Child Abduction

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 2-4

Page 2

Mr. SK (plaintiff), a United States citizen residing in Chicago, Illinois where he has a successful law practice, and Ms. KP (defendant), a New Zealand citizen, met in the U.S. in 1993. Five years later, they were married in Scotland, and returned to live in Illinois. The defendant became pregnant with S in late 1999.

Due to difficulties in her pregnancy, the defendant traveled to New Zealand where her family could provide support. Later on, the defendant went back to Illinois to give birth to S.

In December 2000, with the plaintiff's consent, the defendant returned to New Zealand where she spent six months; during this period, the plaintiff visited her twice. After the defendant and S had returned to Illinois in May 2001, the former became pregnant with L. Because the couple was experiencing difficulties in their marriage, the defendant initially agreed to have an abortion.

She later changed her mind, however, and once again obtained plaintiff's consent to spend time with her family in New Zealand; there she gave birth to L by caesarean section in April 2002. Recognizing that the defendant would need enough time to recover from her surgery, the plaintiff refrained from pressing her to return. Instead, he visited her three times during her convalescence.

By September 2002, plaintiff began to realize that the defendant intended to remain with the children in New Zealand permanently. He filed proceedings in a New Zealand court to obtain an order for the return of the children and separate proceedings in the U.S. relating to the dissolution of the marriage and child custody.

The New Zealand Family Court held that, although the plaintiff had not consented to the continued residence of S in New Zealand, the actions or inactions of the parents over the relevant time period had caused S to lose his habitual residence in Illinois. At all relevant times, both the U.S. and New Zealand were parties to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, [ T.I.A.S. 11670; in force for U.S. July 1, 1988].

The plaintiff next appealed the decision to the High Court. It affirmed the Family Court?s ruling, finding that returning S to the United States would take him out of the family and social environment in which he had developed. The plaintiff then brought the current appeal.

In a 2 to 1 split, the New Zealand Court of Appeal dismisses plaintiff?s appeal. The Court first stresses its duty to construe the provisions of the...