Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12–820. Argued December 11, 2013—Decided March 5, 2014

When one parent abducts a child and flees to another country, the other

parent may file a petition in that country for the return of the child

pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Interna-

tional Child Abduction (Hague Convention or Convention). If the

parent files a petition within one year of the child’s removal, a court

“shall order the return of the child forthwith.” But when the petition

is filed after the 1-year period expires, the court “shall . . . order the

return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now

settled in its new environment.”

Respondent Montoya Alvarez and petitioner Lozano resided with

their daughter in London until November 2008, when Montoya Alva-

rez left with the child for a women’s shelter. In July 2009, Montoya

Alvarez and the child left the United Kingdom and ultimately settled

in New York. Lozano did not locate Montoya Alvarez and the child

until November 2010, more than 16 months after Montoya Alvarez

and the child had left the United Kingdom. At that point, Lozano

filed a Petition for Return of Child pursuant to the Hague Convention

in the Southern District of New York. Finding that the petition was

filed more than one year after removal, the court denied the petition

on the basis that the child was now settled in New York. It also held

that the 1-year period could not be extended by equitable tolling. The

Second Circuit affirmed.

Held: Article 12’s 1-year period is not subject to equitable tolling.

Pp. 7–16.

(a) The doctrine of equitable tolling, as applied to federal statutes

of limitations, extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by

Congress. Thus, whether tolling is available is fundamentally a

question of statutory intent. Because Congress “legislate[s] against a

2 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Syllabus

background of common-law adjudicatory principles,” Astoria Fed.

Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108, including equita-

ble tolling, see Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 397, equitable

tolling is presumed to apply if the period in question is a statute of

limitations and if tolling is consistent with the statute, Young v.

United States, 535 U. S. 43, 49–50. Pp. 7–8.

(b) In assessing whether equitable tolling applies to treaties, which

are “ ‘compact[s] between independent nations,’ ” Medellín v. Texas,

552 U. S. 491, 505, this Court’s “duty [i]s to ascertain the intent of

the parties” by looking to the document’s text and context, United

States v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U. S. 494, 535. The parties to the

Hague Convention did not intend equitable tolling to apply to Article

12’s 1-year period. Pp. 8–16.

(1) There is no general presumption that equitable tolling applies

to treaties. Though part of the established backdrop of American

law, equitable tolling has no proper role in the interpretation of trea-

ties unless that principle is shared by the parties to the “agreement

among sovereign powers,” Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516

U. S. 217, 226. Lozano has identified no such shared principle among

the Convention signatories, and the courts of several signatories have

explicitly rejected equitable tolling of the Convention. Thus, the

American presumption does not apply to this multilateral treaty.

The International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U. S. C.

§§11601–11610, which Congress enacted to implement the Conven-

tion, neither addresses the availability of equitable tolling nor pur-

ports to alter the Convention, and therefore does not affect this con-

clusion. Pp. 9–11.

(2) Even if the Convention were subject to a presumption that

statutes of limitations may be tolled, Article 12’s 1-year period is not

a statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations embody a “policy of

repose, designed to protect defendants,” Burnett v. New York Central

R. Co., 380 U. S. 424, 428, and foster the “elimination of stale claims,

and certainty about a plaintiff’s opportunity for recovery and a de-

fendant’s potential liabilities,” Rotella v. Wood, 528 U. S. 549, 555.

Here, the remedy the Convention affords the left-behind parent—

return of the child—continues to be available after one year, thus

preserving the possibility of relief for that parent and preventing re-

pose for the abducting parent. The period’s expiration also does not

establish certainty about the parties’ respective rights. Instead, it

opens the door to consideration of a third party’s interests, i.e., the

child’s interest in settlement. Because that is not the sort of interest

addressed by a statute of limitations, the 1-year period should not be

treated as a statute of limitations. Young, supra, at 47, distin-

guished. Pp. 11–13.

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3

Syllabus

(3) Without a presumption of equitable tolling, the Convention

does not support extending the 1-year period during concealment.

Article 12 explicitly provides for the period to commence on “the date

of the wrongful removal or retention” and makes no provision for an

extension. Because the drafters did not choose to delay the period’s

commencement until discovery of the child’s location—the obvious al-

ternative to the date of wrongful removal—the natural implication is

that they did not intend to commence the period on that later date.

Lozano contends that equitable tolling is nonetheless consistent with

the Convention’s goal of deterring child abductions, but the Conven-

tion does not pursue that goal at any cost, having recognized that the

return remedy may be overcome by, e.g., the child’s interest in set-

tlement. And the abducting parent does not necessarily profit by

running out the clock, since both American courts and other Conven-

tion signatories have considered concealment as a factor in determin-

ing whether a child is settled. Equitable tolling is therefore neither

required by the Convention nor the only available means to advance

its objectives. Pp. 13–15.

(4) Lozano contends that there is room for United States courts

to apply equitable tolling because the Convention recognizes that

other sources of law may permit signatory states to return abducted

children even when return is not available or required by the Con-

vention. But this contention mistakes the nature of equitable tolling,

which may be applied to the Hague Convention only if the treaty

drafters so intended. For the foregoing reason, they did not. Pp. 15–

16.

697 F. 3d 41, affirmed.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ALITO, J.,

filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ.,

joined.

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 12–820

_________________

MANUEL JOSE LOZANO, PETITIONER v. DIANA

LUCIA MONTOYA ALVAREZ

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[March 5, 2014]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

When a parent abducts a child and flees to another

country, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of

International Child Abduction generally requires that

country to return the child immediately if the other parent

requests return within one year. The question in this case

is whether that 1-year period is subject to equitable tolling

when the abducting parent conceals the child’s location

from the other parent. We hold that equitable tolling is

not available.

I

To address “the problem of international child abduc­

tions during domestic disputes,” Abbott v. Abbott, 560

U. S. 1, 8 (2010), in 1980 the Hague Conference on Private

International Law adopted the Convention on the Civil

Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Conven­

tion or Convention), T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc.

No. 99–11 (Treaty Doc.). The Convention states two pri­

mary objectives: “to secure the prompt return of children

wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting

State,” and “to ensure that rights of custody and of access

2 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

under the law of one Contracting State are effectively

respected in the other Contracting States.” Art. 1, id.,

at 7.

To those ends, the Convention’s “central operating

feature” is the return of the child. Abbott, 560 U. S., at 9.

That remedy, in effect, lays venue for the ultimate custody

determination in the child’s country of habitual residence

rather than the country to which the child is abducted.

See id., at 20 (“The Convention is based on the principle

that the best interests of the child are well served when de­

cisions regarding custody rights are made in the country

of habitual residence”).

The return remedy is not absolute. Article 13 excuses

return where, for example, the left-behind parent was not

“actually exercising” custody rights when the abducting

parent removed the child, or where there is a “grave risk”

that return would “place the child in an intolerable situa­

tion.” Hague Convention, Arts. 13(a)–(b), Treaty Doc., at

10. A state may also refuse to return the child if doing

so would contravene “fundamental principles . . . relating

to the protection of human rights and fundamental free­

doms.” Art. 20, id., at 11.

This case concerns another exception to the return

remedy. Article 12 of the Convention states the general

rule that when a court receives a petition for return within

one year after the child’s wrongful removal, the court

“shall order the return of the child forthwith.” Id., at 9.

Article 12 further provides that the court,

“where the proceedings have been commenced after

the expiration of the period of one year [from the date

of the wrongful removal], shall also order the return of

the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is

now settled in its new environment.” Ibid.

Thus, at least in some cases, failure to file a petition

for return within one year renders the return remedy

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3

Opinion of the Court

unavailable.

The United States ratified the Hague Convention in

1988, and Congress implemented the Convention that

same year through the International Child Abduc-

tion Remedies Act (ICARA). 102 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C.

§§11601–11610. That statute instructs courts to “decide

the case in accordance with the Convention.” §11603(d).

Echoing the Convention, ICARA further provides that

“[c]hildren who are wrongfully removed . . . are to be

promptly returned unless one of the narrow exceptions set

forth in the Convention applies.” §11601(a)(4). Finally,

ICARA requires the abducting parent to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that Article 12’s exception

to return applies. §11603(e)(2)(B).

II

Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez and Manuel Jose Lozano

are the parents of the girl at the center of this dispute.1

Montoya Alvarez and Lozano met and began dating in

London in early 2004. Montoya Alvarez gave birth to a

daughter in October 2005.

Montoya Alvarez and Lozano describe their relationship

in starkly different terms. Lozano stated that they were

“ ‘very happy together,’ ” albeit with “normal couple prob­

lems.” In re Lozano, 809 F. Supp. 2d 197, 204 (SDNY

2011). Montoya Alvarez described a pattern of physical

and emotional abuse that included multiple incidents of

rape and battery. The District Court found insufficient

evidence to make specific findings about domestic violence

but determined that Lozano’s claim that he never mis­

treated Montoya Alvarez was “not credible.” Id., at 206.

The parties also differ as to the child’s well-being during

the first three years of her life. Lozano stated that he and

——————

1 Except where otherwise noted, the facts are taken from the District

Court’s findings. Like the courts below, we refer to Montoya Alvarez

and Lozano’s daughter as “the child” to protect her identity.

4 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

the child had a very good relationship, and that the child

was generally happy. Montoya Alvarez believed other­

wise. In October 2008, Montoya Alvarez reported to the

child’s doctor that she refused to speak at the nursery she

attended, cried often, and wet the bed. Montoya Alvarez

also stated that the child refused to speak when Lozano

was present. The child’s nursery manager wrote that the

girl was “ ‘very withdrawn,’ ” and noted that the home

“ ‘environment obviously had a negative effect’ ” on her.

Id., at 207. The District Court found insufficient evidence

that Lozano had physically abused the child, but did con­

clude that the child had seen and heard her parents argu­

ing at home.

In November 2008, when the child was just over three

years old, Montoya Alvarez went to New York to visit her

sister Maria. During that time, the child remained in

London with Lozano and his visiting mother. When Mon­

toya Alvarez returned on November 18, she became acutely

concerned about the child’s fearful behavior around Lo­

zano. The next day, Montoya Alvarez left with the child

and never returned.

Montoya Alvarez and the child lived at a women’s shel­

ter for the next seven months. After Montoya Alvarez was

unable to find suitable long-term accommodations in the

United Kingdom, she and the child left for France on July

3, 2009, and then for the United States, arriving five days

later. Since their arrival, Montoya Alvarez and the child

have lived with Montoya Alvarez’ sister Maria and her

family in New York.

When they arrived in New York, Montoya Alvarez and

the child began seeing a therapist at a family medical

clinic. The therapist testified that, at first, the child was

withdrawn and would wet herself. The therapist diag­

nosed her with posttraumatic stress disorder. Within six

months, however, the therapist described her as “ ‘a com­

pletely different child,’ ” who had stopped wetting herself,

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5

Opinion of the Court

was excited to play with friends, and was able to speak

freely about her emotions. Id., at 212. When Montoya

Alvarez and the child returned to the therapist after Lo­

zano filed a petition for the child’s return, the therapist

noted that the child was doing well but did not wish to see

her father.

In the meantime, Lozano attempted to find Montoya

Alvarez and the child. Shortly after Montoya Alvarez left

in November 2008, he called her sister Gloria in London,

but eventually received legal advice not to speak with

Montoya Alvarez’ family. A mediation service also sent

several letters to Montoya Alvarez on Lozano’s behalf

without receiving a response. In July 2009, Lozano filed

an application for a court order in the United Kingdom “ ‘to

ensure that he obtains regular contact with his [child] and

plays an active role in [her] life.’ ” Id., at 210. He also

sought court orders to compel Montoya Alvarez’ sisters

and legal counsel, the child’s doctor and nursery, and

various government offices in London to disclose the

child’s whereabouts.

On March 15, 2010, after determining that the child was

not in the United Kingdom (and suspecting that the child

was in New York), Lozano filed a form with the Hague

Convention Central Authority for England and Wales

seeking to have the child returned.2 The United States

Central Authority—the Office of Children’s Issues in the

Department of State, see 22 CFR §94.2 (2013)—received

the application on March 23, 2010. After the Office of

Children’s Issues confirmed that Montoya Alvarez had

entered the United States, Lozano located Montoya Alva­

rez’ address in New York. On November 10, 2010, more

than 16 months after Montoya Alvarez and the child left

——————

2 Article 6 of the Hague Convention requires each Contracting State

to “designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are

imposed by the Convention upon such authorities.” Treaty Doc., at 8.

6 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

the United Kingdom, Lozano filed a Petition for Return of

Child pursuant to the Hague Convention and ICARA, 42

U. S. C. §11603, in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York.

After a 2-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court

denied Lozano’s petition. 809 F. Supp. 2d 197. The Dis­

trict Court concluded that Lozano had stated a prima facie

case of wrongful removal under the Hague Convention.

Id., at 219–220. Prior to her removal, the child was a

habitual resident of the United Kingdom, see Hague Con­

vention, Art. 4, and Lozano had custody rights that he

was actually exercising at the time of removal, see Arts.

3(a)–(b).

Because the petition was filed more than one year after

the child’s wrongful removal, however, the District Court

denied the petition on the basis that the child was now

settled in New York. Id., at 230, 234. “Viewing the total­

ity of the circumstances,” the court found sufficient indicia

of “stability in her family, educational, social, and most

importantly, home life,” id., at 233, to conclude that the

child was settled in her current environment and that

repatriation would be “extremely disruptive,” id., at 234.

Lozano argued that the child should be returned forthwith

because the 1-year period in Article 12 should be equitably

tolled during the period that Montoya Alvarez concealed

the child. The court rejected that argument, holding that

the 1-year period could not be extended by equitable toll­

ing.3 Id., at 228–229.

——————

3 TheDistrict Court held in the alternative that even if equitable

tolling could apply, it would not be warranted in this case because

Lozano had contact information for Montoya Alvarez’ sister Maria in

New York. Lozano’s solicitors did not attempt to contact Maria to

determine if Montoya Alvarez and the child were there. 809 F. Supp.

2d, at 229–230.

Consistent with Second Circuit precedent, see Blondin v. Dubois, 238

F. 3d 153, 164 (2001), the District Court also considered “whether to

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 7

Opinion of the Court

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. 697 F. 3d 41

(2012). The Court of Appeals agreed that the 1-year per­

iod in Article 12 is not subject to equitable tolling. Accord­

ing to the court, unlike a statute of limitations that would

prohibit the filing of a return petition after one year, the

1-year period in Article 12 merely permits courts, after that

period has run, to consider the interests of the child in

settlement. Id., at 52. The Second Circuit concluded that

allowing equitable tolling to delay consideration of the

child’s interests would undermine the purpose of the

Hague Convention. Id., at 54.

We granted certiorari to decide whether Article 12’s

1-year period is subject to equitable tolling. 570 U. S. ___

(2013). Compare 697 F. 3d, at 50–55 (equitable tolling not

available); and Yaman v. Yaman, 730 F. 3d 1, 12–16 (CA1

2013) (same), with Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F. 3d 563, 568–

570 (CA9 2008) (equitable tolling available); and Furnes v.

Reeves, 362 F. 3d 702, 723–724 (CA11 2004) (same). We

hold that equitable tolling is not available, and therefore

affirm.

III

Although this case concerns the application of equitable

tolling to a treaty, we begin with a more familiar context:

equitable tolling of federal statutes of limitations. As a

general matter, equitable tolling pauses the running of, or

“tolls,” a statute of limitations when a litigant has pursued

his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance

prevents him from bringing a timely action. See, e.g., Pace

v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. 408, 418 (2005). Because the

doctrine effectively extends an otherwise discrete limita­

——————

exercise its discretion and repatriate the child even though she is now

settled in New York.” 809 F. Supp. 2d, at 234. The court declined to

exercise that discretion because the “strong evidence that the child is

quite settled in New York” outweighed Lozano’s “fairly diligent” search

efforts and Montoya Alvarez’ conduct. Ibid.

8 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

tions period set by Congress, whether equitable tolling is

available is fundamentally a question of statutory intent.

See, e.g., Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498

U. S. 89, 95 (1990); Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U. S.

467, 479–480 (1986); Honda v. Clark, 386 U. S. 484, 501

(1967).

As applied to federal statutes of limitations, the inquiry

begins with the understanding that Congress “legislate[s]

against a background of common-law adjudicatory princi­

ples.” Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501

U. S. 104, 108 (1991). Equitable tolling, a long-established

feature of American jurisprudence derived from “the old

chancery rule,” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 397

(1946), is just such a principle. See Young v. United

States, 535 U. S. 43, 49–50 (2002) (“Congress must be

presumed to draft limitations periods in light of this back­

ground principle”); Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, 349–350

(1875). We therefore presume that equitable tolling ap­

plies if the period in question is a statute of limitations

and if tolling is consistent with the statute. Young, supra,

at 49–50 (“It is hornbook law that limitations periods are

‘customarily subject to “equitable tolling,” ’ unless tolling

would be ‘inconsistent with the text of the relevant stat­

ute’ ” (citation omitted)).

IV

The Hague Convention, of course, is a treaty, not a

federal statute. For treaties, which are primarily “ ‘com­

pact[s] between independent nations,’ ” Medellín v. Texas,

552 U. S. 491, 505 (2008), our “duty [i]s to ascertain the

intent of the parties” by looking to the document’s text and

context, United States v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U. S. 494,

535 (1900); see also BG Group plc v. Republic of Argen­

tina, post, at 10.

We conclude that the parties to the Hague Convention

did not intend equitable tolling to apply to the 1-year

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 9

Opinion of the Court

period in Article 12. Unlike federal statutes of limitations,

the Convention was not adopted against a shared back­

ground of equitable tolling. Even if the Convention were

subject to a presumption that statutes of limitations may

be tolled, the 1-year period in Article 12 is not a statute of

limitations. And absent a presumption in favor of equita­

ble tolling, nothing in the Convention warrants tolling the

1-year period.

A

First, there is no general presumption that equitable

tolling applies to treaties. Congress is presumed to incor­

porate equitable tolling into federal statutes of limitations

because equitable tolling is part of the established back­

drop of American law. Rotella v. Wood, 528 U. S. 549, 560

(2000) (“[F]ederal statutes of limitations are generally

subject to equitable principles of tolling”). It does not

follow, however, that we can export such background

principles of United States law to contexts outside their

jurisprudential home.

It is particularly inappropriate to deploy this back­

ground principle of American law automatically when

interpreting a treaty. “A treaty is in its nature a contract

between . . . nations, not a legislative act.” Foster v.

Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314 (1829) (Marshall, C. J., for the

Court); see also 2 Debates on the Federal Constitution 506

(J. Elliot 2d ed. 1863) (James Wilson) (“[I]n their nature

treaties originate differently from laws. They are made by

equal parties, and each side has half of the bargain to

make . . . ”). That distinction has been reflected in the way

we interpret treaties. It is our “responsibility to read the

treaty in a manner ‘consistent with the shared expecta­

tions of the contracting parties.’ ” Olympic Airways v.

Husain, 540 U. S. 644, 650 (2004) (quoting Air France v.

Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 399 (1985); emphasis added). Even if

a background principle is relevant to the interpretation of

10 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

federal statutes, it has no proper role in the interpretation

of treaties unless that principle is shared by the parties to

“an agreement among sovereign powers,” Zicherman v.

Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U. S. 217, 226 (1996).

Lozano has not identified a background principle of

equitable tolling that is shared by the signatories to the

Hague Convention. To the contrary, Lozano concedes that

in the context of the Convention, “foreign courts have

failed to adopt equitable tolling . . . because they lac[k] the

presumption that we [have].” Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20.

While no signatory state’s court of last resort has resolved

the question, intermediate courts of appeals in several

states have rejected equitable tolling. See Cannon v.

Cannon, [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1330, [2005] 1 W. L. R. 32,

¶51 (Eng.), (rejecting the “tolling rule” as “too crude an

approach” for the Convention); Kubera v. Kubera, 3 B. C.

L. R. (5th) 121, ¶64, 317 D. L. R. (4th) 307, ¶64 (2010)

(Can.) (equitable tolling “has not been adopted in other

jurisdictions, including Canada”); see also HJ v. Secretary

for Justice, [2006] NZFLR 1005, ¶53 (CA), appeal dism’d

on other grounds, [2007] 2 NZLR 289; A. C. v. P. C., [2005]

HKEC 839, 2005 WL 836263, ¶55, (Hong Kong Ct. 1st

Instance).4 The American presumption that federal stat­

utes of limitations can be equitably tolled therefore does

not apply to this multilateral treaty. Cf. Eastern Airlines,

Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U. S. 530, 544–545, and n. 10 (1991)

(declining to adopt liability for psychic injury under the

Warsaw Convention because “the unavailability of com­

pensation for purely psychic injury in many common and

civil law countries at the time of the Warsaw Conference

persuades us that the signatories had no specific intent

——————

4 Lozano contends that a single-judge decision by an English family

court adopted equitable tolling without referring to it by name. See

In re H, [2000] 2 F. L. R. 51, [2000] 3 F. C. R. 404 (Eng.). It is unclear

whether the logic of that decision survived the decision of the Court of

Appeals for England and Wales in Cannon.

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 11

Opinion of the Court

to include such a remedy in the Convention” (footnote

omitted)).

It does not matter to this conclusion that Congress

enacted a statute to implement the Hague Convention.

See ICARA, 42 U. S. C. §§11601–11610. ICARA does not

address the availability of equitable tolling. Nor does it

purport to alter the Convention. See §11601(b)(2) (“The

provisions of [ICARA] are in addition to and not in lieu of

the provisions of the Convention”). In fact, Congress

explicitly recognized “the need for uniform international

interpretation of the Convention.” §11601(b)(3)(B). Con­

gress’ mere enactment of implementing legislation did not

somehow import background principles of American law

into the treaty interpretation process, thereby altering our

understanding of the treaty itself.

B

Even if the presumption in favor of equitable tolling had

force outside of domestic law, we have only applied that

presumption to statutes of limitations. See Hallstrom v.

Tillamook County, 493 U. S. 20, 27 (1989) (no equitable

tolling of a 60-day presuit notice requirement that does

not operate as a statute of limitations). The 1-year period

in Article 12 is not a statute of limitations.

As a general matter, “[s]tatutes of limitations establish

the period of time within which a claimant must bring an

action.” Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

571 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 4). They characteris­

tically embody a “policy of repose, designed to protect

defendants.” Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380

U. S. 424, 428 (1965). And they foster the “elimination of

stale claims, and certainty about a plaintiff ’s opportunity

for recovery and a defendant’s potential liabilities.” Rotella,

supra, at 555.

In Young, 535 U. S. 43, we evaluated whether those

characteristics of statutes of limitations were present in

12 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

the “three-year lookback period” for tax liabilities in bank­

ruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Code favors tax

claims less than three years old in two respects: Such

claims cannot be discharged, and they have priority over

certain others in bankruptcy proceedings. See 11 U. S. C.

§§507(a)(8)(A)(i), 523(a)(1)(A). If the Internal Revenue

Service “sleeps on its rights” by failing to prosecute those

claims within three years, however, then those mecha­

nisms for enforcing claims against bankrupt taxpayers are

eliminated. Young, 535 U. S., at 47. We concluded that

the lookback period “serves the same ‘basic policies [fur­

thered by] all limitations provisions,’ ” ibid. (quoting Ro­

tella, 528 U. S., at 555), i.e., certainty and repose. We

accordingly held that it was a limitations period

presumptively subject to equitable tolling. 535 U. S.,

at 47.

Unlike the 3-year lookback period in Young, expiration

of the 1-year period in Article 12 does not eliminate the

remedy the Convention affords the left-behind parent—

namely, the return of the child. Before one year has

elapsed, Article 12 provides that the court “shall order the

return of the child forthwith.” Treaty Doc., at 9. But even

after that period has expired, the court “shall also order

the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the

child is now settled.” Ibid. The continued availability of

the return remedy after one year preserves the possibility

of relief for the left-behind parent and prevents repose

for the abducting parent.5 Rather than establishing any

——————

5 Inthe State Department’s view, the Hague Convention confers equi­

table discretion on courts to order the return of a child even if the court

determines that the child is “settled” within the meaning of Article 12.

See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19–25. If accurate, that

interpretation would reinforce that Article 12 is not meant to provide

repose to the abducting parent, and it would underscore that the 1-year

period is not a statute of limitations. But we do not decide whether,

and under what circumstances, a court may exercise discretion to order

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 13

Opinion of the Court

certainty about the respective rights of the parties, the

expiration of the 1-year period opens the door to consider­

ation of a third party’s interests, i.e., the child’s interest in

settlement. Because that is not the sort of interest ad­

dressed by a statute of limitations, we decline to treat the

1-year period as a statute of limitations.6

C

Without a presumption of equitable tolling, the Conven­

tion does not support extending the 1-year period during

concealment. Article 12 explicitly provides that the 1-year

period commences on “the date of the wrongful removal or

retention,” and makes no provision for an extension of that

period. Id., at 9. Further, the practical effect of the tolling

that Lozano requests would be to delay the commence­

ment of the 1-year period until the left-behind parent

discovers the child’s location. Commencing the 1-year

period upon discovery is the obvious alternative to the

commencement date the drafters actually adopted because

the subject of the Hague Convention, child abduction, is

naturally associated with the sort of concealment that

might justify equitable tolling under other circumstances.

See 697 F. 3d, at 51, n. 8 (“It would have been a simple

——————

return notwithstanding the child’s subsequent settlement. In the Court

of Appeals, Lozano failed to challenge the District Court’s decision not

to exercise its discretion to order the return of the settled child, see n. 3,

supra, and that issue is beyond the scope of the question presented

before this Court.

6 Lozano argues that the United States delegation referred to the

1-year period as a “statute of limitations” at various points during and

after the drafting process. Brief for Petitioner 27–28. Because the

determination whether the 1-year period is a statute of limitations

depends on its functional characteristics, it is not significant that the

delegation used that label. In any event, we doubt that the remarks of

a single delegation are sufficient under these circumstances to establish

the “ ‘shared expectations of the contracting parties.’ ” Olympic Airways

v. Husain, 540 U. S. 644, 651 (2004) (quoting Air France v. Saks, 470

U. S. 392, 399 (1985)).

14 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

matter, if the state parties to the Convention wished to

take account of the possibility that an abducting parent

might make it difficult for the petitioning parent to dis­

cover the child’s whereabouts, to run the period ‘from the

date that the petitioning parent learned [or, could reason­

ably have learned] of the child’s whereabouts’ ” (alterations

in original)). Given that the drafters did not adopt that

alternative, the natural implication is that they did not

intend the 1-year period to commence on that later date.

Cf. Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U. S.

___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 10–11). We cannot revisit that

choice.

Lozano contends that equitable tolling is nevertheless

consistent with the purpose of the Hague Convention

because it is necessary to deter child abductions. In his

view, “absent equitable tolling, concealment ‘probably will’

result in non-return,” which will in turn encourage abduc­

tion. Reply Brief 14–15; see also Duarte, 526 F. 3d, at 570.

We agree, of course, that the Convention reflects a

design to discourage child abduction. But the Convention

does not pursue that goal at any cost. The child’s interest

in choosing to remain, Art. 13, or in avoiding physical or

psychological harm, Art. 13(b), may overcome the return

remedy. The same is true of the child’s interest in settle­

ment. See supra, at 2; see also In re M, [2008] 1 A. C.

1288, 1310 (Eng. 2007) (opinion of Baroness Hale of Rich­

mond) (“These children should not be made to suffer for

the sake of general deterrence of the evil of child abduc­

tion world wide”). We are unwilling to apply equitable

tolling principles that would, in practice, rewrite the treaty.

See Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U. S. 122, 134–

135 (1989) (“ ‘[T]o alter, amend, or add to any treaty by

inserting any clause, whether small or great, important

or trivial, would be . . . to make, and not to construe a

treaty’ ” (quoting The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat. 1, 71

(1821) (Story, J., for the Court))).

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 15

Opinion of the Court

Nor is it true that an abducting parent who conceals a

child’s whereabouts will necessarily profit by running out

the clock on the 1-year period. American courts have

found as a factual matter that steps taken to promote

concealment can also prevent the stable attachments that

make a child “settled.” See, e.g., Mendez Lynch v. Mendez

Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1363–1364 (MD Fla. 2002)

(children not settled when they “lived in seven different

locations” in 18 months); Wigley v. Hares, 82 So. 3d 932,

942 (Fla. App. 2011) (“The mother purposely kept him out

of all community activities, sports, and even church to

avoid detection by the father”); In re Coffield, 96 Ohio App.

3d 52, 58, 644 N. E. 2d 662, 666 (1994) (child not settled

when the abducting parent “was attempting to hide

[child’s] identity” by withholding child from school and

other organized activities). Other signatories to the

Hague Convention have likewise recognized that conceal­

ment may be taken into account in the factual determina­

tion whether the child is settled. See, e.g., Cannon, [2005]

1 W. L. R., ¶¶52–61. See also Kubera, 3 B. C. L. R. (5th),

¶47, 317 D. L. R. (4th), ¶47; A. C. v. P. C., [2005] HKEC

839, ¶39, 2005 WL 836263, ¶39. Equitable tolling is

therefore neither required by the Convention nor the only

available means to advance its objectives.

D

Finally, Lozano contends that the Hague Convention

leaves room for United States courts to apply their own

“common law doctrine of equitable tolling” to the 1-year

period in Article 12 without regard to whether the drafters

of the Convention intended equitable tolling to apply.

Brief for Petitioner 25. Specifically, Lozano contends that

the Convention recognizes additional sources of law that

permit signatory states to return abducted children even

when return is not available or required pursuant to the

Convention. Article 34 of the Convention provides that

16 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

Opinion of the Court

“for the purpos[e] of obtaining the return of a child,” the

Convention “shall not restrict the application of an inter­

national instrument in force between the State of origin

and the State addressed” or the application of “other law

of the State addressed.” Treaty Doc., at 13; see also Art.

18, id., at 11 (“The provisions of this Chapter do not limit

the power of a judicial or administrative authority to order

the return of the child at any time”). In Lozano’s view,

equitable tolling principles constitute “other law” that

should apply here.

That contention mistakes the nature of equitable tolling

as this Court has applied it. We do not apply equitable

tolling as a matter of some independent authority to re­

consider the fairness of legislative judgments balancing

the needs for relief and repose. See supra, at 7–8. To the

contrary, we may apply equitable tolling to the Hague

Convention only if we determine that the treaty drafters

so intended. See Choctaw Nation, 179 U. S., at 535. For

the foregoing reasons, we conclude that they did not.

V

The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the 1-year

period in Article 12 of the Hague Convention is not subject

to equitable tolling. We therefore affirm that court’s

judgment.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1

ALITO, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 12–820

_________________

MANUEL JOSE LOZANO, PETITIONER v. DIANA

LUCIA MONTOYA ALVAREZ

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[March 5, 2014]

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUS-

TICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring.

I concur fully in the opinion of the Court. I write sepa­

rately to explain why courts have equitable discretion

under the Hague Convention to order a child’s return even

after the child has become settled, and how that discretion

prevents abuses that petitioner claims will follow from

holding that Article 12’s 1-year period may not be equita­

bly tolled.

The Convention is designed to protect the interests of

children and their parents. Much of the Convention can

be understood as an attempt to balance the various inter­

ests of children and non-abducting parents when a par-

ent abducts a child from the child’s country of habitual

residence.

When a child has been absent from the country of ha­

bitual residence for less than a year, the Convention con­

clusively presumes that the child’s nascent attachment to

the new country is outweighed by the non-abducting par­

ent’s interest in prompt return and the child’s own inter­

est in returning to the country from which he or she was

removed just a few months previously. This is why Article

12 requires return “forthwith” if the petition for return

is brought within a year of abduction, unless one of the

narrow exceptions set forth in Article 13 or 20 applies.

2 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

ALITO, J., concurring

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International

Child Abduction (Hague Convention or Convention), Oct.

25, 1980, T. I. A. S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–11

(Treaty Doc.), p. 9. But, as the Convention recognizes, at

some point the child will become accustomed to the new

environment, making Article 12’s conclusive presumption

inappropriate. Thus, if the petition for return is brought

after a year has elapsed, the court must determine whether

the child has become “settled” in the new country; and if

this has occurred, the court need not order return. Ibid.

As the majority recognizes, this provision of the Conven­

tion “opens the door to consideration of . . . the child’s

interest in settlement.” Ante, at 13.

But opening the door to consideration of the child’s

attachment to the new country does not mean closing the

door to evaluating all other interests of the child and

the non-abducting parent. The fact that, after one year,

a child’s need for stability requires a court to take into

account the child’s attachment to the new country does not

mean that such attachment becomes the only factor worth

considering when evaluating a petition for return.

Nothing in Article 12 prohibits courts from taking other

factors into account. To the contrary, the Convention

explicitly permits them to do so. Article 18 provides that

“[t]he provisions of this Chapter [including Article 12] do

not limit the power of a judicial or administrative author­

ity to order the return of the child at any time.” Hague

Convention, Treaty Doc., at 11. A court thus has power to

order the child’s return in the exercise of its sound discre­

tion even where Article 12’s obligation to order such re­

turn no longer applies.

This provision makes eminent sense. Even after a year

has elapsed and the child has become settled in the new

environment, a variety of factors may outweigh the child’s

interest in remaining in the new country, such as the

child’s interest in returning to his or her original country

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 3

ALITO, J., concurring

of residence (with which he or she may still have close ties,

despite having become settled in the new country); the

child’s need for contact with the non-abducting parent,

who was exercising custody when the abduction occurred;

the non-abducting parent’s interest in exercising the cus­

tody to which he or she is legally entitled; the need to

discourage inequitable conduct (such as concealment) by

abducting parents; and the need to deter international

abductions generally.

Article 12 places no limit on Article 18’s grant of discre­

tionary power to order return. Article 18 expressly states

as much. See ibid. (Article 12 “do[es] not limit the power

of a judicial or administrative authority to order the re­

turn of the child”). Even without Article 18’s express

language, it would be clear that Article 12 merely tells a

court when it must order return, without telling it when it

may do so. Article 12 states that, after the 1-year period

has elapsed, a court “shall . . . order the return of the

child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now

settled in its new environment.” Id., at 9. The final clause

indicates when the obligation imposed earlier in the sen­

tence terminates; it does not substitute for that obligation

a prohibition on ordering return. When a mother tells her

child, “Come straight home from school, unless one of your

friends invites you to a movie,” the mother has not prohib­

ited her child from coming home immediately after school

even if a friend proposes a film. Cf. Department of Com-

merce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U. S.

316, 339 (1999) (explaining that the meaning of a similar

sentence structure in 13 U. S. C. §195 “depends primarily

on the broader context in which that structure appears”).

Thus, nothing in Article 12 calls into question the discre­

tionary power of courts to order return after the 1-year

period has expired and the child has become settled.

Reading the Convention to impose a prohibition on

return would be highly anomalous, given that the “Con­

4 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

ALITO, J., concurring

vention is based on the principle that the best interests of

the child are well served when decisions regarding custody

rights are made in the country of habitual residence.”

Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U. S. 1, 20 (2010). Such a prohibi­

tion would run counter to other provisions of the Conven­

tion. For instance, Article 13(b) gives a court discretion to

return or decline to return a child who has not become

settled if “there is a grave risk that . . . return would

expose the child to physical or psychological harm or

otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

Hague Convention, Treaty Doc., at 10. If a court has

discretion to order return even where such return poses “a

grave risk” of harm or threatens to place the child in an

“intolerable situation,” surely it has discretion to order

return when faced with the lesser risk attendant on re­

moving a child from the child’s present environment (espe­

cially given that the child will generally be returning to a

known environment: her country of habitual residence).

The State Department has adopted the view that the

Convention empowers a court, in its equitable discretion,

to return a child who has become settled. In the analysis

that it provided to the Senate in connection with the rati­

fication process, the Department made clear that, even

when a year has elapsed and the child has become settled,

a court may still consider such factors as “evidence . . .

concerning the child’s contacts with and ties to his or her

State of habitual residence,” “[t]he reason for the passage

of time,” and any concealment by the abducting parent in

determining whether to order return. Hague International

Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis

(State Legal Analysis), 51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10509 (1986).

The Department continues to endorse this view today. See

Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19. As this

Court has previously explained (in the context of the

Convention, in fact), the State Department’s interpreta­

tion of treaties “ ‘is entitled to great weight.’ ” Abbott,

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 5

ALITO, J., concurring

supra, at 15 (quoting Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v.

Avagliano, 457 U. S. 176, 185 (1982)).

So, too, is the interpretation of the courts of our sister

signatories. See Abbott, supra, at 16. The United King­

dom’s House of Lords (at the time that nation’s highest

court) has held that “a settled child might nevertheless be

returned” by a court in the exercise of its discretion—

a conclusion driven in part by acknowledgment of the in­

equity of rewarding concealment. In re M, [2008] 1 A. C.

1288, 1304, ¶31 (Eng. 2007) (opinion of Baroness Hale of

Richmond). Likewise, the Supreme Court of Ireland has

concluded that courts have equitable discretion to order

return of a child who has become settled. See P. v. B. (No.

2), [1999] 4 I. R. 185. I am unaware of any high courts of

states signatory that have concluded to the contrary.

Given the foregoing, it is perhaps unsurprising that the

Courts of Appeals to have considered the question have

found that a court possesses equitable discretion to order

return of a child despite the child’s having become settled

in the new country. See Yaman v. Yaman, 730 F. 3d 1, 21

(CA1 2013); Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, 164 (CA2

2001). And other Courts of Appeals have found more

generally that none of the Convention’s exceptions prohibit

return. See, e.g., Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F. 3d 1000,

1004 (CA9 2009); Miller v. Miller, 240 F. 3d 392, 402 (CA4

2001).

Equitable discretion to order return of a settled child is

particularly important in light of the fact that the Conven­

tion, as the Court correctly holds today, does not provide

for equitable tolling of Article 12’s 1-year period. Peti­

tioner predicts dire consequences from the Court’s holding.

He argues that, as a result of our decision, the United

States will become an abduction haven, with parents

concealing their children here until Article 12’s 1-year

period has run and then claiming their children have

become settled and hence ineligible for return. But such

6 LOZANO v. MONTOYA ALVAREZ

ALITO, J., concurring

inequitable conduct would weigh heavily in favor of re­

turning a child even if she has become settled. See, e.g.,

State Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10509 (“If the alleged

wrongdoer concealed the child’s whereabouts from the

custodian necessitating a long search for the child and

thereby delayed the commencement of a return proceeding

by the applicant, it is highly questionable whether the

respondent should be permitted to benefit from such con­

duct absent strong countervailing considerations”); In re

M, supra, at 1310, ¶31 (recognizing that a court may take

concealment into account in considering whether to return

a settled child). Given the courts’ discretion to order

return in response to concealment, I do not believe the

Court’s decision today risks incentivizing parents to flee

with their children to this country and conceal them.

Equitable discretion is also a far better tool than equita­

ble tolling with which to address the dangers of conceal­

ment. Equitable tolling would require return every time

the abducting parent conceals the child and thereby pre­

vents the non-abducting parent from filing a return peti­

tion within a year, regardless of how settled in the new

country the child has become. Thus, on petitioner’s view,

a court would be bound to return a 14-year-old child who

was brought to the United States shortly after birth and

had been concealed here ever since. By contrast, when a

court exercises its equitable discretion, it may consider

other factors in addition to concealment. While conceal­

ment is a significant factor and should weigh heavily in a

court’s analysis, in appropriate cases it can be overcome by

circumstances such as the extended length of the child’s

residence in this country, any strong ties the child has

formed here, and the child’s attenuated connections to his

or her former country.

In short, I believe the power of a court, in the exercise of

its sound discretion, to return even a settled child pre­

vents the inapplicability of equitable tolling to Article 12’s

Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 7

ALITO, J., concurring

1-year limit from encouraging parents to flee to the United

States and conceal their children here. In light of this

understanding, I have no difficulty joining the opinion of

the Court.