Jurisprudence that "Utterly Shocks the Conscience": A Call for Courts to Stop Refouling Asylee Children Under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

The article focuses on the conflict between the United States' obligations under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning asylees to countries where they face persecution. It highlights how U.S. courts have generally prioritized the Hague Convention's mandate to return abducted children over non-refoulement protections, often disregarding the asylum status of children or their parents. The author proposes a framework distinguishing cases where the child is a primary asylee from those where the child has derivative asylum status, urging courts to use Articles 13(b) and 20 of the Hague Convention to reconcile these obligations by considering the risk of harm to the child and the human rights of the parent. The article advocates for courts to give greater weight to non-refoulement principles to prevent forced returns that could endanger asylee children or their parents, thereby aligning U.S. jurisprudence with international human rights commitments.