What Do Courts Do Now? The Effects and Potential Solutions in the Aftermath of \u3ci\u3eChafin v. Chafin\u3c/i\u3e, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013)

This Note begins in Part II with the history and development of the 1980 Hague Convention and discusses the intricacies of the international attempt to regulate parental child abductions. Further, Part II introduces the U.S. circuit court split regarding whether the losing parent has the right to stay the proceedings while perfecting an appeal. As this Note explains, such an unpredictable judicial process within different jurisdictions of the United States frustrates the overall purpose of the 1980 Hague Convention, impeding a foreign court’s ability to take the case and offer finality to the parents and children involved. Finally, Part II introduces the Chafin decision, which ultimately decided that, according to the right to due process of law under the U.S. Constitution, a parent who loses the right to custody at the trial level has the right to an appeal. Part III analyzes the Chafin decision, discussing the benefits of having a conclusive structure to deal with 1980 Hague Convention appeals within the United States, while also pointing to several issues that must be resolved before the international system can become a fluid and cohesive unit. Ultimately, this Note suggests that while legislative action would be the most effective means of change, the courts cannot wait for lawmakers to act; they must have a plan to expedite procedures for the benefit of the families involved in such international custody disputes. It is imperative that the U.S. circuits have a plan of attack as the problem of international custody disputes shows no signs of decreasing