October Term 2013 · Docket 12-820

Does the Hague Convention allow courts to extend deadlines for returning abducted children?

A father seeks to return his daughter. The mother argues the deadline expired. The father claims concealment stopped the clock.

Official caption
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The father's advocate stated the mother kidnapped the daughter. He said she concealed her in the UK, France, and the US.

    The mother's advocate argued equitable tolling contradicts the treaty. She cited the Convention's text and drafting history.

    Justice Ginsburg asked where Article 13 appears in the materials. She emphasized the paramount importance of the child's interest.

    Justice Scalia asked where the relevant text is located. He sought specific reference points in the case record.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether equitable tolling applies to the Hague Convention. This doctrine pauses deadlines when a party hides evidence. The father argues concealment justifies a return. The mother argues the treaty text forbids this delay.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 11, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The father wants the court to apply equitable tolling. He seeks the return of his daughter to his custody.

The mother wants the court to reject equitable tolling. She seeks to keep her daughter in the United States.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The father argues concealment stopped the one-year deadline. He claims the mother hid the child for years.

The mother argues the treaty text forbids extending deadlines. She claims other signatory states reject this interpretation.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if the opposing side's position incentivizes child abduction. He noted parents might hide children to delay proceedings.

Justice Kennedy asked if the court uses equitable discretion or tolling. He questioned how a six-month suspension affects the weighing process.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the deadline for returning abducted children. It balances parental rights against child stability. It clarifies how courts handle concealed children under international law.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON