Florida and the Eleventh Circuit
Florida Hague cases are governed by the 1980 Convention, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, United States Supreme Court decisions, and binding Eleventh Circuit precedent. They are return proceedings—not ordinary Florida custody cases—and are designed to move on an expedited schedule.
ICARA authorizes return petitions in state or federal court.
Where Florida cases are heard
A petition may be filed where the child is located. Florida’s three federal districts—Northern, Middle, and Southern—apply Eleventh Circuit and Supreme Court precedent. Florida state courts also have jurisdiction under ICARA, with appellate review proceeding through Florida’s district courts of appeal.
Federal practice may involve immediate service, temporary restraints on travel, passport controls, an expedited case-management order, compressed discovery, foreign-law proof, translated records, and an early evidentiary hearing.
ICARA gives state courts concurrent jurisdiction. A state-court Hague proceeding remains limited to Convention rights and should not be treated as a conventional best-interests or parenting-plan determination.
Selected binding decisions
The cases below are selected starting points, not a substitute for research tied to the particular countries, dates, custody law, factual record, and defenses in a pending matter. Later Supreme Court decisions must also be considered.
The court addressed habitual residence and the distinction between settled purpose and temporary presence. Its older analytical language must now be read through the Supreme Court’s totality-of-the-circumstances decision in Monasky v. Taglieri.
The court examined rights of custody under foreign law, including whether a parent possessed a right concerning the child’s removal from the country. Foreign statutes, decisions, and legal materials can be outcome-determinative.
The court affirmed denial of return based on grave risk arising from serious abuse and rejected reliance on speculative undertakings that were insufficiently supported by the record. The case remains important alongside Golan v. Saada.
The court recognized that sufficiently serious violence and threats directed at a parent can create a grave risk to a child. The inquiry is not artificially limited to violence directed physically at the child.
In a Florida retention case, the court vacated the ruling below because of critical factual error and improper burden shifting. The respondent—not the petitioner—bears the burden of proving consent.
The Supreme Court held that return does not automatically moot an appeal and directed courts to use the traditional stay factors. On remand, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the merits under the applicable standards of review.
Florida litigation practice
How the law fits together
The governing framework continues to develop. A Florida case analysis should confirm that earlier Eleventh Circuit language remains consistent with later Supreme Court decisions and should distinguish binding holdings from fact-specific reasoning or unpublished decisions.
Primary authorities and official resources: ICARA, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9011, the 1980 Hague Convention, the Eleventh Circuit’s published opinion in Ruiz v. Tenorio, the official federal-court discussion of Berenguela-Alvarado v. Castanos, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Monasky v. Taglieri and Golan v. Saada.
Florida Hague case assessment
For an initial conversation, have the child’s current Florida location, countries involved, travel dates, alleged removal or retention date, custody documents, foreign proceedings, communications, hearing dates, and any safety concerns available. Do not send sensitive records until secure delivery arrangements are confirmed.
Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not include confidential or time-sensitive information unless the firm has agreed to represent you.