if the law of the country of habitual residence “confers upon the father the joint right to determine his child’s country of residence,” that joint right “is a right of custody under the Convention.” Id. at 1993. On the other hand, the Hague Convention only requires the return of a child if the removal was “wrongful,” which occurs if the parent who removed the child did so “in breach of rights of custody” of the other parent. Hague Convention, art. 3, see note 12, ante. Accordingly, if one parent has lawful authority to change the residence of the child and doing so will not breach the other parent’s custody rights, that parent may remove the child without being subject to a return remedy under the Hague Convention. See, e.g., Shealy v. Shealy, 295 F.3d 1117, 1124 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In cases arising under the Hague Convention
holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined holding that since the basis for the respondents order of removal and the denial of relief no longer exists the respondent has presented exceptional circumstances justifying reopening holding that an interim decision of a court in the resident country was determinative  as to whether respondents action represented a wrongful removal because it granted respondent the right to remove the child from germany in the circumstances presented holding that where petitioners did not simply challenge the validity of their orders of removal but had questioned whether the statute grants the ins authority to remove them to a country that cannot accept them the court of appeals retains jurisdiction holding that when an ij issues a decision granting an aliens application for withholding of removal without a grant of asylum the decision must include an explicit order of removal designating a country of removal