Did the Fourth Circuit below err in concluding—in conflict with the text of the Hague Convention and the cases of this Court and six other circuits'—that United States courts can consider circumstances other than those relevant under the laws of the country of residence to determining parties' custody rights under the laws of that country at the time of an allegedly wrongful retention?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction “seeks ‘to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 168 (20138) (quoting Hague Convention art. 1.). In wrongful-retention cases under the Hague Convention, the question whether a retention is wrongful turns on the parents’ custody rights under the laws of their child’s country of residence at the time of the allegedly wrongful retention. Id. Given the above background, this case presents the following question: Did the Fourth Circuit below err in concluding—in conflict with the text of the Hague Convention and the cases of this Court and six other circuits'—that United States courts can consider circumstances other than those relevant under the laws of the country of residence to determining parties’ custody rights under the laws of that country at the time of an allegedly wrongful retention? 1 Golan v. Saada, 142 8. Ct. 1880, 1888 n.1, 213 L. Ed. 2d 203 (2022); Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719, 723 (2020); Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729, 741 (7th Cir. 2013); Livingstone v. Livingstone, No. 22-1308, 2023 WL 8524922, at *4 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023); Barzilay v. Barzilay, 600 F.3d 912, 917 (8th Cir. 2010); Abou-Haidar v. Sanin Vazquez, 945 F.3d 1208, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Darin v. Olivero-Huffman, 746 F.3d 1, 10-11 (1st Cir. 2014); Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1017-20 (9th Cir. 2009).