Removal of a child from a country without the noncustodial parent's consent is enforceable under an international child abduction treaty

"In Abbott v. Abbott, a dispute between the American mother and British father of a 15-year-old boy that has been closely watched by family and international law practitioners, the justices, voting 6-3, resolved a split among the federal circuits over the meaning of so-called ne exeat clauses in child custody orders.

"The Convention defines 'rights of custody' to include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child's place of residence," wrote Kennedy. "Mr. Abbott's joint right to decide A.J.A.'s country of residence allows him to 'determine the child's place of residence.'"

A sidenote: "This decision is a victory for Sotomayor. "Justice Kennedy's opinion covers much the same ground as her earlier dissent [in the 2nd Circuit case, Croll v. Croll]," International law scholar Duncan Hollis of Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law stated: "It's my sense that the majority here adopts her analysis step-by-step, in terms of looking at the treaty's text, its object and purpose, the negotiating history and other foreign law decisions.""

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202458314102&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100518&kw=International%20Abduction%20Treaty%20Trumps%20Parental%20Rights%2C%20Says%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court#