of the child on remand “would essentially be holding that the removal ... was not wrongful under The Hague Convention,” which would have positive implications for the father in later custody proceedings in the United States and result in the order assessing fees and costs against the father being vacated); Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 497 (4th Cir.2003), abrogated on other grounds by Abbott v. Abbott, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1983, 176 L.Ed.2d 789 (2010) (holding the father's appeal was not moot because an order from the district court that the mother return to the United States with the child “would permit [the father] to appear in the Scottish courts simply to seek enforcement of the United States judgment, rather than to re-argue the merits of any custody dispute respecting” the child, the mother could comply with the order of her own volition, or the father could seek to enforce such an order if the mother at some point returned to the United States with the child). Compare Leser v. Berridge, 668 F.3d 1202, 1209 (10th Cir.2011) (distinguishing Whiting and Fawcett because, like the circuit court below, the district court “made no finding of wrongful removal”).The August 29 order does not preclude the children's return to the United States or preclude Ms. Obando Garces's filing an action regarding their custody or her visitation with the children either in a Florida forum or any other forum.

Leserv.Berridge, 668 F.3d 1202, 1208 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011).

Our court will refuse comity only if due process is so absent that the foreign jurisdiction's courts function as "rogue bodies that deny due process to litigants." Leser v. Berridge , 668 F.3d 1202, 1208 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011). Comity also generally precludes us from inquiring into the merits of foreign adjudications, or another signatory's interpretation of its own law.

Leserv.Berridge, 668 F.3d 1202, 1208 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011).

Id . On the other hand, "conduct that is voluntary in the sense of being non-accidental, but which is entirely unrelated to the lawsuit, should not preclude our vacating the decision below." Id . ; seeN.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar Mortg., Inc. , 753 F. App'x 16, 21 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (granting vacatur, in part, because an appellant did not act "with the purpose of mooting its appeal"); E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Invista B.V. , 473 F.3d 44, 48 (2d Cir. 2006) (granting vacatur where "this appeal has been mooted through no fault or machination" of the appellant); Leser v. Berridge , 668 F.3d 1202, 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (granting vacatur, despite the appellant and moving party having mooted the case, because she lacked "the motive of vacating the district court order"). "[T]he touchstone of our analysis" is "[t]he appellant's fault in causing mootness."

Indeed, a federal court's duty "is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions." Leser v. Berridge, 668 F.3d 1202, 1207 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895)).

The general "[p]rinciples of comity require [the court] to examine the fairness of a foreign country's judicial procedures," including notice given to parties, before recognizing a judgment of a foreign country. Leser v. Berridge, 668 F.3d 1201, 1211 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Navani v. Shahani, 496 F.3d 1121, 1131 (10th Cir. 2007)). Colorado has adopted the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act of 1962, as revised in 2005, which governs recognition of foreign money judgments.

However, because the statute refers to a system which does not provide procedures compatible with due process, "it cannot be relied upon to challenge the legal processes employed in a particular litigation on due process grounds" ( CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp., 296 A.D.2d 81, 89, 743 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1st Dept. 2002], affd 100 N.Y.2d 215, 762 N.Y.S.2d 5, 792 N.E.2d 155 [2003], cert denied 540 U.S. 948, 124 S.Ct. 399, 157 L.Ed.2d 279 [2003] ; see alsoDowns v. Yuen, 298 A.D.2d 177, 178, 748 N.Y.S.2d 131 [1st Dept. 2002] ). The Czech legal system provides procedures compatible with due process (seeLeser v. Berridge, 668 F.3d 1202, 1208 n. 2 [10th Cir. 2011] ). Having had notice and an opportunity to be heard, Kozeny was "afforded due process, even if the [foreign] procedures were not as generous as those of New York" ( Standard Chartered Bank v. Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 110 A.D.3d 578, 578, 973 N.Y.S.2d 197 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

d States should not allow it full effect, the merits of the case should not, in an action brought in United States upon the judgment, be tried afresh, as on a new trial or an appeal, upon the mere assertion of the party that the judgment was erroneous in law or in fact" ( Asvesta v. Petroutsas , 580 F.3d 1000 [9th Cir. 2009] ). Principles of comity require a court to examine the fairness of a foreign country's judicial procedures; in examining fairness, a court inquires if: there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction, conducting the trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citizens of its own country and those of other countries, and there is nothing to show either prejudice in the court, or in the system of laws under which it is sitting, or fraud in procuring the judgment ( Leser v. Berridge , 668 F.3d 1202 [10th Cir. 2011] ). "This high burden springs from an ordered sense of respect and tolerance for the adjudications of foreign Nations, paralleling that commanded among the States by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution (