{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029646522234891677, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005701254275940707, 'mean_word_length': 4.814569536423841, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Hague Convention

A Canadian court issued a divorce judgment terminating the marriage of Michelle, a Canadian citizen, and Fred, a U.S. citizen.' The court awarded custody of the couple's only child, five-year-old Kareem, to Michelle.2 Noting that Kareem would soon be starting school, the court decided that the child should reside with Michelle in Canada during the school year, with summer visitation at his father's home in New Jersey However, during the following visitation period, Fred commenced an action in a New Jersey court, which granted him sole custody of Kareem and ordered that the child not be removed from the state Thus, the separate litigation of this dispute on opposite sides of the border resulted in two conflicting custody orders. Prior to 1988, it would have been difficult to predict which parent would "win" in this situation. In all likelihood,