Hague Convention child abduction attorney

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a mechanism for returning a child wrongfully removed to or retained in another contracting state. It is a return remedy rather than a custody proceeding, and the distinction matters: the court deciding it is not deciding who should have custody, only where that question should be decided. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. has practiced since 1997 and Mr. Sris is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747.

On This Page

What an Applicant Must Establish

That the child was habitually resident in the requesting state immediately before the removal or retention; that the removal or retention breached rights of custody the applicant actually held and was exercising; and that the application is brought within the period the Convention contemplates before a settled-child argument becomes available.

Habitual residence is where most contested applications are decided, and it is a factual question about the child’s circumstances rather than a matter of nationality or of what the parents intended in the abstract.

The Defenses Are Narrow by Design

The Convention permits return to be refused in limited circumstances: where the applicant was not exercising custody rights or consented or acquiesced; where there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or place them in an intolerable situation; where a child of sufficient age and maturity objects; and where the child is settled following the passage of time.

The grave risk exception is the most litigated and the most misunderstood. It is directed at serious harm rather than at whether the child would be better off in one country, and courts frequently consider whether protective measures in the requesting state would address the risk rather than refusing return outright.

The Convention Only Works Between Contracting States

This is the point that determines whether the mechanism is available at all, and it is where families are most often given false hope.

India is not a contracting party to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention. The Convention’s return mechanism does not apply to a child wrongfully removed to or retained in India, and there is no bilateral child abduction treaty in force between India and the United States. Custody disputes involving India are decided by Indian domestic courts, frequently by writ of habeas corpus, and the United States Department of State operates a voluntary mediation program for such cases.

The same analysis applies to any destination: whether the Convention is in force between the two states, and whether the United States has accepted that state’s accession, is checked before an application is contemplated rather than assumed from the country’s prominence.

Speed and What to Do First

These applications are meant to be summary and delay works against the applicant, because time in the new country builds the settled-child argument. Applications are made through the Central Authority or directly in the courts of the state where the child is, and both routes are available.

Before that: preserve evidence of habitual residence and of the exercise of custody rights — school and medical records, tenancy and employment, the pattern of care — and obtain any existing order. Where a removal is feared rather than accomplished, prevention is a different and more effective exercise than recovery.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Hague application a custody case?

No. It is a return remedy. The court deciding it is not deciding who should have custody, only in which country that question should be decided. That distinction shapes what evidence is relevant and what arguments succeed.

What must be proved?

That the child was habitually resident in the requesting state immediately before the removal or retention, that the removal or retention breached custody rights the applicant actually held and was exercising, and that the application is brought promptly. Habitual residence is where most contested cases are decided.

What defenses exist?

Narrow ones: that custody rights were not being exercised, or that the applicant consented or acquiesced; grave risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation; objection by a child of sufficient age and maturity; and settlement following the passage of time.

What does grave risk actually mean?

Serious harm rather than a comparison of which country suits the child better. It is the most litigated and most misunderstood exception, and courts frequently consider whether protective measures in the requesting state would address the risk instead of refusing return outright.

My child has been taken to India. Does the Convention help?

No. India is not a contracting party to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention, so the return mechanism does not apply, and there is no bilateral child abduction treaty in force between India and the United States. Such disputes are decided by Indian domestic courts, frequently by writ of habeas corpus, and the State Department operates a voluntary mediation program.

How quickly must I act?

Immediately. These applications are meant to be summary and delay works directly against the applicant, because time in the new country builds the settled-child argument. Preserving evidence of habitual residence and of the exercise of custody rights comes first.

About Mr. Sris

Mr. Sris is the owner and founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., which has practiced since 1997. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York. Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with the firm and handle matters alongside him.

Speak With Mr. Sris

The Convention is a return remedy between contracting states only, and India is not one of them. Request a consultation. Reach our location at (888) 437-7747. Consultations are by appointment.

Last reviewed: August 24, 2026.

Attorney Advertising. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., principal office: 4008 Williamsburg Court, Fairfax, VA 22032. By appointment. Call (888) 437-7747 to schedule.

The information on this page is general and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading it or by contacting the firm. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris.