Whether parties to a Hague Convention child custody case may waive rights to seek child return and resolve disputes exclusively in the United States

QUESTION PRESENTED Until the decision below, all the courts of appeals to have considered the question held, consistent with the position of the United States in litigation, that “remedies under the Hague [Abduction] Convention may be waived, and that parents may agree to litigate [child] custody [disputes] in a forum besides the children’s habitual residence,” which is otherwise the presumptive forum for resolving child-custody disputes under that treaty. Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 873 n.7 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, “[i]t is well settled that the Executive Branch’s interpretation of a treaty ‘is entitled to great weight.” Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1, 15 (2010). The Seventh Circuit held otherwise. The questions presented are: 1. Whether parties to a case under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, may waive the right to seek a return elsewhere by agreeing to resolve child-custody disputes exclusively in the United States, and 2. Whether parties to a case under the Hague Convention should be held to a decision to waive, forego, or stipulate away rights, including to argue that the habitual residence of a child is outside of the United States, in the same way as any other party would in an ordinary civil action brought in U.S. court?