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?

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