|The US Supreme Court Building|
The other Judges agreed, and were critical of the time that had been allowed to pass. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented that dragging out the case “is hardly consistent with [the Abduction Convention’s] objectives.”
The US Supreme Court was dealing with one international agreement, which focuses on parental child abduction. However, there is another agreement from the Hague Conference that would help in Eris’s situation. This is the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“the Child Protection Convention”).
The Child Protection Convention contains rules on which courts should take responsibility for resolving disagreements about children and their upbringing. The general approach is that it is the courts in the country where the child usually lives, although there are some exceptions to this.
The Child Protection Convention also has a rule to ensure that litigation is not run in parallel in two countries. This is to prevent potentially conflicting decisions. Under the Convention, a court should not make decisions about a child’s future if it knows a court in another country is already considering the matter.
Last, the Child Protection Convention contains a series of rules so that custody decisions are recognised internationally. So, a parent who does not like a decision taken in another country cannot just ignore it. Under the Child Protection Convention, almost all custody decisions taken in Country A must be respected and implemented in Country B.
The Child Protection Convention started operating in the
in November 2012, so it is still a pretty recent development in custody cases like Eris’s. As at today, it operates between the UK UK and most EU countries, some non EU-countries in Europe, and others further afield (for example, Australia, Ecuador, Uruguay and ). The Morocco will come on board in June 2013. Russian Federation