The Chilean family court entered a decree with a ne exeat order prohibiting either parent from removing the child from Chile at the request of Mrs.

[2] Mr. Abbott brought suit in the US Federal District Court seeking an order compelling A.J.A's return to Chile under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The district court denied Mr. Abbott's requested order and held that the child's removal did not violate the father's rights of custody, as defined by the Hague Convention.

The dissent also emphasized the fact that Mrs. Abbott has the exclusive right to make decisions about the child's education, medical care and day-to-day life.

Contrary to the majority view, the dissent concluded that Mr. Abbott's limited parental rights fall well short of the Hague Convention's requirements for compulsory return of a child.

According to the dissent, Mr. Abbott is not a custodial parent and cannot satisfy the requirements set forth in the Hague Convention for compulsory return of a child to his home country.

[1] The Abbott case was ultimately dismissed because the child turned 16 and was no longer subject to the compulsory return provisions of the Hague Convention.