Chafin v. Chafin

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsMootnessArticle IIIHague ConventionICARAArticle IIIcase or controversymootness

Facts

Mr. Chafin and Ms. Chafin disputed whether their daughter E. C.'s habitual residence was Scotland or the United States. The district court concluded that Scotland was E. C.'s habitual residence and ordered her return under the Hague Convention and ICARA; Ms. Chafin then immediately left for Scotland with the child after the court denied a stay. Mr. Chafin appealed, seeking reversal of the habitual-residence ruling and an order returning E. C. to the United States. On remand after the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot, the district court also ordered Mr. Chafin to pay over $94,000 in costs, attorney's fees, and travel expenses.

Issue

Does the return of a child to a foreign country pursuant to a Hague Convention return order render an appeal from that order moot under Article III? More specifically, is the case moot when the appellant still seeks reversal, a re-return order, and vacatur of expense awards?

Rule

A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party. In Hague Convention cases, the child's return to a foreign country does not by itself moot an appeal if the parties still have a concrete interest in the dispute and the court could grant relief such as reversal, a re-return order directed at a party subject to personal jurisdiction, or even partial relief like vacatur of expense orders.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal district court in Seattle orders six-year-old Nora returned to Spain under the Hague Convention. The court denies a stay, and her mother takes Nora to Madrid the next morning. Nora's father appeals, asking the court of appeals to reverse the habitual-residence ruling and direct the mother to bring Nora back to Washington.

Is the father's appeal moot because Nora is no longer in the United States?

Explanation. A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever. The child's departure from the United States does not itself make the appeal moot. Under the majority's reasoning, a court may still reverse the return ruling and direct a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction to take action, even if enforcement abroad is uncertain.