of the abduction status in relation to the United States. + 2010 Report + Abductions between Hague Convention partners Outgoing casesabduction from the US Incoming casesabduction to the US Convention Country New Cases # of Children New Cases # of Children 10 11 8 12 16 29 14 22 4 5 4 6 7 8 7 12 2 2 2 3 5 8 1 1 1 1 2 5 24 31 7 9 6 6 0 0 74 104 29 39 4 5 5 6 23 31 10 10 11 13 3 5 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 2 4 7 16 21 8 10 18 24 4 7 13 16 3 3 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 9 12 12 15 50 71 18 20 5 7 3 3 7 12 1 2 18 26 1 2 3 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 14 19 3 3 9 14 6 7 3 4 1 1 309 474 75 120 4 7 7 10 7 9 1 1 5 7 1 1 10 16 2 3 10 14 7 7 14 17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 0 0 2 3 3 3 12 13 7 11 8 9 6 7 6 10 5 7 6 8 5 10 4 6 2 2 2 4 4 5 3 4 1 1 10 16 4 5 Totals 828 1195 324 488+ Abductions Between non-Convention countries OUTGOING CASES Non-Convention Country # of New Cases # of Children 1 1 5 7 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 9 9 12 18 3 3 12 17 1 1 3 3 5 8 34 41 1 1 5 8 16 20 23 34 12 23 9 10 6 8 2 3 7 8 1 2 6 8 9 14 14 24 20 25 16 21 5 12 2 3 4 4 3 5 6 7 5 8 3 6 4 4 4 6 9 14 4 5 7 9 1 3 4 9 1 1 Totals 307 427

Asia Only Hong Kong, Macau, Israel, Thailand and Sri Lanka, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are contracting states to the Child Abduction Convention. Of these, Israel has been named several years as having "enforcement problems" in the complicance reports.

South Korea

South Korea has been criticized for its continued failure in returning the children abducted from the United States. One of the most well known International Child Abduction cases is The Tiffany Rubin Story. Korea became a signatory country of Hague convention with the United States in 2013, but continued to show a pattern of non-compliance in the 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. In response to the Hague compliance failures, affected parents from the United States launched protests both within South Korea

and in the US. Extensive level of diplomatic efforts were made from the United States Department of State, including an article written by the Special Adviser for Children's Issues and the direct message delivered by the Secretary of State, but the challenges to recover the abducted children from Korea still persist.

Japan

Japan is -with India- one of only two non-contracting states to the convention to rank as one of the top ten destination countries for the abduction of American children. Moreover, there is a year by year increase in abduction cases. In 2009, 73 outstanding cases involving 104 children who have been abducted to or retained in Japan by parents were reported. An additional 29 cases involve American parties in Japan with one parent denied access to their child. In the 2010 report 79 child abduction cases were mentioned involving 100 children. A State Department official stated in 2008 that no child has ever been returned to the United States from Japan as a result of diplomatic or legal means The official stated he knew of only three cases where children have returned to America, two involving reconciliation of parents, and one in which a 15-year-old child escaped to the American embassy.

India

India is not a signatory of the Hague Abduction Convention and India does not consider international child abduction a crime. Indian courts rarely recognize U.S. custody orders, preferring to exert their own jurisdiction in rulings that tend to favor the parent who wants to keep the child in India. In the rare scenario that a case is resolved, it is usually due to an agreement between the parents, rather than the result of court orders or arrest warrants.

Cultural factors often impact child custody decisions in India. For example, Indian courts rarely grant custody to a parent residing outside of India, even if both the child and abducting parent are American citizens. Additionally, the courts tend to favor mothers when determining custody.

India does require the signature of both parents for an Indian passport to be issued to children younger than 18 years. India also requires exit permits for children.

Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is not a signatory of the Hague Abduction Convention nor are there any international or bilateral treaties in force between Saudi Arabia and the United States dealing with international parental child abduction.