Whallon v. Lynn
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
230 F.3d 450 (2000)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Richard Whallon (plaintiff) and Diana Lynn (defendant) were unmarried United States citizens who had a child, Micheli, and resided in Baja California Sur (BCS), Mexico. Whallon and Lynn separated. Micheli resided with Lynn, and Whallon was significantly involved in Micheli’s care. When Micheli was four years old, Lynn took Micheli to the United States against Whallon’s wishes. Lynn filed a custody matter in Massachusetts, and Whallon petitioned a district court for an order to return Micheli to Mexico, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (convention). The convention protected the rights of custody to a child, including rights relating to a child’s care. BCS law recognized a type of custody right known as patria potestas. Whallon and Lynn agreed that Whallon had patria potestas rights, but Lynn argued that patria potestas rights did not fall within the meaning of rights of custody to a child and were therefore not protected by the convention. The district court granted Whallon’s petition, holding that patria potestas rights fell within the meaning of rights of custody to a child, and finding that Lynn removed Micheli from Mexico in violation of the convention. Lynn appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
