Khan v. Fatima, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 1560398 (C.A.7 (Ill.)) [Canada] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies -Rule 52 -Duty to Make Findings of Fact]

 In Khan v. Fatima, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 1560398 (C.A.7 (Ill.)) the petitioner was the father, and the respondent, his wife, was the mother. She removed the child from their joint custody and is thus the "abductor." The child is a girl not yet 4 years old, who was referred to as ZFK. The father, an optometrist in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada), wanted to take the child back to Edmonton. He filed for divorce in Canada on the ground of the mother's "physical or mental cruelty" to him, and sought sole custody of the children. The mother, a U.S. citizen living in Illinois, wanted to keep the children with her in the United States. The district court ordered ZFK returned to Canada with her father, and the mother appealed.

The Court observed that Article 13(b) of the Convention provides a defense to the return of the " abducted" child if "there is a grave risk that [the child's] return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." The respondent (the abductor) must prove this defense by clear and convincing evidence, 42 U.S.C. s 11603(e)(2)(A), and Hague Convention proceedings must be conducted with dispatch. Art. 11; March v. Levine, 249 F.3d
462, 474 (6th Cir.2001).

The parties became husband and wife in an arranged marriage two years before the birth of ZFK, their first child. During the family's visit to India the wife complained to the Indian police of domestic abuse. The police investigated, charged the husband, and took away his passport in April of last year. While he was in India the wife (pregnant at the time with a second child), flew to the United States with ZFK. Eventually the husband's passport was returned and he flew back to Canada and some months later, in February of this year, filed the petition for the return of the child. That child was born in the United States after the mother had brought ZFK here and was therefore a U.S. citizen. The father did not argue that the mother abducted that child, who continued to live with her mother.

On March 7 the father obtained an ex parte order from the district court requiring the mother to yield custody of ZFK to him pending resolution of his petition, and on the thirteenth the judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 22. It was held that day and he issued a final order of return the next day and also ordered the wife to hand over ZFK's passport to her husband so that he could take the child back to Canada. But the judge conditioned the orders on the husband's agreeing to pay a retainer (though not necessarily any additional fees) for an attorney who would be hired by the wife to handle the divorce and custody proceeding that her husband has begun in Canada.

On the wife's motion the Circuit Court of Appeals stayed both the order of return, and the order that she turn over the child's passport to her husband, pending the decision of her appeal. And on May 1, after hearing oral argument in the appeal the day before, it ordered the child returned to the mother pending its decision, but that both the mother's passport and the child's passport be held by the U.S. Marshals Service until further notice.

The Court observed that the wife's testimony, if believed, revealed that her husband had a violent, ungovernable temper, had physically abused her on many occasions, some in the presence of ZFK (and in front of the child he had told his wife he would take out her eyeballs, had been rough on occasion with the child, terrified the child, and that the child's mood had brightened greatly when she was living apart from her father. But if the husband's testimony is believed, he was, if not a model husband, not an abuser of his wife or the child.

The Court pointed out that Rule 52(a)(1) of the civil rules requires the judge to "find the facts specially and state [his] conclusions of law separately" when he is the trier of fact. He is not excused from this duty in a proceeding under the Hague Convention. And the duty is not waived when, as in this case, plaintiff and defendant testify inconsistently and it is impossible to demonstrate by objective evidence which one is telling the truth, or more of the truth. The trier of fact must decide whom to believe (and how much to believe) on the basis of the coherence and plausibility of the contestants' testimony, corroboration or contradiction by other witnesses, and other clues to falsity and veracity. The process of factfinding in such a situation is inexact and the findings that result are doubtless often mistaken. But the judge can't just throw up his hands, as happened in this case, because he can't figure out what is true and what is false in the testimony. There is no uncertainty exception to the duty imposed by Rule 52. And if there were such an exception, it would not be available when the evidentiary hearing had lasted only a day, as in this case. The judge could have
adjourned the hearing for a few days to enable additional evidence to be obtained and presented; in particular he could have had ZFK examined by a child psychologist. The wife's lawyer, his initial proposal of an expert witness having been turned down because the witness hadn't had time to examine the child (the hearing was held only two weeks after the respondent learned about the suit), offered to submit an evaluation based on an examination of the child by the end of the week. The judge refused. His final order, issued the day after the hearing, was two pages long and contained no findings of fact relating to the Article 13(b) defense, just a conclusion that the wife had failed to meet her burden of proof. That was not a finding of fact, but a conclusion of law. Rule 52(a)(1) requires both: that the facts be found "specially" and the conclusions of law stated separately. There is no rule exempting the judge from the duty of finding the facts in cases in which the plaintiff has a higher burden of proof than the usual civil burden of the preponderance of the evidence.

At the end of the evidentiary hearing the judge had had a discussion with the lawyers, and from that the Court pieced together his thinking and extracted a single, solitary factfinding. The judge began by saying, directly after the parties' witnesses had testified (there were no closing arguments), that "neither-none of the parties to the suit are residents of Illinois."Not true; the wife is currently a resident of Illinois. The judge said that "if I send it [the issue of custody of the child] back to
Canada, the Canadian courts presumably will look and take evidence and so forth and hear essentially the same evidence, I guess, I'm hearing today and make a decision to award custody to the mother or to the father.... [Under the Hague Convention] the child is to be returned except where there's grave risk of harm to the child. And, now, there's-presumably, there's always some risk. All I know is
what I heard here today. And I'm-there's been a he said/she said hearing today. nd it's very difficult for me to say categorically one side is telling the truth and one side is not telling the truth." The judge mentioned a bruise that the mother had received on her arm in India and that had been photographed at the police station and was a basis for her complaint to the police. The judge said that if the father had inflicted the bruise-which he declined to decide one way or the other-that was a bad thing to have done but it hadn't created a "grave risk," a key term in Article 13(b). The Court noted that the issue was not creating a grave risk to the mother, but a grave risk (of psychological harm) to the child. If the mother's testimony about the father's ungovernable temper and brutal treatment of her was
believed, it would support an inference of a grave risk of psychological harm to the child if she continued living with him.

Very little of the wife's testimony was mentioned by the judge, even though the wife had testified that she'd been beaten, knocked down by him in front of ZFK, hit in the chest by a heavy wallet that he had hurled at her, choked by him twice (and she said she thought she would die) when she was pregnant with her second child, threatened with having her eyeballs yanked out, and dragged bodily from the backyard into a room in the house.

The mother's testimony was corroborated by her sister and her sister's husband.

The judge did not mention the testimony of those witnesses, the testimony of a supervisor from Supervised Visitation Services (who testified about the child's having said she "hurt"), or any testimony of the mother except about the bruise on her arm and he made no finding about whether the father had inflicted it, instead dismissing it as not evidence of a "grave risk" to the mother. His focus on the bruise to the exclusion of any mention of the mother's testimony that her husband had choked her hard enough to make her afraid she would die, or indeed of any of her other testimony, was perplexing. Much of that abuse occurred in the child's presence; and repeated physical and psychological abuse of a child's mother by the child's father, in the presence of the child (especially a very young child, as in this case), was likely to create a risk of psychological harm to the child. Whether it was a grave risk, and thus triggered the Article 13(b) defense, was a separate question, but one that cannot be addressed, let alone answered, without recognizing the potential for such a risk in the father's behavior toward the mother in the child's presence. All this the judge ignored.

Throwing up his hands at what he may have thought an incomprehensible quarrel between foreigners, the judge remarked that even if the child wouldn't be safe living with her father, "Why can't Canada any more than Illinois protect-offer her protection?"The mother's lawyer pointed out that other witnesses besides the mother had testified and that there was testimony of "multiple instances" of abuse, to which the judge replied: "Then she ultimately should prevail.... Canada should make the decision on who gets custody of the child because the child is a Canadian citizen and domiciled in Canada."The lawyer asked for a few days to obtain a psychologist's evaluation of the child and the judge refused.

The Court stated that unless a trier of fact determines that the mother is a thorough liar, it was concerned that continuing the child in her father's custody may inflict inflict psychological harm on her. The Court held that the evidentiary hearing was inadequate. Rule 52(a) was violated; there were no findings of fact on the key issues. Decisions are frequently reversed for such omissions. The failure to allow psychological evidence was another error. The errors were not harmless. The district court's order was vacated and the case remanded for a proper hearing.

Hamprecht v Hamprecht, 2012 WL 1367534 (M.D.Fla.) [Germany] [Testimony By Video]

In Hamprecht v Hamprecht, 2012 WL 1367534 (M.D.Fla.) Marian Hamprecht filed a petition which alleged that his minor child was being unlawfully retained in the Middle District of Florida by his wife and the child's mother, Stephanie Hamprecht, who had restricted their son's ability to return to his habitual residence of Germany. He moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 43(a) to be permitted to testify via video conference from Germany for the May 4th hearing. According to the petitioner's declaration attached to his motion, he was in fear of returning  to the United States because his life was threatened by an individual claiming that "his group" was hired to kill him. He claimed that he alerted the police, fled his home in Florida, hid out of sight,  and returned to Germany with his two oldest children four days later.  He also claimed that the additional expense of international travel to attend the hearing was unnecessary and would require petitioner to leave his two oldest children in Germany. He asserted that his request would not prejudice  respondent, and proposed that if respondent's counsel wishes to show petitioner a  document during cross examination, counsel may provide that document to the witness  prior to his testimony. Petitioner also proposed that he would be represented  by U.S. counsel at the hearing and by German counsel in Germany, ensuring that proceedings would run smoothly and that the Court's orders  adhered to.   Respondent, characterized petitioner's motion as nothing more than an improper attempt to avoid subjecting himself to a proper in-person cross examination by respondent's counsel and a proper credibility evaluation by the Court,  and called petitioner's fear baseless. Respondent supported her opposition by attaching the "full" police report which included the following relevant  facts: (1) the alleged incident occurred at approximately 8:30 AM but the petitioner did not call the police until 6:48 PM; (2) petitioner was unable to describe the subject, his vehicle, or provide any  information to assist in identifying him ; and (3) petitioner failed to follow up with the police and the case was closed as "Victim Unwilling to Proceed" . Respondent asserted, and petitioner admitted, that on the day following the incident  petitioner went golfing.  Respondent also claimed that petitioner could not show any hardship from the expense of travel because of his salary and asked theCourt to judicially notice that Germany, as a member of the European Union, is part of the U.S. Visa Waiver 
Program, which allows citizens of certain countries to enter the United States for ninety 
days without the need for any prior visa to be arranged.   Petitioner's reply focused on the "full" police report and in support attached a declaration from his attorney who asserted that the report did not accurately reflect the communications he had with Detective Nolen and stated in relevant part: (1) he spoke only once with Detective Nolen on January 13, 2012 and during that conversation Detective Nolen informed him that the police were seriously investigating petitioner's claim and the police were aware of  and investigating a group of people who had been making similar threats; (2) at the conclusion of the call they made tentative plans to discuss the matter again in two weeks but Detective Nolen did not call him back or take him up on his offer to communicate with petitioner; (3) during the call, Detective Nolen did not state that the investigation would be closed if they did not talk again within two weeks; (4) until receiving respondent's opposition he had not seen a "full" police report and as of that date believed that the police investigation remained open; and (5) the ten day letter sent by Detective Nolen was sent to petitioner's German counsel and not to Mr. Scott.  


The district court observed that Rule 43(a) permits "for good cause shown in compelling circumstances and upon appropriate safeguards" the "contemporaneous transmission" of testimony to a hearing from a "different location." The Advisory Committee Notes make clear that there is a decided preference for live testimony in open court: “Contemporaneous transmission of testimony from a different  location is permitted only on showing good cause in compelling circumstances.  The importance of presenting live testimony in court cannot be forgotten. The  very ceremony of trial and the presence of the factfinder may exert a powerful  force for truthtelling. The opportunity to judge the demeanor of a witness  face-to-face is accorded great value in our tradition. Transmission cannot be  justified merely by showing that it is inconvenient for the witness to attend  the trial.” As an example of "compelling circumstances," the Notes offer "unexpected reasons,  such as accident or illness" but, even these should be  balanced against the advantages and disadvantages of rescheduling the trial. The Notes add that "[o]ther possible justifications for remote transmission must be approached cautiously."The Court was not convinced that petitioner established good cause or compelling circumstances and denied his motion.

R.S. v. D.O., 2012 WL 874833 (N.Y.Sup.), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50479(U) [Italy] [State and Local Judicial Remedies]

In R.S. v. D.O., 2012 WL 874833 (N.Y.Sup.), 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50479(U),
Petitioner R.S. (Father) sought, inter alia, an order pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act directing the return to him in Italy of the parties' children, D and E .The Mother opposed the motion, and cross-moved for an order dismissing the Father's petition. The Court granted the father’s Petition and denied the cross motion.
The parties were never married. The Father was an Italian citizen, and the
Mother was a citizen of the United States. They met in Rome, Italy in or about
2003. The Father was a medical doctor and dentist, licensed to practice in Italy.
He resided and worked in Rome. The parties' first child was born in New York on
July 18, 2006, while the Mother was visiting her family here. Both children were
Italian citizens. Shortly after D was born, the Father joined the Mother and D, and they returned to Italy, where they resided together. Their second child, E, was born on July 26, 2008 in Rome, Italy. Both children attended preschool, and had friends, extended family, and their primary care physician in Rome. Although the parties and their children sometimes visited New York, frequently staying with friends in New York City, they resided in Italy since the children were born. In or about 2010, the parties' relationship deteriorated, and the Father moved out of their home in Rome and into an apartment nearby. He later moved to a home on the same property as the Mother and children. After the parties separated, they shared time equally with the children. In winter 2011, the parties became involved in custody litigation in Italy, and attended mediation. On or about November 14, 2011, however, the Mother took the children to New York. The parties had discussed the Mother taking the children to Florida for the upcoming Christmas holiday with the children, and returning to Italy by December 26 to spend time with their Father and his family. However, they had not agreed on a departure date, and the Father was alarmed when he found the Mother and children had disappeared, without a word from the Mother. The Mother claimed that the Father hit her on one occasion, but did not specify the date, time, location, or any other details about this allegation. She also alleged that the Father did not put the children in car seats when he drove with them, and that he used cocaine. The Husband denied these claims, noting that he was subject to periodic drug testing for compliance with various licenses and permits required by his profession. He submitted copies of two drug tests taken on May 10, 2010 and January 25, 2012. Although the tests were not translated into English, they appeared to be hair follicle test results showing a negative result for
cocaine.
On November 15, 2011, the Mother obtained an ex parte temporary order of
protection from the Suffolk County Family Court, which directed the Father to stay
away from her and from the children . On November 16, 2011, the Mother filed custody petitions in Suffolk County Family Court, in which she alleged that her and the children's address was in Commack, New York. Her petitions further alleged that each of the children resided at both that address with her and at the Father's address in Italy from birth. By order dated November 16, 2011, the Mother's custody petitions were dismissed based on a lack of "home state" jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, and a finding that the Mother and children had resided in Italy since October 2006, and had been in New York for only a matter of days at the time the petitions were filed. On December 22, 2011, the Father filed his Petition and Motion. Because he did not know where the children were staying, he filed in New York
County, since the parties had stayed in Manhattan when they had visited New York
together, and because he understood from a mutual friend, whose affidavit was
attached to the Father's reply papers, that the Mother had been seen in Manhattan.
The Father had sought assistance from the Deputy Counsel to the Consulate General in Italy, who contacted the maternal grandmother, who would not provide any information about the Mother's or the children's whereabouts.
Supreme Court observed that pursuant to 42 U.S. C. 11603(a), the court had original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts to enforce the Hague Convention (citing People ex rel. Geiser v. Valentine, 17 Misc.3d 1117A [Sup Ct Richmond Co 2007] ). An affirmation submitted by the Husband's Italian counsel stated that under Italian law, both parents jointly exercise parental authority by operation of law, absent an agreement or order to the contrary. The Supreme Court held that the finding in the November Family Court Order that Italy was the children's home country was now res judicata. It was undisputed that the children had resided in Italy their entire lives, that the Father exercised his joint parental rights with the Mother on a regular basis prior to the children's removal, and that the Mother removed the children from Italy with the intention to remain in New York with them, and without the Father's consent, on or about November 13, 2011. Therefore, the children were wrongfully removed from their home country .The court found that the Mother had also failed to make a prima facie case that returning the children to Italy would pose a grave risk to them of physical harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation (citing Geiser, supra ).
The Mother did not base her request that the court decline jurisdiction to hear the Father's Petition on any exception to the Convention's and/or ICARA's requirement that the children be returned to Italy. She claimed that "the children were not residing in New York County when the Petition was filed. " The Court found that the children's only residence, as a matter of law pursuant to the November Family Court Order, and as was undisputed by the Mother, was Rome, Italy. It was not clear where the Mother's residence was. In order for a particular venue "to qualify as a residence a party must stay there for some length of time and have the bona fide intent to retain the place as a residence with at least some degree of permanency'" ( Bennet v. Bennet, 49 AD3d 949, 949-950 [3d Dept 2008][quoting Hammerman v. Louis Watch Co., 7 A.D.2d 817, 818 [3d Dept 1958]]; see also Neu v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital, 27 AD3d 538 [2d Dept 2006] ). The Mother did not clearly state where she had lived since she left Italy, and she did not state an intent to remain in any particular place. Accordingly, the Court found that she did not establish that her residence was Suffolk County either.
The Mother argued that the court should decline jurisdiction based on
improper venue. CPLR 503 states that, where neither party is a resident of the State of New York, as was the case here, venue shall be "in any county designated by the plaintiff." Furthermore, where a party wishes to move venue to a more convenient location, she must serve a written demand prior to seeking a change of venue by motion (CPLR 511[b] ). The Mother had never done so, and had failed to state any reason why Suffolk County would be a more convenient venue. The Mother also argued that the Father's Petition should be brought in Suffolk County because she filed petitions in Suffolk County Family Court for custody, paternity, and an order of protection. However, the Court found most relevant of these petitions to this Petition was the custody proceeding, and that proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Temporary Order of Protection was issued without the Father's presence in court and without any findings being made. Accordingly, that was not a basis for the Father's Petition to be transferred to Suffolk County. In addition, dismissal of the Father's Petition, or transfer of it to Suffolk County, would only serve to frustrate the purposes of the Convention and ICARA, which require courts to act quickly to return children to their place of habitual residence, where custody disputes may be determined by a court that has jurisdiction to decide such matters. The Father could have brought, and still could bring, his Petition in Federal Court, in which case the Mother might have had to travel to New York City to litigate in any event, since the federal courthouse for the Eastern District of New York is located in Brooklyn. The Mother's cross-motion to dismiss the Father's Petition was denied and the court granted the petition.

Giles v Bravo, 2012 WL 704745 (D. Nev.) [Mexico] [Well Settled in New Environment] [Acquiescence]

In Giles v Bravo, 2012 WL 704745 (D. Nev.) the district court denied review and affirmed the finding of the Magistrate Judge, that the Child in question should not be returned to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention.
Plaintiff served her Petition on October 18, 2011. The Court held a status conference on December 9, 2011.Respondents admitted evidence of a letter issued by the Consul of the United States of America at Mexico, Federal District ("D.F."). wherein Petitioner granted Respondents permission to travel with the child from July, 2010 until the year 2015. Further, Respondents submitted an Order Granting Guardianship of the child to them in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada dated February 10, 2011.
Petitioner was born in Mexico City. Her parents, Rogelio Sanvicente Bravo and Eva Rodriguez Giles (Respondents), illegally transported her to the United States at the age of three. Petitioner became pregnant with the child at the age of 15 while living with Respondents. Petitioner lived in Respondents' home with her child after the birth. Petitioner testified that her father took care of the baby during the night. After several months, Petitioner agreed to leave the child with Respondents while she cohabited with her boyfriend. She testified that she routinely visited the child. Petitioner's paternal grandmother advised her at this time that Respondents wished to obtain custody over the child.
Petitioner then attempted to remove the child from Respondents' home. Petitioner testified that she did take the child without her belongings, but then stated
that she could not keep the child because her parents threatened to notify Social
Services that Petitioner was unemployed. Petitioner further testified that around this
time, Respondent Rogelio Bravo told her he would "follow up" with her immigration
case, which would allow her to legally remain in the United States, in exchange for
custody of the child.
The child remained with Respondents. At some point during the next two years,
Petitioner became pregnant with her second child, and married a man named
Vladimir. Petitioner and Vladimir moved back into Respondents' home. Petitioner
testified that in 2007 Vladimir witnessed Respondent Eva Rodriguez Giles refer to the
Petitioner as "Tania" instead of "your mom" when speaking to the child. This comment
upset Vladimir, causing him and Petitioner to decide to take the child and relocate.
Petitioner and her family relocated to another home in Las Vegas and in 2008, Petitioner decided to move with her family to Mexico where her husband had obtained employment. Petitioner testified that the child thrived in Mexico and enjoyed her life.
In May 2010, Petitioner notified her mother that Vladimir had abused her, threatened to take the children, and kicked her out on the street. Respondents gave Petitioner money in order to travel to the D.F. in Mexico. While there, Petitioner stayed with her maternal grandmother. Respondents traveled to Mexico to meet with Petitioner and the child. The following month, Petitioner began the process to obtain a passport for the child. In addition, Petitioner signed a travel authorization that gave her consent for the child to travel between Mexico and the United States with Respondents over a period of five years. Respondent Eva Rodriguez Giles testified that Petitioner told her that she wanted the child to have more opportunity and to study in the United States and learn English, as had Petitioner. Petitioner maintained that she believed the sole reason for the child's visit to the United States was for medical treatment.
Sometime after Petitioner initiated the travel process to allow the child to travel to the United States with Respondents, Vladimir traveled to the D.F. and attempted to thwart the child's international trip with Respondents. Petitioner testified that
Vladimir warned her that Respondents were tricking her in order to obtain custody of
the child, but Petitioner stated that she trusted her parents and still planned on the child
traveling to the United States with Respondents. Vladimir presumably voiced his concerns to Respondents, as Petitioner testified that Respondent Eva Rodriguez Giles stated "if anyone tries to stop me from taking the girl I will shoot them."Petitioner left her grandmother's home for a few days, but the child remained. On July 20, 2010 Petitioner received a phone call from Respondent Eva Rodriguez Giles, who informed Petitioner that the child was in Las Vegas, Nevada with her. Petitioner reacted angrily at the fact that she was unable to bid farewell to the child. Petitioner then talked with her child, but when Vladimir began talking with the child, Respondent Giles retrieved the telephone and ended the call. On September 9, 2010 Petitioner filed a petition with the Mexican Central Authority under the Hague Convention, reporting that the child had been wrongfully removed from Mexico. Sometime in December 2010, Petitioner obtained Respondents' telephone number from a cousin in Las Vegas. Petitioner contacted Respondents who informed her that they would not be bringing the child back to Mexico. On February 8, 2011 the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, located in Clark County, Nevada, granted Respondents petition for guardianship of the
child.
Petitioner initiated the instant action on October 5, 2011. The child was seven years old. Petitioner testified that she had no knowledge of the state court guardianship proceedings. The application reflected that it was mailed to the address of Petitioner's maternal grandmother, where Petitioner was living at the time Respondents left Mexico in the summer of 2010. However, there was no proof of service and therefore the Court could not impute knowledge to Petitioner regarding the proceeding.
The parties did not dispute that the child was habitually residing in Mexico until her removal to the United States. Thus, Mexican federal law governed with respect to the scope of Petitioner's custody rights. See A.A.M. v.. J.L.R. C., No. 11-CV-5732, 2012 WL 75049, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2012). Under Mexican law, "[t]he exercise of parental authority ... gives rise to a duty of custody and care." The child lived with Petitioner for around two years in Mexico prior to the removal. Petitioner presented a receipt of student enrollment showing that in February 2010 she had registered the child in preschool in Mexico for the 2010-2011 school year. A few months prior to removal, in May 2010, Petitioner relocated the child from Sonara to the D.F. in Mexico. The child was in Petitioner's custody and she was caring for the child. After Respondents arrived in Mexico, Petitioner signed a travel document, applied for the child's passport, and made copies of the child's birth certificate available to Respondents. The travel authorization signed by Petitioner gave the Respondents permission to travel between Mexico and the United States with the child. Although the authorization was effective for five years, Petitioner testified that she gave permission only for Respondents to take the child to the United States in order to seek medical treatment, not to remain with the child in the United States forever. Petitioner stated that she was not distressed by the fact that the child was taken, but rather that she did not have a chance to say good-bye. Based on these facts, the Court found that the travel authorization did not relinquish Petitioner's custody rights. See Muhlenkamp v. Blizzard, 521 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1150 (E.D.Wash.2007). The Court found that Petitioner was exercising her custody rights in Mexico, where the child habitually resided, at the time of the child's removal to the United States on about July 20, 2010. Although the removal in July 2010 appeared to have been with the consent of Petitioner, the subsequent retention of the child was wrongful, and breached the rights of custody attributed to Petitioner under Mexican law.
The Court observed that if the petition was filed one year from the time of the alleged wrongful retention and the child has since settled into the new environment, then the Court must not order the return of the child. Hague Conv. art. 12. The petition was filed on October 5, 2011. The one year limit ran when the petitioner should have known of the wrongful removal or retention. Petitioner initiated a Hague Convention proceeding with the Mexican Central Authority on September 9, 2010 by filing a detailed claim that the child had been wrongfully removed from Mexico. Petitioner's September 9, 2010 filing, however, states the following: "I have been threatened more than once by my parents saying they would take my daughter [Child's Name Stated] away from me. I was threatened by my parents that if I or anyone tryed (sic) to stop them frome (sic) taking [Child's Name Stated] to Las Vegas N .V. they would get a gun and shoot them."These statements support a finding that in July, 2010, Petitioner believed, and was on notice, that Respondents intended to take the child and would likely not return her unless required by force. By September 2010, when Petitioner filed her complaint with the Authority, and Petitioner had had no contact with Respondents, it seems clear that Petitioner was on notice that her child was being retained by Respondents. Regardless of any misunderstanding there may have been between Petitioner and Respondent regarding the original removal of the child from Mexico by July 20, 2010, the court found that the wrongful retention of the child began no later than September 9, Under Article 12 of the Convention, the term "commencement of proceedings" means the filing of a petition in any court which has jurisdiction of the action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed. Thus, Petitioner commenced the proceeding on October 5, 2011 by filing a petition with the Court.
The child currently lived in their Las Vegas home with the Respondents. Respondents lived in the same location for several years until recently moving to a smaller home to downsize financially. Respondents cared for the child for extended periods of time throughout her life. Petitioner lived with Respondents after the child's birth, and testified that Respondents took care of the child. Petitioner further testified that when she lived in Las Vegas, she moved in with her boyfriend and left the child with Respondents at their home. Petitioner agreed the child was safer with Respondents than with Petitioner and her then-boyfriend when she lived in Las Vegas. The child had a close relationship with her grandparents, having lived in their home for a majority of her life. No other family members resided in the area. Respondents represented to the Court that the child attended kindergarten last year and that she was currently in the first grade and attended school regularly. While the child initially struggled with the English language, Respondents stated that she now understood English well and spoke some English. The child testified that she enjoyed school. The majority of the child's testimony before the Court was spoken in English with out the assistance of a translator. By obtaining legal guardianship over the child, Respondents were able to make decisions regarding the child's education and welfare, and have apparently done so by ensuring the child was enrolled in, and attending school. Through the child's testimony and the Court's observations of the child, it appeared, and the court found, that the child was stable in her current environment, and it was reasonable to infer that given the passage of time and events, and a return to Petitioner would be disruptive to the child.
The Court found that Petitioner consented to the removal of the child from Mexico to the United States. Even if Petitioner had not consented to removal, she subsequently acquiesced to retention of the child in the United States. Acquiescence under the Convention has been interpreted to require either: "an act or statement with the requisite formality, such as testimony in a judicial proceeding; a convincing written renunciation of rights; or a consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period of time." Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1070 . Despite the fact that Petitioner filed a petition for the child's return with Mexican authorities, Petitioner made no effort to locate the child. Petitioner even claimed that she filed the petition in retaliation of Respondents taking the child without allowing Petitioner to say goodbye, not to reclaim custody of the child. It took Petitioner over one year to take proper legal action in the country where she knew the child was located. The Court found that Petitioner exhibited a consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period of time. The Court determined that two of the affirmative defenses had been established and that the child should not be returned to Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention.