This Note argues that the Second Circuit’s approach is more consistent with the aims of the Hague Convention and the needs of children than the Fourth Circuit’s approach and that ICARA does confer jurisdiction upon federal courts to adjudicate claims for the enforcement of visitation rights under the Hague Convention. Part I discusses the background of the Hague Convention and ICARA and how visitation rights fit into each. Part II discusses the split between the Fourth Circuit and the Second Circuit regarding whether ICARA confers jurisdiction upon federal courts over claims for the enforcement of visitation rights. It further examines the issue by analyzing the holdings of a number of district courts that have held that they lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider claims for enforcement of visitation rights under ICARA. Part III argues that the Second Circuit was correct in holding that ICARA creates a federal right of action for the enforcement of visitation rights and that federal courts do in fact have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. Part IV suggests an amendment to the Hague Convention that would prevent future decisions in which federal courts dismiss visitation claims under ICARA for lack of jurisdiction.