941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.

DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

ProtectingtheInterestsofForeign
NationalMinorsintheUnitedStates
ThroughConsularNotification:Inre
InterestofAngelicaL.

CAITLINDELPHIN*

ABSTRACT

In a child custody case involving a foreignnational minor, a court

should address compliance with Article 37 of the Vienna Convention on
ConsularRelationsandOptionalProtocolonDisputes.Thepurposeofthe
relevant portion of Article 37 is to protect the rights of a foreignnational
minor by requiring consular notification in the situation that the
appointmentofaguardianappearstobeintheinterestsoftheminor.
ThisCommentarguesthattheinterestsofthepartiesinInreInterestof
AngelicaL.,MariaandherchildrenDanielandAngelica,wouldhavebeen
better served had the consulate been notified earlier. Involving the
consulateattheoutsetoftimesensitivechildcustodycasesthatimplicate
rightsoftheutmostimportancecanhelptoeliminatesomeofthehurdles
thatmaycausedelays.
Angelica L. is distinguished from other Article 37 cases, in which the
courts have found there was actual notice. In other cases, courts treated
consularinvolvementintheproceedingsasevidenceofactualnotice,even
ifthenoticewastechnicallydeficient.IncaseslikeAngelicaL.,iftheparty
can show prejudice due to the lack of consular notice, the court should
offeraremedy,ashasbeendoneinArticle36cases.

* Candidate for Juris Doctor, New England School of Law (2011). B.A., Political Science,

UniversityofMichigan,2005.IwouldliketothankmyeditorsattheNewEnglandLawReview,
for their incredibly helpful comments and suggestions during the writing process and my
dog,Bailey,forhiseffortinkeepingmecompanyduringlonghoursofresearchandwriting.

941
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

942 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

INTRODUCTION

A
n increasing number of children living in the United States are
foreign or have a foreignborn parent.1 As of 2003, 3,072,000
childrennineteenyearsoldandyoungerintheUnitedStateswere
not U.S. citizens,2 up from 2,871,000 in 1998.3 With increasing numbers of
children in the United States who are not U.S. citizens, custody cases
involving foreign nationals will inevitably occur.4 Child custody issues
involving foreign nationals may require additional steps by child
protective services agencies and implicate additional procedures in the
courtsinordertoresolvethecaseinthebestinterestsofthechild.5
Ifacustodycaseinvolvesaforeignnational,oneadditionalprocedure
the court must address is compliance with Article 37 of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes
(Article37).6Article37requiresthereceivingStatetonotifythesending
States consulate without delay in the event of an appointment of a
guardianortrusteeforaminorwhoisaforeignnational.7Thepurposeof
the relevant portion of Article 37 is to protect the rights of a foreign
national minor by requiring consular notification if the situation calls for
theappointmentofaguardianintheinterestsoftheminor.8
OneoftheissuesthataroseinthecaseInreInterestofAngelicaL.was
whether a juvenile court in Nebraska properly notified the Guatemalan

1Amity R. Boye, Note, Making Sure Children Find Their Way Home: Obligating States Under

International Law to Return Dependent Children to Family Members Abroad, 69 BROOK. L. REV.
1515,1515(2004).
2SeeTable1.1:PopulationbySex,Age,andU.S.CitizenshipStatus:2003,U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

(Aug.5,2004),http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/ppl174/tab0101.pdf.
3Compareid.,withTable1.1:PopulationbyCitizenshipStatus,Age,andSex:March1998,U.S.

CENSUS BUREAU (Sept. 12, 2000), http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/

cps1998/tab0101.pdf. Additionally,foreignnationalsintheU.S.arealsoontherise:thetotal
number of foreign nationals in the U.S. increased by 7,190,000 between 1998 and 2003.
Compare Table 1.1: Population by Citizenship Status, Age, and Sex: March 1998, supra, with Table
1.1:PopulationbySex,Age,andU.S.CitizenshipStatus:2003,supranote2.
4SeeBoye,supranote1,at151516.

5See id. at 153841 (discussing the additional state burdens and complicating effects of

placingachildwitharelativeinaforeigncountryratherthankeepingthatchildintheUnited
States).
6See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, art. 37, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596

U.N.T.S.261[hereinafterViennaConvention].
7Id.

8SeeinfraPartI.B;cf.KellyTrainer,Comment,TheViennaConventiononConsularRelationsin

theUnitedStatesCourts,13 TRANSNATL LAW.227,23334(2000)(discussingthepurposeofthe

ViennaConventionasitrelatestoArticle36,whichissimilarlywrittentoArticle37).
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 943

Consulate of the proceedings, as specified in Article 37.9 In this case, a

woman named Maria was deported to her home country, Guatemala,
leaving two children in foster care in the United States.10 Finding the
juvenile court should not have terminated Marias parental rights, the
Supreme Court of Nebraska stated that earlier involvement of the
Guatemalan Consulate would have made the jobs of the courts and child
protective services much easier.11 The concurring opinion in the case
emphasizedtheimportanceofconsularnotification,particularlyinmatters
asseriousasparentalrightstermination.12
This Comment argues that the interests of Maria and her children,
Daniel and Angelica, would have been better served had the consulate
been notified earlier.13 Terminationofparentalrights cases, such as
AngelicaL.,implicateafundamentalright.14Involvingtheconsulateatthe
outset of timesensitive child custody cases, which implicate rights of the
utmost importance,15 can help to eliminate some of the hurdles that may
causedelays.16

9SeeStatev.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,8991(Neb.2009).

10Id.at80.

11Id. (discussing the clash of laws, culture, and parental rights that occur when

[childrens]parentscrossinternationalboundaries).
12Id.at9697(Gerrard,J.,concurring).

13Id.

14SeeSantoskyv.Kramer,455U.S.745,75354(1982)(Thefundamentallibertyinterestof

naturalparentsinthecare,custody,andmanagementoftheirchilddoesnotevaporatesimply
because they . . . have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.); In re Interest of
AngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat96.
15SeeSantosky,455U.S.at753.

16These hurdles include: a lack of knowledge by courts and child protective services

agencies of the child protective services available in other countries, difficulty locating and
communicatingwithrelativesandpotentialcaretakersinothercountries,difficultyobtaining
evidenceanddocumentationfromforeigncountries(includinghomestudiesandavailability
of support), and language and cultural issues. See Memorandum of Understanding Between
the Consulate General of Mexico in El Paso, Texas and the Consulate of Mexico in
Albuquerque,NewMexico,andtheChildren,YouthandFamiliesDepartmentoftheStateof
New Mexico of the United States of America Regarding Consular Functions in Certain
ProceedingsInvolvingMexicanMinorsasWellasMutualCollaboration,U.S.Mex.,35,Mar.
5,2009,[hereinafterMemorandumofUnderstandingTexas]availableathttp://www.f2f.ca.gov
/res/pdf/MOU_MexicanConsulate.pdf; Memorandum of Understanding Between the
Monterey County Department of Social and Employment Services, Family and Children
Services and the Consulate General of Mxico in San Jos, California Regarding Consular
Involvement in Cases Involving Minors, Monterey County, Cal.Mex., 58, Aug. 15, 2007
[hereinafterMemorandumofUnderstandingMontereyCounty](onfilewiththeNewEngland
Law Review); STATE OF ILL. DEPT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVS., POLICY GUIDE 2004.02:
MEXICAN CONSULATE NOTIFICATION OF MEXICAN OR MEXICAN AMERICAN MINORS IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT 35 (2004), available at http://www.state.il.us/DCFS
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

944 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

Part I of this Comment provides a background of the Vienna

Convention on Consular Relations by discussing treaty law, the
relationship between Articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention,
jurisdiction under Article 37, and Article 37 notice requirements. Part II
discusses parental rights and the bestinterests standard as they relate to
termination of parental rights cases. Part III explores Angelica L. Part IV
examines the role of a consulate generally and how earlier consulate
intervention could have helped the court in Angelica L. Next, Part V
discussesadequacyofnotificationunderArticle37andhowthenoticein
AngelicaL.differedfromothercaseswherenoticewasfoundaccurate.Part
VI looks at whether precedent from Article 36 cases could be applied to
Article37casestofindaremedyininstanceswhereprejudice,duetoalack
of consular notification, was demonstrated. The Comment concludes by
affirming that earlier notification of the consulate would have made the
jobsofchildprotectiveservicesandthecourtseasier.

I. BackgroundoftheViennaConvention

A. TreatyLawandtheViennaConvention

In1969,theUnitedStatesratifiedtheViennaConventiononConsular
Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes.17 The Treaty was drafted
after World War II when there was a growing realization that the United
Nations should codify consular law in order to provide specific and
consistentrulestogovernconsuls.18ThepurposeoftheViennaConvention
asstated in the preambleis tocontribute to the development of friendly
relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and
socialsystems.19
Within the United States, the Vienna Convention, like other treaties,
derives its power from the Constitutions Supremacy Clause.20 However,

/docs/PG200402.pdf;U.S. DEPTOF STATE, CONSULAR NOTIFICATIONAND ACCESS 1722(3ded.

2010),availableathttp://travel.state.gov/pdf/cna/CNA_Manual_3d_Edition.pdf.
17ViennaConvention,supranote6.

18Trainer,supranote8,at233.

19Vienna Convention, supra note 6, pmbl. The Vienna Convention enforces the idea of

reciprocity between states. See EILEEN DENZA, DIPLOMATIC LAW: COMMENTARY ON THE
VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 2 (3ded.2008).Reciprocityisafoundation
ofinternationallawandsuggeststhatnationsmusttreatforeignersfairlywithintheirjudicial
systemsinordertoexpectthatthenationsowncitizenswillbetreatedwellinforeignstates.
Id.
20SeeU.S.CONST.art.VI,cl.2.TheSupremacyClausereadsinpertinentpart:alltreaties

made,orwhichshallbemade,undertheauthorityoftheUnitedStates,shallbethesupreme
lawoftheland.Id.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 945

theadoptionandratificationofaninternationaltreatydoesnotnecessarily
mean a private right of action exists for individuals under the treaty.21 A
treatycaneitherbeselfexecuting,whichmeansthatuponratificationthe
treatyhasimmediateeffectasdomesticfederallaw,ornonselfexecuting,
which means that the treaty does not have any effect on domestic law
unlessCongresspassesimplementinglegislation.22Atreatycannotbeself
executing unless it contains explicit language to that effect.23 The
distinctionbetweenaselfexecutingtreatyandnonselfexecutingtreatyis
important because a selfexecuting treaty may create individual rights
without further action by Congress, while a nonselfexecuting treaty
createsobligationsonlybetweenstatesunderinternationallaw.24
The Vienna Convention could be considered a selfexecuting treaty,
which means individually enforceable rights may exist under the treaty
without requiring further implementation by an act of Congress.25 The
Supreme Court found the Vienna Convention arguably confers on an
individualtherighttoconsularassistance.26However,theSupremeCourt
has refrained from deciding whether the Vienna Convention is a self
executing treaty and whether it confers rights on individuals.27 Circuit
courtsand state courts have also refrained fromdetermining whether the
ViennaConventiongrantsindividualrights.28

B. RelationshipBetweenArticle36andArticle37oftheVienna
Convention

Article37oftheViennaConventionappliestoconsularnotificationin

21SeeMedellinv.Texas,552U.S.491,504(2008).

22Id.at505n.2.

23Id.at506&n.3.

24See id. at 50405; VED P. NANDA & DAVID K. PANSIUS, 2 LITIGATION OF INTERNATIONAL

DISPUTESINU.S.COURTS10:7(2ded.2010).Anonselfexecutingtreaty,whilebindingonthe
United States internationally, does not create a private right of action for the individual in
domestic courts. VED P. NANDA, THE LAW OF TRANSNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
1A:18 (2010). So,violationsofanonselfexecutingtreatyarenotactionablebyanindividual
inadomesticcourt.Seeid.
25Medellin,552U.S.at533(Stevens,J.,concurring)(notingthattheViennaConventionis

itselfselfexecutingandjudiciallyenforceable);seeViennaConvention,supranote6,art.37;
Breardv.Greene,523U.S.371,376(1998).
26Breard,523U.S.at376.

27Medellin, 552 U.S. at 506 n.4 ([I]t is unnecessary to resolve whether the Vienna

Convention is itself selfexecuting . . . .); ArrazSaenz v. Colorado, No. 07cv02046PAB

BNB,2009WL3162258,at*4(D.Colo.Sept.29,2009).
28See,e.g.,ArrazSaenz,2009WL3162258,at*4;UnitedStatesv.Carrillo,70F.Supp.2d854,

85859 (N.D. Ill. 1999); Commonwealth v. Gautreaux, 941 N.E.2d 616, 62127 (Mass. 2011)
(discussingwhethertheViennaConventionprovidesforindividualactions).
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

946 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

cases where custody of a foreign national is at stake.29 Article 36 of the

Vienna Convention pertains to consular notification when a foreign
nationalisarrested.30AlthoughArticle36andArticle37applytodifferent
situations,bothdiscussconsularnotificationinsituationswhereaforeign
nationalsrightsareatstake.31CourtslookingatcaseswhereArticle37isat
issuemayfindguidanceincasesthathaveappliedArticle36oftheVienna
Convention.32

C. JurisdictionUnderArticle37oftheViennaConvention

NoU.S.courthasheldthatcompliancewiththeViennaConventionis

29ViennaConvention,supranote6,art.37.Article37statesinpertinentpart:

If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities

ofthereceivingState,suchauthoritiesshallhavetheduty:

....

(b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case
where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the
interestsofaminororotherpersonlackingfullcapacitywhoisanational
of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be
without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the
receivingStateconcerningsuchappointments....
Id.
30Id.art.36.Article36inrelevantpartstates:

1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions

relatingtonationalsofthesendingState:

....

(b)ifhesorequests,thecompetentauthoritiesofthereceivingStateshall,
withoutdelay,informtheconsularpostofthesendingStateif,withinits
consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to the
prisonortocustodypendingtrialorisdetainedinanyothermanner....
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be
exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving
State,subjecttotheproviso,however,thatthesaidlawsandregulations
must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights
accordedunderthisarticleareintended.
Id.
31Compareid.([C]ompetentauthoritiesofthereceivingStateshall,withoutdelay,inform

theconsularpostofthesendingStateif...anationalofthatStateisarrested....),withid.
art. 37 ([T]he competent authorities of the receiving State, . . . shall have the duty . . . to
inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a
guardianortrusteeappearstobeintheinterestsofaminor....).
32See,e.g.,E.R.v.MarionCnty.OfficeofFamily&Children,719N.E.2d1052(Ind.Ct.App.

2000);seealsosupranotes2931andaccompanyingtext.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 947

a requirement for a court to have jurisdiction; in fact, courts have

commonly held that compliance with the Vienna Convention is not a
jurisdictional prerequisite.33 Some courts have assum[ed] without
deciding that compliance with the Vienna Convention is a jurisdictional
prerequisite.34 Other courts have determined that compliance with the
Vienna Convention is not a prerequisite.35 The court in In re Stephanie M.
heldthatcomplianceisnotajurisdictionalprerequisiteandthuswasable
tohearthecasedespitefindingtherewasalackofcompliancewithArticle
37.36 The court looked to the language of Article 5 of the Vienna
Convention, which the court read as expressly stating that the receiving
courtsjurisdictionisinnowaydependentoncompliancewithArticle37.37
Other courts have held that a showing of prejudice is required for
jurisdiction to be improper under the Vienna Convention.38 In Breard v.
Greene,anArticle36case,theSupremeCourtfoundthatnoprejudicewas
shown because Breards attorney was likely able to explain the U.S. legal
system to Breard far better than a consular official.39 Similarly in E.R., an
Article 37 case,40 the court found no prejudice because there was no
indication that the proceedings would have been altered in any manner
hadtheMexicanConsulatebeennotifiedearlier.41

33See, e.g., Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 37677 (1998); Carrillo, 70 F. Supp. 2d at 860

(statingdismissalisnotanappropriateremedyforatreatyviolation);E.R.,729N.E.2dat1059.
34Statev.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,90(Neb.2009).

35SanDiegoCnty.DeptofSoc.Servs.v.NormaM.(InreStephanieM.),867P.2d706,712

13(Cal.1994).
36Id.

37Id.Thecourtspecificallycitedsectionh,requiringconsularaidbeconductedwithinthe

limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State and section i, stating
consularaidissubjecttothepracticesandproceduresobtain[ed]inthereceivingState.Id.
at 712 (quoting Vienna Convention supra note 6, art. 5(h)(i)). From these sections the court
concludedthattheViennaConventionexpresslyprovidesthattheoperationofthereceiving
stateslawsisinnowaydependentuponthenoticeprescribedbytheConvention.Id.at713.
38See,e.g.,Breard,523U.S.at377;E.R.,729N.E.2dat105758.

39Breard,523U.S.at377.

40E.R.isacaseinwhichthechildrenofMexicannationalswereplacedinfostercareinthe

UnitedStatesduringanactiontoterminateparentalrights.E.R.,729N.E.2dat105354.Inthat
waythecaseissimilartoAngelicaL.,wheretwochildrenofaGuatemalannationalwereheld
infostercareinNebraskaduringaproceedingregardingterminationofparentalrights.State
v.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,8183(2009).
41E.R.,729N.E.2dat1058.Inthiscase,actualnoticetotheMexicanConsulatewasgivenby

thefatherofthechildrenpriortoahearingheldtwomonthsafterthechildrenwereremoved
from the home. Id. at 1056. The court found that a party rather than the state gave actual
notice,butthenoticenonethelessservedthepurposesoftheViennaConvention.Id.at1057.
Additionally, the notice given to the consulate led to the consulates participation in the
proceedings.Id.Thecourtfoundnoindicationthattheproceedingswouldhavebeenaffected
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

948 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

D. NoticeRequirementUnderArticle37

Courts have found that any notice to the consulate fulfills the notice
requirement under Article 37.42 In E.R., the court held that notice to the
consulate was proper when carried out by the parents against whom the
countybroughtthesuit.43Inthiscase,therecordcontainedaletterwritten
to the parents counsel from the Mexican Consulate, which satisfied the
courtthattheconsulatewasawareoftheproceedings.44
Inanothercase,theminorsauntsattorneynotifiedtheconsulate;the
court held that notice was proper after a representative of the consulate
testified that the attorney had notified the consulate of the case.45 In the
above cases, the courts determined that although the consulate was not
notifiedinthemannerspecifiedinArticle37,theViennaConventionwas
fulfilled in spirit because the consulate had actual notification of the
proceedings,asevidencedbytheconsulatesinvolvementinthecases.46

II. ParentalRightsandBestInterests

Aparentsrighttoraiseherchildisafundamentallibertybasedonthe
substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.47 The
fundamentallibertyinterestofparentsinthecare,custody,andcontrolof
their childrenis perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests
recognized by [the Supreme] Court.48 Since parental rights are so
important, a court must use the heightened clear and convincing
evidencestandardwhendecidingaparentalrightscase.49
A court presumes that a parent has the best interests of the child in
mind.50 Without a showing of actual harm to the child, a parents
fundamentallibertyinteresttakesprecedenceover[any]bestinterestsof
the child determination made by the court.51 Actual harm to the child

hadtheconsulatebeennotifiedearlierorinadifferentmanner.Id.at105658.
42Seeid.at1057.

43Id.at1057.
44Id.at1057&n.9.

45InreL.A.M.,996P.2d839,841(Kan.2000).

46SeeE.R.,729N.E.2dat1057;InreL.A.M.,996P.2dat840.

47Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 74748, 753 (1982) (The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment demands more . . . . Before a State may sever completely and
irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State
supportitsallegationsbyatleastclearandconvincingevidence.).
48Troxelv.Granville,530U.S.57,65(2000)(pluralityopinion).

49Santosky,455U.S.at769.

50See Andrew L. Weinstein, Comment, The Crossroads of a Legal Fiction and the Reality of

Families,61ME.L.REV.319,324(2009)(citingTroxel,530U.S.at68(pluralityopinion)).
51RenaM.Lindevaldsen,SacrificingMotherhoodontheAltarofPoliticalCorrectness:Declaring
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 949

consistsofaseriousriskofpsychologicalorphysicalinjury.52Whenthe
child is actually harmed, a determination of the childs best interests
supersedes the parents fundamental right to the care, custody, and
controloftheirchildren.53

III. InreInterestofAngelicaL.

A. Facts

Maria, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, left her son

DanielwithhersisterduringatripbacktoGuatemalatocareforhersick
mother.54 In January 2004, Maria gave birth to Angelica during her trip
back across the U.S. border.55 Upon arriving back in the United States,
Maria went to Michigan, picked up Daniel, and then settled with Daniel
andAngelicainNebraska.56
On April 3, 2005, Maria brought Angelica to the hospital because she
was sick.57 The doctor, upon finding out Marias citizenship status, told
MariathatifshedidnotbringAngelicabackforafollowupvisitinthree
days, she would suggest that Maria be deported.58 When Maria failed to
bringAngelicainforafollowupvisit,shewasvisitedbythepolice,who
arrested her when she misidentified herself; subsequently, the U.S.
ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcementtookherintocustody.59Following
Marias arrest, Daniel was placed into protective custody, and Angelica
was hospitalized for four days and released into foster care once her
symptomswereundercontrol.60

B. ProceduralHistory

ThecourtheldaninitialhearingonApril13,2005regardingtheStates
allegations against Maria.61 Maria attended this hearing without

aLegalStrangertobeaParentovertheObjectionsoftheChildsBiologicalParent,21REGENT U. L.
REV.1,45(2009)(quotingGriffinv.Griffin,581S.E.2d899,903(2003)).
52JoshGuptaKagan,Children,Kin,andCourt:DesigningThirdPartyCustodyPolicytoProtect

Children,ThirdParties,andParents,12N.Y.U.J.LEGIS.&PUB.POLY43,95(2008).
53SeeTroxel,530U.S.at65(pluralityopinion);Lindevaldsen,supranote51,at45.

54Statev.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,80(Neb.2009).

55Id.

56Id.

57Id.at81.

58Seeid.

59Id.at8182.

60InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat82.

61Id.TheStatesallegationsagainstMariawerethatAngelicaandDaniel:
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

950 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

representation.62TheStateinformedMariaoftheallegationsandherrights
through a Spanishlanguage interpreter.63 The juvenile court determined
that Angelica and Daniel would remain in foster care while Maria was
incarceratedandaftershewasdeportedbecauseofconcerns...fortheir
safety.64ThejuvenilecourtsettheadjudicationhearingforJuly11,2005.65
Maria was not present at this hearingbecause shewas in Guatemala, but
counsel representing her attended.66 The juvenile court determined that
Mariaandherchildrenwouldnotbeimmediatelyreunitedduetoconcerns
for the health, safety, and welfare of the children because Maria was
backinGuatemala.67ThejuvenilecourtorderedtheDepartmentofHealth
andHumanServices(DHHS)toprepareacaseplanwithapermanency
goalofreunification.68
The passage of fifteen months with the children in foster care,
combined with Marias failure to strictly comply with the case plan,
triggered the State to file for termination of Marias parental rights.69 The
hearing was continued several times until Maria could get permission to
come to the United States.70 At the hearing, the juvenile court rejected
Mariasargumentthatthecourtlackedjurisdictionduetoviolationsofthe
Vienna Convention.71 The juvenile court terminated Marias parental
rights, which it justified with the finding that Maria failed to strictly
complywiththecaseplan;additionally,thecourtdeterminedDanieland
AngelicaneverlivedinGuatemala,andtheyweredoingwellintheUnited

lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of Maria

(count I); because Maria neglected or refused to provide proper or
necessary assistance, education, or other care necessary for their health
morals or well being (count II); and because they were in a situation or
engaged in an occupation dangerous to their life or limb or injurious to
theirhealth(countIII).
Id.
62Id.
63Id.

64Id.

65Id.

66InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat82.

67Id. at 8283. The Supreme Court of Nebraska indicated that in its decision at the

adjudication hearing, the juvenile court seemed to ignore the overwhelming evidence of
Marias parental fitness, instead determining the children would be better off living in the
UnitedStatesthaninGuatemala.Id.at9394.
68Id.at83.

69Id.at84.

70Id.

71Id.at87.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 951

States.72
Mariafiledamotionforanewtrialonthebasisthatnewevidencewas
available to show she had complied with the case plan by completing a
parenting class.73 Maria testified that the court never asked about the
parenting class, and she had trouble understanding the proceedings
because her native language was Quich, her second language was
Spanish,andeveryoneattheproceedingsspoketoofast.74Thecourtdenied
themotionforanewtrial,andMariaappealed.75

C. OpinionoftheSupremeCourtofNebraska

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nebraska addressed Marias

allegation that DHHS failed to comply with Article 37 of the Vienna
Convention.76Mariaarguedthatbecausesomuchtimehadlapsedbefore
DHHS notified the consulate, the purpose of the Vienna Convention was
defeated.77 Assuming without deciding that compliance with the Vienna
Conventionwasajurisdictionalprerequisite,thecourtlookedtotherecord
andfoundthattherewasconflictingtestimonywithregardtowhetherand
when the consulate was notified.78 Upon examining the record, the court
explainedthattheycannotsay...thatthejuvenilecourtsfindingthatthe
State complied with the Vienna Convention was erroneous.79 The court
foundthattheStatefailedtoprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethat
terminationofMariasparentalrightswouldserveAngelicasandDaniels
best interests.80 The State failed to consider Marias commanding
constitutionalinterest,andnothingintherecordestablishe[d]thatMaria
[was]anunfitparent.81
The court concluded that evidence was insufficient to terminate

72InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat8788.
73Id.at88.

74Id.at80,88.
75Id.at88.
76Id.at89.

77Id.

78InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat90(explainingthatthejuvenilecourtbelieved

theDHHSworkerstestimonyoverthatof theconsulateandthatnootherevidencebesides
thattestimonywasadmittedshowingconsularnotification).
79Id.at9091.Theconcurringopinionstatedthatsincethepurposeoftheproceedingwas

to protect the juveniles best interests, which may be aided by the early involvement of a
foreign consulate, the court should strive to fully comply with the intention of the Vienna
Convention.Id.at9697(Gerrard,J.,concurring).
80Id.at96(majorityopinion);seesupranotes4751andaccompanyingtext.

81InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat9293.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

952 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

Mariasparentalrights.82Additionally,itfoundthetasksofthecourtsand
child protection workers would have been much easier had the
Guatemalan Consulate been included in the proceedings earlier.83 After
more than four years and several foster homes, Maria and her children
werefinallyabletoreunite.84

IV. ConsularInvolvement:MakingtheRoleoftheCourtsandChild
ProtectiveServicesEasier85

A. RoleofConsulateGenerally

Consularinvolvementattheoutsetoflegalactionsinvolvingcustody
orguardianshipofaminorforeignnationalcanhelptoeliminatesomeof
the hurdles that may cause delays in the resolution of the case.86 The
consulate can assist with discrete legal matters, such as language and
cultural barriers.87 Consular notification early in the legal process is
importantbecausetheconsulatemayprovideassistancewithlegalmatters
that could affect the outcome of the case.88 In one case where a foreign
nationalparentdied,theConsulatenotifiedthechildrensclosestmaternal
relative.89 The Consulate then aided the aunt in obtaining the necessary
documents to enter the United States and remain in the country during
legalproceedingsregardingthechildren.90
In another case, a grandmother who lived in Mexico was seeking

82Id.at9296.

83Id.at80,96;seeinfraPartIV.B

84SeeInreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat83(explainingMariaslongtermseparation

fromAngelicaandherinabilitytoinitiatecontactwithherchildren).
85Id.at80.

86SeeMemorandumofUnderstandingMontereyCounty,supranote16,at5,8.
87Seeid.at8;infranotes9198.Undertheagreement,oncenotified,theMexicanconsulate

will work with DIF (the Mexican child protective services) and assist in obtaining home
studies, provide necessary services to parents or caretakers in Mexico in anticipation of
placementofthechildwiththatindividual,andadditionallyhelptofindindividualsinvolved
in cases involving minors and attempt to properly notify those individuals of court
appearances.MemorandumofUnderstandingMontereyCounty,supranote16,at8.
88InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat97(Gerrard,J.,concurring);seeSanDiegoCnty.

Dept of Soc. Servs. v. Norma M. (In re Stephanie M.), 867 P.2d 706, 717 (Cal. 1994) (finding
thattheconsulatereceivedactualnoticeintimeforthegrandmothertoactuallyenlisttheaid
oftheconsulateduringtheproceedings);InreL.A.M.,996P.2d839,841(Kan.2000)(holding
thatnoticebytheminorsauntsattorneywassufficienttofulfillthepurposeandintentofthe
treatybecausetheconsulatestillactivelyparticipatedinthetrial).
89InreL.A.M.,996P.2dat841.

90Id. (finding notice to uphold the purpose and intent of the treaty and stating that the

consulatewouldnothaveacteddifferentlyifastatepartyhadprovidednotification).
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 953

custodyofhergrandchildrenwhowereinfostercareintheUnitedStates.91
TheConsulatewrotealettertothejuvenilecourtaskingittoconsiderthe
grandmothersinterestincustodyandtheMexicansocialserviceagencys
favorable report of the grandmother.92 Two representatives of the
Consulatealsoattendedcourtwiththegrandmotherandhercounsel.93
TheU.S.DepartmentofStateshandbookforlawenforcementofficials
regardingconsularnotificationsaysthatconsularinvolvementmayvary.94
However, the actions a consular officer may be expected to take include
arranginglegalrepresentation,monitor[ing]theprogressofthecase,and
seek[ing]toensurethattheforeignnationalreceivesafairtrial.95Oneofa
consulatesprimarydutiesistorenderassistancetoitscitizens,particularly
when a foreign national is facing trial under a local legal system.96 The
consular official can explain the legal system, including the right to an
attorney.97 Bridging the cultural gap between a foreign nationals home
country and the U.S. legal system is one of the main functions of a
consulatebothtraditionallyandundertheViennaConvention.98

B. EarlierConsularInvolvementinAngelicaL.

In Angelica L., earlier consular notification could have increased the

chances of consular involvement in the proceedings. If the consulate had
been notified earlier, the task of the child protection workers, and
consequently [the courts] task, would have been much easier.99 Marias
casewasnotresolvedpositivelyinthejuvenilecourtpartiallybecausethe
juvenile court found she did not strictly comply with her case plan.100
However,thejuvenilecourtwasnotmadefullyawareofMariasefforts.101
Maria was rarely contacted by her caseworker, and DHHS seemed

91InreStephanieM.,867P.2dat710.

92Id.

93Id.Thecourtfoundherethattheconsulatehadactualnoticeoftheproceedings,andthe

grandmotheractuallyreceivedaidfromtheconsulate.Id.at717.
94SeeU.S.DEPTOFSTATE,supranote16,at22.
95Id.at31.
96Trainer,supranote8,at234.

97Ann K. Wooster, Annotation, Construction and Application of Vienna Convention on

ConsularRelations(VCCR),RequiringthatForeignConsulateBeNotifiedWhenOneofitsNationals
isArrested,175A.L.R.FED.243,254(2002).
98SeeTrainer,supranote8,at229.

99State v. Maria L. (In re Interest of Angelica L.), 767 N.W.2d 74, 80 (Neb. 2009). The

consulatecouldhavehelpedprovideforadequatelegalcounselorarrangedforMariatobein
thecountryforhearings.SeeInreL.A.M.,996P.2d839,840(Kan.2000);U.S. DEPTOF STATE,
supranote16,at3132.
100InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat88.

101Id.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

954 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

unawareofthechildprotectiveservicesavailableinGuatemala.102Hadthe
consulatebeenactivelyinvolvedatanearliertime,itcouldhavefacilitated
bettercontactbetweenMariaandDHHS.103Forexample,inStephanieM.,a
Mexican grandmother was seeking custody of her grandchildren, who
lived in California, through a juvenile court in California.104 The juvenile
court in California heard from the Mexican Consulate on the
grandmothersbehalf.105TheConsulGeneralofMexicoevenwrotealetter
to the court explaining the grandmothers demonstrated interest in the
children.106TheletterexplainedthatareviewbytheMexicansocialservice
agencydeterminedthegrandmothercouldadequatelycareforthechild.107
In Angelica L., like in Stephanie M., the consulate could have assisted
with informing DHHS and the juvenile court about the child services
available in Guatemala.108 The record of Angelica L. even contains letters
fromtheGuatemalanConsulateGeneralinMiami,Floridaindicatingthat
there were services available in Guatemala to monitor and protect the
children.109 Additionally, the letters indicate that transportation would be
made available for the children to return to Guatemala to live with
Maria.110 However, neitherDHHS nor the juvenile court furtherinformed
the Guatemalan Consulate of the proceedings.111 Had the consulate been
further informed and involved, it could have facilitated a greater
awareness of Marias compliance with her case plan and the services
available in Guatemala.112 If the juvenile court was better informed of
Marias efforts to comply and the availability of protective services in
Guatemala,itmayhavedeterminedthatterminationofparentalrightswas
not in the best interests of the children and reunited Maria with her
childrenearlier.113
The consulate could also have helped with the language barrier.114
Maria spoke Quich as her first language, but during her trial in the

102Seeid.at9495.
103SeegenerallySanDiegoCnty.DeptofSoc.Servs.v.NormaM.(InreStephanieM.),867

P.2d706,710(Cal.1994).
104Id.

105Id.at71011.

106Id.at710.

107Id.

108Cf.id.

109Statev.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,87(Neb.2009).

110Id.

111Id.

112Seeid.

113Seeid.at9596.

114See generally U.S. DEPT OF STATE, supra note 16, at 31 (detailing how detained foreign

nationalsmaycommunicatewithconsularofficers).
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 955

juvenilecourtshewasprovidedonlywithaSpanishinterpretermakingit
hardforhertofollowtheeventsinthecourtroom.115IfMariawereableto
better understand the proceedings, she would have likely been able to
explain to the juvenile court how she attempted to comply with her case
plan.116Becausethejuvenilecourtcitedthisnoncomplianceasareasonfor
rejectingcustody,Mariasgreaterunderstandingoftheproceedingscould
havealteredtheoutcomeofthejuvenilecourtsdecisionhadshebeenable
toexplainthestepsshetooktowardcompliancewiththecaseplan.117
AnotheroneofMariaspointsofappealwasthathercounseldelivered
ineffective assistance.118 Had the consulate been notified earlier, it could
have assisted Maria in obtaining more adequate counsel.119 Additionally,
hadMariabeenbetterabletounderstandtheproceedings,shecouldhave
bettercommunicatedwithhercounsel,particularlyabouteffortsshetook
tocomplywiththecaseplan.120

V. AdequacyofNotification

According to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, the notice given to the

consulate in Angelica L. arguably complied with the requirements of the
Vienna Convention.121 However, the court took care to point out that the
record presented conflicting testimony as to actual notice.122 After
acknowledging the conflicting evidence, the court simply stated that it
cannotsay...thatthejuvenilecourtsfinding...waserroneous.123
As opposed to the situation in Angelica L., courts have found that
notice to a consulate fulfilled the spirit of the Vienna Convention, where
evidenceexistedthattheconsulateactuallyreceivednotice,evenifnotin
the manner specified in Article 37.124 For example, in both E.R. and In re
L.A.M. the court found that notice was adequate even though it did not
occur through the proper channels because there was evidence that the

115InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat88.

116Seeid.
117Seeid.AfterthejuvenilecourtterminatedMariasparentalrights,shefiledamotionfor

anewtrialallegingnewinformationwasavailabletoestablishthatshehadtakenaparenting
class and complied with the case plan. Id. When asked why she had not told her DHHS
caseworkerabouttheseeffortsshetestifiedthatshewasnotaskedabouttheparentingclass.
Id.
118Id.

119SeeU.S.DEPTOFSTATE,supranote16,at31.

120SeeInreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat88.

121Seeid.at9091.

122Id.at90.

123Id.at9091.

124Seeid.at90;supraPartI.D.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

956 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

consulatewasactuallynotifiedintimetoparticipateintheproceedings.125
However, in Angelica L., unlike other cases where notice under Article 37
wasdiscussed,therewasnoevidencetheconsulatewasnotifiedinatimely
mannerbyanyparty.126
InE.R.,thecourtfoundnoticetobeadequateinaparentaltermination
casewherethefathernotifiedtheMexicanConsulate,ratherthananystate
authority.127However,thecourtcarefullypointedoutthatthiscaseraised
significant concerns regarding the states compliance with the Vienna
Convention.128 In a footnote, the court commented that violations of the
ViennaConventionwereoftenduetoignorance,butincreasedcompliance
with treaties to which the United States is a signatory will result in
improvedreciprocaltreatmentfromothernations.129
Both the courts in E.R. and Angelica L. found actual notice satisfied
Article 37 of the Vienna Convention,130 even if the notice was not proper
under Article 37.131 However, both courts took the time to emphasize the
importance of compliance with the Vienna Convention in terms of
international reciprocity132 and ensuring the best interests of foreign

125E.R. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 729 N.E.2d 1052, 105657 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2000) (finding the fathers notification of the consulate satisfied the purpose of the
Vienna Convention because the notice allowed the consulate to participate in the
proceedings); In re L.A.M., 996 P.2d 839, 841 (Kan. 2000) (finding notice by minors aunts
attorneysatisfiedthepurposeandintentofthetreatybecausetheconsulatetookanactiverole
intheproceedingsfollowingthenotice).
126See In re Interest of Angelica L., 767 N.W.2d at 90; supra Part I.D. The DHHS worker

claimedtohavenotifiedtheconsulate,buttheconsulateclaimednonoticewaseverreceived.
InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat90.
127E.R.,729N.E.2dat1056;seesupraPartI.D.

128E.R.,729N.E.2dat1059.
129Id. at 1059 n.11 (It is evident from the materials available to this court that better

compliance with treaties and conventions, to which the United States is a signatory, will
advance reciprocal compliance.); see supra note 19 and accompanying text. The Marion
CountyOfficeofFamilyandChildren,whichbroughtthecomplaintinthiscase,evenassured
the court that the office was developing a protocol to ensure future compliance with the
ViennaConvention.E.R.,729N.E.2dat1059n.11.
130Actualnotice is defined as [n]otice given directly to, or received personally by, a
party.BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1164 (9thed.2009).InthecaseofE.R.,noticeunderArticle
37 was deemed satisfied when the father gave notice to the consulate, after the proceedings
wereunderway.729N.E.2dat1056.InthecaseofAngelicaL.,thejuvenilecourtfoundthatthe
state complied with the Vienna Convention based on a social workers claim that she had
called the consulate, even though the consulate claimed no notice was ever received. In re
InterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat90.
131SeeE.R.,729N.E.2dat1059;InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat90.

132SeeE.R.,729N.E.2dat1059&n.11.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 957

nationalsinU.S.courts.133
The U.S. Department of States handbook for consular notification
containsextensivepoliciesandproceduresfornotifyingaconsulateincase
a foreign national is arrested, as required by Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention.134 The Department of State could include a similar section in
thehandbookforstateofficialsandcourtsregardingconsularnotification
inguardianshiporcustodyactionsinvolvingaforeignnational.135Ifthere
wereuniformnotificationproceduresinplace,foreignnationalswouldbe
better served by the U.S. courts and child protective services, potentially
avoiding situations where children and their parents are kept in legal
limboforyears,asoccurredinAngelicaL.136

VI. ApplyingArticle36PrecedenttoArticle37CasestoFindaRemedy

Articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention use similar language

explaining the duty of consular notification.137 As Article 36 cases have
beenlitigatedmorefrequently,courtshavemorecohesiveprecedenttouse
whendecidingArticle36cases.138Courtslooselyapplyathreeparttestto
ViennaConventioncases:(1)whetherstandingexistsforthedefendantto
enforcehisrightsundertheViennaConvention;(2)whetherthedefendant
was prejudiced by the violation; and (3) if the defendant was prejudiced,
what remedy is proper.139 Courts applying Article 37 have adhered to a

133See In re Interest of Angelica L., 767 N.W.2d at 9697 (Gerrard, J., concurring) (The full

participationoftheconsulatecanhelpthejuvenileandthejuvenilesparentsbyensuringthat
theirinterestsarerepresented....);supranote19andaccompanyingtext.
134U.S. DEPT OF STATE, supra note 16, at 49 (containing information as to the procedures

and policies concerning notice, forms to use for consular notification, and recommended
recordkeepingprocedures).
135See Memorandum of Understanding Texas, supra note 16, at 35 (explaining specific

notification and access policies to be used when a Mexican minor is involved in a court
proceeding in New Mexico); Memorandum of Understanding Monterey County, supra note
16, at 59 (discussing agreement between Monterey County, California and Mexican
Consulate for what to do when a minor who is a Mexican national is involved in a court
proceeding);STATEOFILL. DEPTOFCHILDREN&FAMILYSERVS.,supranote16,at17(detailing
the process, including the forms to fill out, that Illinois uses when a Mexican minor is
involvedinacourtcaseperanagreementwiththeMexicanconsulate).
136SeegenerallyE.R.,729N.E.2dat1059&n.11(assuringthecourtthattheOfficeofFamily

and Children would develop a protocol to assure future compliance, thereby implying that
therewasnoprotocolinplaceatthetimeofthedecision).
137U.S. DEPT OF STATE, supra note 16, at 4142. Article 36 provides that the competent

authoritiesofthereceivingStateshall,withoutdelay,informtheconsularpostofthesending
State.Id.Article37requiresStatestoinformthecompetentconsularpostwithoutdelay.Id.
at42.
138SeeTrainer,supranote8,at242&n.83.

139Seeid.at254.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

958 NewEnglandLawReview v.45|941

similarframework,althoughfewercaseshavebeendecided.140
Past Article 36 cases held that if the defendant can show he was
prejudiced by a violation of Article 36, certain remedies may be
appropriate.141 Specifically, in one case a foreign national minor was
arrested, detained, and interrogated without notice to his parents or
consulate.142 The minor subsequently confessed and was found guilty.143
On appeal, the court found he was prejudiced by the lack of notice and
reversed and remanded the case for a retrial without the use of his
confession.144 Although no cases involving Article 37 have offered a
remedy for a violation of the Vienna Convention, courts could follow the
Article36frameworkandofferaremedyincaseswhentherehasbeenpast
prejudiceduetoviolationsoftheViennaConvention.145Inacaseinvolving
theterminationofparentalrights,suchasAngelicaL.,acourtcouldfollow
the Article 36 framework and offer a remedy for prejudice for Article 37
violations.146

CONCLUSION

The court in Angelica L. stated that its job, as well as the job of child
protective services, would have been much easier had the Guatemalan
Consulatebecomeinvolvedwiththecasesooner.147UnderArticle37ofthe
ViennaConvention,consularnoticeisrequiredincustodycasesinvolving
foreign nationals.148 However, no uniform regulations exist as to consular
notification, resulting in a wide disparity of adherence and application.149
Assuch,inmanycasesnoticesatisfiestheminimumlegalrequirementsbut
may not be truly fulfilling the spirit of Article 37.150 Earlier and more

140See,e.g.,Statev.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,8990(Neb.2009).

141SeeTrainer,supranote8,at24243.

142UnitedStatesv.C.M.,485F.3d492,49697(9thCir.2007).
143Id.at49698.

144Id.at505.
145See,e.g.,SanDiegoCnty.DeptofSoc.Servs.v.NormaM.(InreStephanieM.),867P.2d

706, 71213 (Cal. 1994); E.R. v. Marion Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 729 N.E.2d 1052,
105659(Ind.Ct.App.2000);Statev.LorenaD.(InreInterestofAaronD.),691N.W.2d164,
17677(Neb.2005).
146Cf.C.M.,485F.3dat505(findingaremedyforaviolationofArticle36uponashowing

ofprejudice).PerhapsaremedycouldbegrantedforaviolationofArticle37afterashowing
ofprejudice.
147Statev.MariaL.(InreInterestofAngelicaL.),767N.W.2d74,80(Neb.2009).

148ViennaConvention,supranote6,art.37.

149Seeid.;supraPartI.D.

150SeeE.R.,729N.E.2dat1059;InreInterestofAngelicaL.,767N.W.2dat9091;supraPart

I.D.
941959_DELPHIN_FINAL.DOC(DONOTDELETE) 5/16/201112:42:08PM

2011 In re Interest of Angelica L. 959

effective notice to the Guatemalan Consulate in Angelica L. could have

helped to eliminate issues during the proceedings that led the juvenile
court to terminate Marias parental rights.151 Reuniting Maria and her
childrensoonerwouldhavebetterprotectedthechildrensbestinterestsas
wellasMariasconstitutionalrights.

151In re Interest of Angelica L., 767 N.W.2d at 80; see supra notes 12830 and accompanying

text.