Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez

Background

Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez and Manuel Jose Lozano are parents of a young girl who was living in the United Kingdom. After becoming concerned about the child's wellbeing, Montoya Alvarez left the United Kingdom with the child in November 2008 and later traveled to France and then the United States, where they lived with Montoya Alvarez’s sister. Lozano searched, used the Hague Central Authority, and filed a return petition in U.S. federal court on November 10, 2010, more than a year after the child's removal. The District Court found the child “settled” in New York and denied return; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Hague Convention’s one‑year rule for prompt return can be equitably tolled when the abducting parent hides the child. The Court held that equitable tolling does not apply. It explained that treaties are interpreted by the shared intent of the signatories, not by U.S. background doctrines, that Article 12 is not a statute of limitations because return remains available after one year unless the child is settled, and that the Convention’s text starts the one‑year period at the date of wrongful removal.

Real world impact

The decision means the one‑year clock in Article 12 runs from removal and cannot be paused for concealment; left‑behind parents must seek return quickly. The opinion notes concealment can still matter when judges decide whether a child is “settled,” and that other provisions and discretionary tools may address concealment. The majority did not decide whether courts may order return of a settled child in equity.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito (joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor) concurred, emphasizing that courts retain equitable discretion under Article 18 to order return of a settled child and that such discretion can deter concealment.