Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Bikundwa v Ruyenzi, 2022 WL 18110809 (W.D. Washington, 2022)

 [Belgium] [Habitual Residence] [Wrongful removal] [Petition granted]

 In Bikundwa v Ruyenzi, 2022 WL 18110809 (W.D. Washington, 2022) the court granted the petition of Aimee Kidogi Bikundwa and ordered the return of the minor children, N.R. and S.R., to Belgium..

The parties were married in Rwanda in 2006 and moved Belgium later that year. Petitioner currently resides in Belgium, while Respondent resides in Washington. The parties have two Belgian-born children: N.R., who was born in 2007, and S.R., who was born in 2008. Both children are Belgian citizens and lived in Belgium from birth to July 2022. Petitioner and Respondent divorced in 2012. Pursuant to a March 29, 2012 divorce and custody order issued by the Court of First Instance of Nivelles in Brussels, Belgium, Petitioner was granted primary custody of N.R. and S.R., with Respondent having visitation every other weekend and half of school vacations. After the parties divorced, Respondent moved to the Seattle area. On July 5, 2022, N.R. and S.R. traveled from Belgium to Washington in order to visit with Respondent for several weeks. Upon the children’s arrival in Washington, Respondent contacted Petitioner to let her know that the children arrived safely. This visit was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the parties’ Belgian custody order, and Petitioner remained in contact with the children throughout the visit. N.R. and S.R were due to return to Belgium on August 16, 2022 and the children’s return airfare had already been purchased. However, N.R. and S.R. did not return to Belgium as planned and instead, Respondent kept both children in his custody here in the United States. At the time, Respondent did not communicate with Petitioner regarding his decision to keep the children in the United States. Petitioner contacted N.R. and S.R. and learned that Respondent had refused to take the children to the airport. The day after Respondent failed to return the children to Belgium, Petitioner filed a child abduction complaint with Belgian authorities and sought legal counsel. On November 9, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Return of the Child to the State of Habitual Residence, 

 

Here, both N.R. and S.R. were born in Belgium, their mother’s country of residence, and lived there from birth to July 2022, when they traveled to the United States for what was intended to be a several-week visit with Respondent. Given the children’s well-established prior residence in Belgium, Petitioner’s long-standing residence in Belgium, and the Belgian order granting primary custody of the children to Petitioner, the Court finds that N.R. and S.R. were habitual residents of Belgium.  Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the retention of the children beginning in August 2022 was wrongful. The March 29, 2012 order issued by the Court of First Instance of Nivelles establishes that Petitioner was granted primary custody of the children, while Respondent was granted “secondary” custody, with visitation every other weekend and split school vacations. see also 22 U.S.C. § 9005 (Belgian order may be admissible in court without authentication. Further, at the time that Respondent retained the children in Washington, Petitioner was in fact exercising her rights under the Belgian custody order.

 Respondent makes allegations of abuse of N.R. and S.R. at the hands of Petitioner and Petitioner’s alleged current husband. He states that his children are being abused and tortured in Petitioner’s care. Here, no credible evidence of abuse has been submitted to the Court. Respondent had not established that it would be clearly inappropriate for him to pay for the costs associated with the children’s return to Belgium. Accordingly, the Court ordered Respondent to bear the costs of any and all transportation required to return the children to Belgium, including all airfare costs incurred by Petitioner to attend the December 21, 2022 hearing. Further, Petitioner could file a motion for litigation costs and attorney’s fees within 15 days of the date of this Order and Respondent could file objections or otherwise respond, as allowed by applicable law.