In Application of Garcia v Varona--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 3805778 (N.D.Ga.) the District Court granted the petition for return. Petitioner and Yanine Hernandez Varona ("Respondent") were the unmarried parents of two children, A.J.H. and F.J.H. Petitioner was a Spanish national. Respondent was a Cuban national, who possessed a Spanish residency card. Both were born in Seville, Spain and were Spanish nationals. Petitioner was the biological father of both children.
From April 2004 until separating in April 2010, Petitioner and Respondent lived together with the Children in Seville, Spain. Petitioner moved out of the family home in April 2010 because the situation between he and Respondent became intolerable and he had concluded that moving to his mother's house was best for the Children. Between April 2010 and the removal of the Children from Spain in December 2011, the Children resided principally with Respondent. During this period, Petitioner visited the Children every Tuesday and Thursday and the Children lived with him every other weekend. Petitioner also provided 400 Euros a month to Respondent for the support of the Children; paid for A.J.H's English classes; and paid the mortgage and a portion of the utility bills for the home in which Respondent and the Children were living. In July 2010, Respondent visited Florida with the Children to vacation with her maternal relatives there. Petitioner supported the visit to Respondent's family. While driving back from the airport following the vacation to Florida, Respondent claimed she told Petitioner that her and the Children's future was in the United States, and she claimed Petitioner said she could live where she wanted. Petitioner denied that he ever gave consent to allow Respondent to remove the Children to the United States if she chose to reside there.
Believing that Respondent may remove the Children from Spain without telling him, on September 24, 2010, Petitioner initiated a proceeding in Spain to establish "provisional measures" regarding his parental rights. On November 24, 2010, the Spanish Court issued its preliminary order regarding the Emergency Petition. The Spanish Court considered Petitioner's request for "provisional measures," "accepted that the couple have children who are minors," and required Petitioner and Respondent to appear at a hearing on December 15, 2010. The summons and complaint filed in the Spanish Court apparently was not served upon Respondent before she departed Spain. On November 30, 2010, Petitioner went to the Children's school and learned they were absent. Distressed about the location of Respondent and the well-being of the Children, Petitioner began a search to find the Children, and ultimately learned from Respondent's relatives in Spain that she had departed Seville, taking the Children with her that morning. After Petitioner learned Respondent and the Children were no longer in Seville,the parties had a telephone conversation on the evening of November 30, 2010. In the November 30, 2010, telephone conversation, Respondent did not disclose to Petitioner her plans to depart Spain the next day for the United States and to take the Children with her. On or about December 9, 2010, just days before the December 15, 2010, hearing, Respondent informed Petitioner by phone and by a letter sent by facsimile that she had moved to the United States with the Children.
On December 9, 2010, the Spanish Court, after being advised of the possibility that the Children might be removed from Spain by Respondent without the Petitioner's consent, issued a second order. The Spanish Court noted "the possible exit" from Spain of A.J.H. and F.J.H.. The court further noted that the Children had "stopped going to the school where they were registered, [which] reinforces the possibility that the mother wants to leave the country with the minors.". The court's December 9th order prohibited the departure of A.J.H. and F.J.H. from Spain, prohibited the issuance of passports to the Children, and recalled any passports issued to the Children. (Id.). The Spanish Court imposed the removal prohibition "to save, the minors' interests and their rights to relate to their father" as set forth in Article 156 of the Spanish Civil Code. The Spanish Court stated in its order: "In addition in respect
to the article 156 of the Civil Code, Paternal authority will be exercised together by both parents or just by one of them with the other's clear or tacit consent, and in this case there is evidence that the father has expressed his negativity towards leaving the country."
After departing Spain, Respondent took up residence with the Children in Georgia at the residence of Mr. Hinojosa. Respondent and the Children were currently living with Mr. Hinojosa. Respondent represented to the Court that she and Mr. Hinojosa were engaged and he was assisting Respondent in obtaining a work permit to remain in the United States. On May 12, 2011, Petitioner filed with the Office of Children's Issues, United States Department of State, an application for the return of the Children. On July 29, 2011, Petitioner filed his Motion Under the Hague Convention for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order and Scheduling of an Expedited Hearing [2],as well as his Verified Complaint and Petition for Return of the Children [1]. Petitioner sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and expedited hearing on his motion for injunctive relief.
A hearing was held by the Court on August 4, 2011, and an order was issued prohibiting the Children from being removed from this jurisdiction and setting an August 25, 2011, date for a trial on the merits.
The District Court observed that non-emancipated children in Spain are under the authority of their parents. C.C., Art. 154. A biological, unmarried parent has the same status under the Spanish Civil Code as a married parent or an adoptive parent. C.C., Art. 108. Article 108 of the Spanish Civil Code uses the term "filiation." C.C., Art. 108. Black's Law Dictionary defines "filiation" as "the fact or condition of being a son or daughter; relationship of a child to parent" and as "judicial determination of paternity." Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.2009). Spanish parental authority is normally exercised by both parents, or by one of them with the express or tacit consent of the other. C .C., Art. 156. Parental authority includes the duties towards one's children of "looking after them, keeping them in their company, feeding them, educating them and providing them with an integral upbringing." C.C., Art. 154. "Separation, annulment and divorce shall not exonerate parents from their obligations to their children." C.C., Art. 92.1. When parents are living separately, parental authority will normally be exerted by the parent with whom the child is living. C.C., Art. 156. However, when parents are living separately and do not agree on a custodial arrangement, then a judge will decide which parent will take care of the children under legal age. C.C., Art. 159. A judge may also, on request of the other parent and acting on behalf of the child, assign parental authority to be exerted jointly between the parents. C.C., Arts. 156, 158. All parents under Spanish law, including those who are not granted custodial rights, have the right to keep in touch with their underage children, unless a judicial body determines otherwise. C.C., Art. 160. An additional component of parental responsibility in Spain is the doctrine of patria potestad. This doctrine is codified in the Spanish Civil Code at Articles 154 and 156 and translates, respectively, as "authority of the parents" and "parental authority." C.C., Arts. 154, 156; Patria potestad includes the right of a Spanish parent to "make decisions regarding a child's education, well-being, protection, upbringing, and place of residence." See C.C., Arts. 154, 156, 160; Moreno, 2008 WL 4716958, at * 8. Patria potestad encompasses more than the parental authorities and responsibilities in the Civil Code and extends to "parental authority over fundamental decisions in the education and upbringing of the child, including where the child is to reside," and "decisions about ... the children's residence or those which will affect the scholar, health, and religious limits." Black's Law Dictionary defines "patria potestas" as "[t]he authority held by the male head of a family (the senior ascendant male) over his legitimate and adopted children, as well as further descendants in the male line, unless emancipated." Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.2009).
The Court further observed that under the Convention, rights of custody include "rights relating to the care of the person of a child," and in particular, "the right to determine the child's place of residence." These rights of custody may be based on the law of the state of habitual residence or a judicial decision having legal effect under the law of that state. Because the Children lived in Spain for their entire lives prior to being removed, Spain was their habitual residence and Spanish law applied in determining Petitioner's rights of custody.
The District Court held that the Petitioner had rights of custody under spanish law. Spanish parents have the duty of "looking after [their children], keeping them in their company, feeding them, educating them and providing them with an integral upbringing." C.C., Art. 154. Under the doctrine of patria potestad, Spanish parents also jointly possess authority over fundamental decisions in the education and upbringing of the child, including where the child is to reside. These obligations continue even when parents separate. C.C., Art. 92.1. Although parental authority is principally exercised by the parent with whom the children are living during a separation, that authority is not exclusive to that parent and is subject to a judicial determination where there is disagreement. C.C., Arts. 154, 159. When parents cannot agree on a custodial agreement for minor children or the scope of the parental authority each may assert after separating, the Spanish Court determines these issues. C.C., Arts. 156, 159. Until that determination occurs, both parents continue to enjoy the rights of custody afforded to them as parents under Spanish law, to include those specifically enumerated in Articles 154 and 160 of the Spanish Civil Code, as well as those arising from patria potestad. See C.C., Arts. 92.1, 154, 156, 159-160. Under Spanish law, Petitioner, as a parent, enjoyed authority to communicate with and make decisions regarding the Children that "fall within the ambit of decisions relating to the 'care of the person of the child' within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention. This decision-making parental authority qualifies as rights of custody as defined by the Convention and understood by our courts. Thus, the Court found that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that he enjoyed rights of custody under the Convention and Spanish law and that the removal of the Children from Spain violated Petitioner's rights of custody. The Court's conclusion that Petitioner had and was exercising rights of custody when the Children were removed from Spain by Respondent was further supported by the December 9, 2010, judicial decisions of the Spanish Court and Spanish Justice Court. These decisions expressly recognized Petitioner's rights of custody under Spanish law with respect to his relationship with the Children as their biological father, including the right to decide where the Children lived.
The recognition of these rights led to these Spanish judicial decisions to prevent the Children from departing Spain and to issue a criminal indictment against Respondent based on her wrongful removal of the Children from the country. In determining if there has been an exercise of rights of custody, courts within the Eleventh Circuit have favorably used the standard adopted by the Sixth Circuit that "[t]he only acceptable solution, in the absence of a ruling from a court in the country of habitual residence, is to liberally find 'exercise' whenever a parent with de jure custody rights keeps, or seeks to keep, any sort of regular contact with his or her child." See, e.g., Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1065 (6th Cir.1996) Once a court "determines that the parent exercised custody rights in any manner, the court should stop-- completely avoiding the question whether the parent exercised the custody rights well or badly." Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1066. Lastly, when one parent removes the child without seeking a ne exeat holder's consent, it is clearly an instance where the right would have been "exercised but for the removal or retention." Convention, Art. 3(b); Abbott, 130 S.Ct. at 1992. The Court found that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that he was actually exercising the rights of custody he had under Spanish law at the time of removal. Petitioner sought to be a continual presence and influence in the life of the Children up until the day of their wrongful removal, seeing them every Tuesday and Thursday, living with them every other weekend, providing a variety of financial support to them, and resorting to the Spanish Courts to formally establish his ne exeat and custody rights under Spanish law. The Court further found that Petitioner would have exercised his ne exeat right of custody, as validated by the Spanish Court's judicial decision of December 9, 2010, but for the removal of the Children from Spain without Petitioner's knowledge and without his consent.
Respondent raised the defenses of consent and abandonment. Consent or "acquiescence under the Convention requires 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; see De Vasconcelos v. De Paula Batista, No. 4:10-CV-00628, 2011 WL 806096, at *7 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 1, 2011) (applying the Friedrich standard for acquiescence) Respondent, however, did not offer any factual basis for her claim that Petitioner consented or acquiesced to her removal of the Children to the United States beyond her self-serving testimony that Petitioner said she could take the Children anywhere. The Court, having observed Respondent testify on this matter at trial, found her testimony unconvincing and not believable. Having had the benefit of observing Petitioner during his testimony, the Court found highly credible that he did not and would not have consented to the removal of the Children from Spain. The Court found Respondent has not met her burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that Petitioner consented to the removal of the Children. With regard to the affirmative defense of abandonment, this argument was, at most, based on Respondent's contention that Petitioner, having moved five minutes away to reside with his mother, was not actually exercising his custodial rights when the Children were removed. The evidence showed, however, that while Petitioner moved out, he did so in the best interests of the Children, intending to and
remaining actively engaged in their lives, including by being available to care for the Children when Respondent called to say she had to run errands or attend to other matters. A court cannot find a failure to exercise custody rights by a parent "short of acts that constitute clear and unequivocal abandonment of the child." Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1066; see Moreno, 2008 WL 4716958, at *9. There was simply no evidence of abandonment in this case.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
In re Application of Lozano, 2011 WL 3667444 (S.D.N.Y.) [United Kingdom] [Well-Settled in New Environment]
In re Application of Lozano, 2011 WL 3667444 (S.D.N.Y.) the case involved a dispute between Manuel Jose Lozano ("Petitioner") and Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez ("Respondent"), regarding their five-year-old child. On November 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Return of Child to Petitioner pursuant to the Hague Convention requesting that the Court issue an order requiring that his child be returned to London, United Kingdom, to have a British court make a custody determination. The Court held an Evidentiary Hearing on February 2 and 3, 2011. Petitioner testified and observed
the hearing via video conference in the London office of his counsel. The court denied the petition and denied the request for counsel fees on the ground that the child had been in New York for more than a year after the wrongful removal and was well settled in her new environment.
Petitioner and Respondent, who were both originally from Colombia, met and began dating in early 2004 in London. Petitioner moved into Respondent's flat about two or three months after they began dating. At the time they met, Respondent was not working and received government benefits; Petitioner worked in maintenance for a tax office and also had a nighttime cleaning job. The Parties never married. After the Parties moved in together, Petitioner mainly financially supported the household, while Respondent was responsible for cooking, cleaning, and taking care of their child
after her birth. Respondent received incapacity benefits because she suffered from depression. Respondent testified that when she arrived in London, she became very depressed because she missed her family and was unable to obtain a professional job like she had in Colombia; after she resigned from the job that she did have, she was very frustrated and became more depressed, and her doctor prescribed her Prozac. Respondent took Prozac for several years, but stopped when she first became pregnant with Petitioner's child; however, she started taking it again in 2008 before she left Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that although they had normal couple problems, generally they were "very happy together" and had a good relationship. Although Respondent agreed that they were very happy at the beginning and describes Petitioner as charming, kind, fun, and spontaneous when she initially met him, she testified that after a month of living together, he began to treat her badly, insult her on a regular basis, and be generally very controlling. Respondent described a pattern of physical and emotional abuse. She testified that Petitioner tried to kick her in the stomach when she was pregnant, pulled her out of bed one night when she received a wrong number phone call and called her a prostitute, and raped her four times. In addition, Respondent maintained that Petitioner repeatedly told her that she was stupid and useless and that her friends and family hated her, often told her to kill herself, and threatened to take the child away from her. Petitioner denies ever hitting or raping Respondent, forbidding her from speaking to her family or friends, or pushing her while she was pregnant, and testified that he never insulted, threatened, or raised his voice to Respondent. Respondent also testified that Petitioner drank heavily and watched pornography. In contrast, Petitioner testified that he did not watch pornography , and denied that he drank a lot or had ever been so drunk that he did not know what he was doing, although he admitted that he sometimes has drunk about three beers in an evening. In May 2009 Respondent and the child moved to a shelter. After Respondent left Petitioner and took the child with her, Petitioner attempted to locate Respondent and the child through the United Kingdom court system. When Respondent moved to New York, she was treated by the therapist who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") based on her symptoms, which included heightened startle response, hypervigilance, nightmares, tearfulness, and flashbacks. The Court found that Petitioner's claims that he never insulted or mistreated Respondent in any manner were not credible. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Petitioner either sexually or otherwise physically abused the child in any manner.
In November 2008, Respondent came to New York to visit her sister Maria and attempt to gather evidence to support Respondent's and Petitioner's case regarding a problematic loan. During this time, the child stayed in London with Petitioner and Petitioner's mother who was visiting from Colombia. Petitioner claimed that when he picked Respondent up at the airport upon her return, Respondent "was a completely different person" than when she left London a week earlier and she demanded that Petitioner and his mother leave their house immediately. Respondent testified that when she returned from New York, Petitioner and his mother were acting very suspicious and the child was acting fearful and strange around Petitioner; Respondent became extremely scared, and decided to leave. On the following day, November 19, 2008, Respondent left to bring the child to nursery school and never returned. Respondent and the child resided at a shelter, from November 24, 2008, until July 3, 2009. On July 3, 2009, Respondent and the child left the United Kingdom, traveling first to France and then to New York, where they had lived since July 8, 2009. Petitioner described a multitude of channels that he pursued in an attempt to find his child and resolve the situation. After having "exhausted all possibility that [the child] was still in the [United Kingdom]," on March 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a Central Authority for England and Wales Application Form seeking to have the child returned to the United Kingdom; the application was sent to the United States Department of State Office of Children's Issues on March 23, 2010. The application detailed more of the steps that Petitioner undertook to find Respondent and the child and indicated that Petitioner believed that Respondent and the child were in Manhattan.
Since arriving in New York, Respondent and the child lived with Respondent's sister Maria, Maria's partner, Respondent's niece (Maria's daughter), and the niece's two-year-old daughter. Maria worked as a nanny for the same family for four years; Maria's partner owned a grocery business. Maria financially supported Respondent and the child and, in return, Respondent cooked, cleaned, and took care of the children.
Respondent has not had a job since she came to the United States. Because Respondent and the child had British passports, they were allowed to enter the United States without a visa; however, Respondent testified that they are currently overstayed, and have been since October 2009. Respondent testified that she was consulting with immigration authorities about the possibility of being sponsored by Maria, who was a United States citizen. The child attended the same school since she and Respondent arrived in New York and was enrolled in kindergarten; according to Respondent, the child was doing very well in school. On the Academic Standards Report at the end of that school year, the teacher wrote that the child "has made a lot of progress socially [and] is beginning to assert herself more [; she] is progressing academically as well." After arriving in New York, Respondent and the child began receiving therapy from a psychiatric social worker at a family medical clinic in July 2009.
The District Court found that Petitioner has adequately established a prima facie case of wrongful retention under the Hague Convention. Respondent did not attempt to argue otherwise. The court observed that the Court "is not bound to order the return of the child if the person ... which opposes its return establishes that ... there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." Hague Convention, art. 13(b). Respondent had to establish this defense by "clear and convincing evidence." 42 U.S.C. s 11603(e)(2)(A). This defense recognizes that "[t]he interest of the child in not being removed from its habitual residence ... gives way before the primary interest of any person in not being exposed to physical or psychological danger or being placed in an intolerable situation." Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 161 (2d Cir.2001) ("Blondin IV" ). However, "[t]he level of risk and danger required to trigger this exception has consistently been held to be very high." The Court found that Petitioner's claim that he never mistreated Respondent through any verbal abuse was not credible. However, the Court was presented with much less evidence regarding any physical abuse by Petitioner, and, the evidence was entirely insufficient to find that Petitioner abused the child physically, sexually, or psychologically. Although the therapist testified that the child clearly showed signs of trauma when they first met, the therapist was unable to pinpoint the source of that trauma. There was reason to believe that, whether in combination or in isolation, the time the child spent at the shelter, as well as being uprooted from her life in the United Kingdom, could have been the cause, or the primary cause, of the trauma that the child was suffering upon her arrival in the United States. The Court therefore agreed with the Petitioner’s expert’s conclusion that based on the record before the Court, it was impossible to determine, by even a preponderance of the evidence, that the child's trauma was caused by anything Petitioner did to the child. The Court therefore agreed with Petitioner that Respondent failed to carry her burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that returning to the United Kingdom would pose a grave risk of harm to the child. There was insufficient evidence that merely returning to the United Kingdom--even if that country was the site of some of the child's trauma, whether caused by the child witnessing Petitioner's abuse of Respondent or by being in the shelter--in and of itself would present a grave risk.
The Court noted that the Convention provides that where a period of more than one year has elapsed between the dates of the wrongful removal of the child and "the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is," the judicial or administrative authority "shall [ ] order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment." Hague Convention, art. 12. For this defense to apply, Respondent must persuade the Court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child should not be returned to the United Kingdom because the child has been in New York for more than one year and has become settled. See 42 U.S.C. s 11603(e)(2)(B).
In the instant case, the Petition was filed more than a year after the wrongful removal of the child. The child was removed from the United Kingdom in July 2009 and Petitioner did not file his Petition in this Court until November 10, 2010. Petitioner asserted that the one-year period should be equitably tolled because Respondent concealed the whereabouts of the child from Petitioner, preventing him from timely filing his Petition. Petitioner maintained that the Article 12 defense was not available to Respondent and that the Court must order the child's return. The Court observed that neither the Hague Convention nor ICARA mention equitable tolling, and the Second Circuit has not considered whether the one-year period in Article 12 may be tolled. However, a number of courts outside the Second Circuit have applied equitable tolling, concluding that refusing to toll the one-year period would create incentives for abducting parents to conceal the child's whereabouts until after one year had lapsed and thus reward the behavior the Convention seeks to prevent. However, the only court within the Second Circuit to consider this issue determined that equitable tolling does not apply to the Article 12 settled defense. See Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at *11. The Matovski court concluded that "the one-year period in Article 12 is not a limitations period, nor is it analogous to a limitations period [because] ... '[a] petition for return of the child is not barred if it is filed over one year from the date of removal.' "
The District Court agreed with the conclusion reached in Matovski finding that the one-year period is not a statute of limitations and, therefore, it is not subject to equitable tolling. A petitioner is not barred from bringing a petition after the one-year period has lapsed; rather, after that point, a court must consider the countervailing consideration that the child may now be better served remaining where he or she is currently located. It was clear, from both the wording of Article 12 and the Perez-Vera Report, that the purpose of the settled defense is not to give petitioners a reasonable amount of time in which to bring their claims, as is the function of most statutes of limitations. Instead, the purpose is to take into account that if the child has become settled, its interests have to be weighed. And the Convention decided that after one year had passed, the child's interests would almost presumptively carry more weight than the interest of a petitioner. Because the child had been in New York for approximately sixteen months at the time the Petition was filed, the Court must consider whether the child had become settled in her new environment. To establish the merits of this exception, Respondent "had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was in fact settled in or connected to the new environment so that, at least inferentially, return would be disruptive with likely harmful effects." Koc, 181 F.Supp.2d at 152; see also Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at * 13 ("Respondent must marshal substantial evidence of the child's significant connections to New York." Among the factors that courts have considered in determining whether or not a child has become settled are: "the age of the child[;] the stability of the child's residence in the new environment[;] whether the child attends school or day care consistently [;] whether the child attends church [or other religious institutions] regularly[;] the stability of the mother's employment[;] and whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area." Koc 181 F.Supp.2d at 152; see also Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at *13; Reyes Olguin, 2005 WL 67094, at *8. Here, a number of these factors supported a finding that the child was now settled. At the time Petitioner initiated this action, by all indications, the child had been living in one place for sixteen months, which is a long period of time in the life of a five-year-old. Since they arrived in New York, Respondent and the child had lived in the same location with Respondent's sister, the sister's partner, Respondent's niece, and the niece's daughter; the child had become close to this family, and also saw other extended family who lived nearby on the weekends. Her school records showed that she was enrolled in pre-kindergarten last year, and currently attended kindergarten at the same school. The child's pre-kindergarten report cards stated that she was progressing socially and academically. Respondent testified that the child had made friends at school with whom she sometimes played after school and met at the park or library, went to ballet class, and attended church. Both experts testified that Respondent appropriately cares for the child, and the child told Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Fraser that she loved where she lived and was happy in New York. The therapist also testified that the child had improved dramatically since she began seeing her and seemed to be doing very well here in her current environment. However, Respondent was unemployed and she and the child are entirely dependent on Respondent's sister Maria and Maria's partner for financial support. The Court pointed out that in Matovski, the court concluded, in similar circumstances to here, that the mother's inconsistent employment history was not a major factor because the children and mother were financially supported by the children's grandparents, with whom the children and mother lived, rendering their overall financial stability "reasonably assured." Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at * 14 (determining that overall, there was "substantial, persuasive evidence" that the children had significant connections to their new environment because they had lived in the same home since arriving in New York, consistently attended school and activities with the same classmates, socialized and played with many friends, and were attached to their large extended family in New York). In contrast, in Koc, the court viewed the mother and child's financial dependence on the mother's parents as a negative factor, see Koc, 181 F.Supp.2d at 154, but there they also received support from public services, and had only lived with the child's grandparents for the first three months of the twenty-seven months that they had been living in New York prior to the filing of the petition. Under the circumstances presented the Court found there was nothing to suggest that the financial and other support that the child and Respondent were receiving from Maria's family was in jeopardy, or is unlikely to continue for the foreseeable future. There was also some concern as to the immigration status of Respondent and the child. They have both overstayed their visas and were not legally in the United States. In Koc, the court, in determining that the child was not settled, took into account that she and her mother had overstayed their visas and were in the country illegally, which the court noted would make it virtually impossible
for the child to see her father if she remained in the country. However, the Ninth Circuit has rejected the idea that immigration status should render an otherwise settled child not settled, concluding that immigration status should only be a significant factor in the settled analysis if there is an immediate, concrete threat of deportation. See B. del C.S.B., 559 F.3d at 1010-14. Here, there was no indication that Respondent and the child faced an imminent, or any, threat of deportation, and there was unrefuted testimony from Respondent that she was looking into methods to gain legal status, including having her sister Maria, who was a United States citizen, sponsor Respondent and the child for citizenship. There was nothing to suggest that, at this moment, or in the near future, the immigration status of the child and Respondent was likely to upset the stability of the child's life here in New York.
The child's life does not have to perfect for her to be settled. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the description of the child's life, as presented to the Court, suggests stability in her family, educational, social, and most importantly, home life the Court concluded that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the child was settled in her current environment. To uproot her once again would be extremely disruptive; she reached the "point at which [she has] become so settled in [her] new environment that repatriation [is] not ... in [her] best interest." Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 164. Accordingly, the Court found that the elements of the Article 12 defense had been met.
The Court chose not to exercise its discretion to order the child returned even though she was now settled. Accordingly, the Petition was denied. Because the Court was denying the Petition, Petitioner's request for an order directing Respondent to pay Petitioner's legal costs and fees was also denied.
the hearing via video conference in the London office of his counsel. The court denied the petition and denied the request for counsel fees on the ground that the child had been in New York for more than a year after the wrongful removal and was well settled in her new environment.
Petitioner and Respondent, who were both originally from Colombia, met and began dating in early 2004 in London. Petitioner moved into Respondent's flat about two or three months after they began dating. At the time they met, Respondent was not working and received government benefits; Petitioner worked in maintenance for a tax office and also had a nighttime cleaning job. The Parties never married. After the Parties moved in together, Petitioner mainly financially supported the household, while Respondent was responsible for cooking, cleaning, and taking care of their child
after her birth. Respondent received incapacity benefits because she suffered from depression. Respondent testified that when she arrived in London, she became very depressed because she missed her family and was unable to obtain a professional job like she had in Colombia; after she resigned from the job that she did have, she was very frustrated and became more depressed, and her doctor prescribed her Prozac. Respondent took Prozac for several years, but stopped when she first became pregnant with Petitioner's child; however, she started taking it again in 2008 before she left Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that although they had normal couple problems, generally they were "very happy together" and had a good relationship. Although Respondent agreed that they were very happy at the beginning and describes Petitioner as charming, kind, fun, and spontaneous when she initially met him, she testified that after a month of living together, he began to treat her badly, insult her on a regular basis, and be generally very controlling. Respondent described a pattern of physical and emotional abuse. She testified that Petitioner tried to kick her in the stomach when she was pregnant, pulled her out of bed one night when she received a wrong number phone call and called her a prostitute, and raped her four times. In addition, Respondent maintained that Petitioner repeatedly told her that she was stupid and useless and that her friends and family hated her, often told her to kill herself, and threatened to take the child away from her. Petitioner denies ever hitting or raping Respondent, forbidding her from speaking to her family or friends, or pushing her while she was pregnant, and testified that he never insulted, threatened, or raised his voice to Respondent. Respondent also testified that Petitioner drank heavily and watched pornography. In contrast, Petitioner testified that he did not watch pornography , and denied that he drank a lot or had ever been so drunk that he did not know what he was doing, although he admitted that he sometimes has drunk about three beers in an evening. In May 2009 Respondent and the child moved to a shelter. After Respondent left Petitioner and took the child with her, Petitioner attempted to locate Respondent and the child through the United Kingdom court system. When Respondent moved to New York, she was treated by the therapist who diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") based on her symptoms, which included heightened startle response, hypervigilance, nightmares, tearfulness, and flashbacks. The Court found that Petitioner's claims that he never insulted or mistreated Respondent in any manner were not credible. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Petitioner either sexually or otherwise physically abused the child in any manner.
In November 2008, Respondent came to New York to visit her sister Maria and attempt to gather evidence to support Respondent's and Petitioner's case regarding a problematic loan. During this time, the child stayed in London with Petitioner and Petitioner's mother who was visiting from Colombia. Petitioner claimed that when he picked Respondent up at the airport upon her return, Respondent "was a completely different person" than when she left London a week earlier and she demanded that Petitioner and his mother leave their house immediately. Respondent testified that when she returned from New York, Petitioner and his mother were acting very suspicious and the child was acting fearful and strange around Petitioner; Respondent became extremely scared, and decided to leave. On the following day, November 19, 2008, Respondent left to bring the child to nursery school and never returned. Respondent and the child resided at a shelter, from November 24, 2008, until July 3, 2009. On July 3, 2009, Respondent and the child left the United Kingdom, traveling first to France and then to New York, where they had lived since July 8, 2009. Petitioner described a multitude of channels that he pursued in an attempt to find his child and resolve the situation. After having "exhausted all possibility that [the child] was still in the [United Kingdom]," on March 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a Central Authority for England and Wales Application Form seeking to have the child returned to the United Kingdom; the application was sent to the United States Department of State Office of Children's Issues on March 23, 2010. The application detailed more of the steps that Petitioner undertook to find Respondent and the child and indicated that Petitioner believed that Respondent and the child were in Manhattan.
Since arriving in New York, Respondent and the child lived with Respondent's sister Maria, Maria's partner, Respondent's niece (Maria's daughter), and the niece's two-year-old daughter. Maria worked as a nanny for the same family for four years; Maria's partner owned a grocery business. Maria financially supported Respondent and the child and, in return, Respondent cooked, cleaned, and took care of the children.
Respondent has not had a job since she came to the United States. Because Respondent and the child had British passports, they were allowed to enter the United States without a visa; however, Respondent testified that they are currently overstayed, and have been since October 2009. Respondent testified that she was consulting with immigration authorities about the possibility of being sponsored by Maria, who was a United States citizen. The child attended the same school since she and Respondent arrived in New York and was enrolled in kindergarten; according to Respondent, the child was doing very well in school. On the Academic Standards Report at the end of that school year, the teacher wrote that the child "has made a lot of progress socially [and] is beginning to assert herself more [; she] is progressing academically as well." After arriving in New York, Respondent and the child began receiving therapy from a psychiatric social worker at a family medical clinic in July 2009.
The District Court found that Petitioner has adequately established a prima facie case of wrongful retention under the Hague Convention. Respondent did not attempt to argue otherwise. The court observed that the Court "is not bound to order the return of the child if the person ... which opposes its return establishes that ... there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." Hague Convention, art. 13(b). Respondent had to establish this defense by "clear and convincing evidence." 42 U.S.C. s 11603(e)(2)(A). This defense recognizes that "[t]he interest of the child in not being removed from its habitual residence ... gives way before the primary interest of any person in not being exposed to physical or psychological danger or being placed in an intolerable situation." Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 161 (2d Cir.2001) ("Blondin IV" ). However, "[t]he level of risk and danger required to trigger this exception has consistently been held to be very high." The Court found that Petitioner's claim that he never mistreated Respondent through any verbal abuse was not credible. However, the Court was presented with much less evidence regarding any physical abuse by Petitioner, and, the evidence was entirely insufficient to find that Petitioner abused the child physically, sexually, or psychologically. Although the therapist testified that the child clearly showed signs of trauma when they first met, the therapist was unable to pinpoint the source of that trauma. There was reason to believe that, whether in combination or in isolation, the time the child spent at the shelter, as well as being uprooted from her life in the United Kingdom, could have been the cause, or the primary cause, of the trauma that the child was suffering upon her arrival in the United States. The Court therefore agreed with the Petitioner’s expert’s conclusion that based on the record before the Court, it was impossible to determine, by even a preponderance of the evidence, that the child's trauma was caused by anything Petitioner did to the child. The Court therefore agreed with Petitioner that Respondent failed to carry her burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that returning to the United Kingdom would pose a grave risk of harm to the child. There was insufficient evidence that merely returning to the United Kingdom--even if that country was the site of some of the child's trauma, whether caused by the child witnessing Petitioner's abuse of Respondent or by being in the shelter--in and of itself would present a grave risk.
The Court noted that the Convention provides that where a period of more than one year has elapsed between the dates of the wrongful removal of the child and "the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is," the judicial or administrative authority "shall [ ] order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment." Hague Convention, art. 12. For this defense to apply, Respondent must persuade the Court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child should not be returned to the United Kingdom because the child has been in New York for more than one year and has become settled. See 42 U.S.C. s 11603(e)(2)(B).
In the instant case, the Petition was filed more than a year after the wrongful removal of the child. The child was removed from the United Kingdom in July 2009 and Petitioner did not file his Petition in this Court until November 10, 2010. Petitioner asserted that the one-year period should be equitably tolled because Respondent concealed the whereabouts of the child from Petitioner, preventing him from timely filing his Petition. Petitioner maintained that the Article 12 defense was not available to Respondent and that the Court must order the child's return. The Court observed that neither the Hague Convention nor ICARA mention equitable tolling, and the Second Circuit has not considered whether the one-year period in Article 12 may be tolled. However, a number of courts outside the Second Circuit have applied equitable tolling, concluding that refusing to toll the one-year period would create incentives for abducting parents to conceal the child's whereabouts until after one year had lapsed and thus reward the behavior the Convention seeks to prevent. However, the only court within the Second Circuit to consider this issue determined that equitable tolling does not apply to the Article 12 settled defense. See Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at *11. The Matovski court concluded that "the one-year period in Article 12 is not a limitations period, nor is it analogous to a limitations period [because] ... '[a] petition for return of the child is not barred if it is filed over one year from the date of removal.' "
The District Court agreed with the conclusion reached in Matovski finding that the one-year period is not a statute of limitations and, therefore, it is not subject to equitable tolling. A petitioner is not barred from bringing a petition after the one-year period has lapsed; rather, after that point, a court must consider the countervailing consideration that the child may now be better served remaining where he or she is currently located. It was clear, from both the wording of Article 12 and the Perez-Vera Report, that the purpose of the settled defense is not to give petitioners a reasonable amount of time in which to bring their claims, as is the function of most statutes of limitations. Instead, the purpose is to take into account that if the child has become settled, its interests have to be weighed. And the Convention decided that after one year had passed, the child's interests would almost presumptively carry more weight than the interest of a petitioner. Because the child had been in New York for approximately sixteen months at the time the Petition was filed, the Court must consider whether the child had become settled in her new environment. To establish the merits of this exception, Respondent "had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was in fact settled in or connected to the new environment so that, at least inferentially, return would be disruptive with likely harmful effects." Koc, 181 F.Supp.2d at 152; see also Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at * 13 ("Respondent must marshal substantial evidence of the child's significant connections to New York." Among the factors that courts have considered in determining whether or not a child has become settled are: "the age of the child[;] the stability of the child's residence in the new environment[;] whether the child attends school or day care consistently [;] whether the child attends church [or other religious institutions] regularly[;] the stability of the mother's employment[;] and whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area." Koc 181 F.Supp.2d at 152; see also Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at *13; Reyes Olguin, 2005 WL 67094, at *8. Here, a number of these factors supported a finding that the child was now settled. At the time Petitioner initiated this action, by all indications, the child had been living in one place for sixteen months, which is a long period of time in the life of a five-year-old. Since they arrived in New York, Respondent and the child had lived in the same location with Respondent's sister, the sister's partner, Respondent's niece, and the niece's daughter; the child had become close to this family, and also saw other extended family who lived nearby on the weekends. Her school records showed that she was enrolled in pre-kindergarten last year, and currently attended kindergarten at the same school. The child's pre-kindergarten report cards stated that she was progressing socially and academically. Respondent testified that the child had made friends at school with whom she sometimes played after school and met at the park or library, went to ballet class, and attended church. Both experts testified that Respondent appropriately cares for the child, and the child told Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Fraser that she loved where she lived and was happy in New York. The therapist also testified that the child had improved dramatically since she began seeing her and seemed to be doing very well here in her current environment. However, Respondent was unemployed and she and the child are entirely dependent on Respondent's sister Maria and Maria's partner for financial support. The Court pointed out that in Matovski, the court concluded, in similar circumstances to here, that the mother's inconsistent employment history was not a major factor because the children and mother were financially supported by the children's grandparents, with whom the children and mother lived, rendering their overall financial stability "reasonably assured." Matovski, 2007 WL 2600862, at * 14 (determining that overall, there was "substantial, persuasive evidence" that the children had significant connections to their new environment because they had lived in the same home since arriving in New York, consistently attended school and activities with the same classmates, socialized and played with many friends, and were attached to their large extended family in New York). In contrast, in Koc, the court viewed the mother and child's financial dependence on the mother's parents as a negative factor, see Koc, 181 F.Supp.2d at 154, but there they also received support from public services, and had only lived with the child's grandparents for the first three months of the twenty-seven months that they had been living in New York prior to the filing of the petition. Under the circumstances presented the Court found there was nothing to suggest that the financial and other support that the child and Respondent were receiving from Maria's family was in jeopardy, or is unlikely to continue for the foreseeable future. There was also some concern as to the immigration status of Respondent and the child. They have both overstayed their visas and were not legally in the United States. In Koc, the court, in determining that the child was not settled, took into account that she and her mother had overstayed their visas and were in the country illegally, which the court noted would make it virtually impossible
for the child to see her father if she remained in the country. However, the Ninth Circuit has rejected the idea that immigration status should render an otherwise settled child not settled, concluding that immigration status should only be a significant factor in the settled analysis if there is an immediate, concrete threat of deportation. See B. del C.S.B., 559 F.3d at 1010-14. Here, there was no indication that Respondent and the child faced an imminent, or any, threat of deportation, and there was unrefuted testimony from Respondent that she was looking into methods to gain legal status, including having her sister Maria, who was a United States citizen, sponsor Respondent and the child for citizenship. There was nothing to suggest that, at this moment, or in the near future, the immigration status of the child and Respondent was likely to upset the stability of the child's life here in New York.
The child's life does not have to perfect for her to be settled. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the description of the child's life, as presented to the Court, suggests stability in her family, educational, social, and most importantly, home life the Court concluded that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the child was settled in her current environment. To uproot her once again would be extremely disruptive; she reached the "point at which [she has] become so settled in [her] new environment that repatriation [is] not ... in [her] best interest." Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 164. Accordingly, the Court found that the elements of the Article 12 defense had been met.
The Court chose not to exercise its discretion to order the child returned even though she was now settled. Accordingly, the Petition was denied. Because the Court was denying the Petition, Petitioner's request for an order directing Respondent to pay Petitioner's legal costs and fees was also denied.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Judge v Williams, 2011 WL 3759476 (E.D.N.C.) [Ireland] [ Attorneys Fees and expenses]
In Judge v Williams, 2011 WL 3759476 (E.D.N.C.) the matter was before the court on Petitioner Brian Anthony Judge's Application for an award of Expenses following the court's order, after a hearing, directing the return of his minor child, E.L.W.J. to the Republic of Ireland. On August 4, 2011, Petitioner timely filed his Application for Award of Expenses, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11607(b)(3), along with his affidavit and supporting documentation and an affidavit from his counsel.
The District Court observed that ICARA provides: Any court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under section 11603 of this title shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care during the course of the proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate. 42 U.S.C. 11067(b)(3). It concluded that under the plain language of the statute, the court had the duty to order the payment of necessary expenses and legal fees unless Respondent satisfied her burden of showing that such an order would be clearly inappropriate. In this case, Respondent, who appeared at the hearing without counsel, failed to offer any response, and therefore the court could not find that she had met her burden in establishing that an award of expenses to Petitioner was clearly inappropriate. Petitioner sought $3,974.86 for expenses incurred by him personally, and submitted an affidavit supported by receipts. His expenses included the costs Petitioner incurred flying to North Carolina and back to the Republic of Ireland along with the costs of his lodging in North Carolina ($2,648.63), the costs Petitioner incurred flying E.L.W.J. from North Carolina to the Republic of Ireland ($844.30), and the cost of Petitioner's rental car in North Carolina ($481.93). The court found all these expenses to be reasonable and necessarily related to Petitioner's efforts to have E.L.W.J. returned to the Republic of Ireland. Petitioner also sought $673.84 for expenses incurred on his behalf by the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC . Petitioner's counsel represented Petitioner pro bono in this proceeding, and accordingly, Petitioner was not seeking attorney's fees. He was seeking the expenses WCSR incurred on his behalf, including the filing fee for this action ($350.00), the cost of photocopies ($64.10), and his counsel's travel expenses to attend the hearing ($259.74). Petitioner's counsel submitted an affidavit detailing those expenses. The court found the expenses were reasonable and were related to the return of E.L.W.J. Accordingly, the court found that the total amount of $4,648.70 in expenses incurred by Petitioner or on his behalf to be reasonable and necessary to his efforts to have his child returned to the Republic of Ireland.
The District Court observed that ICARA provides: Any court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under section 11603 of this title shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care during the course of the proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate. 42 U.S.C. 11067(b)(3). It concluded that under the plain language of the statute, the court had the duty to order the payment of necessary expenses and legal fees unless Respondent satisfied her burden of showing that such an order would be clearly inappropriate. In this case, Respondent, who appeared at the hearing without counsel, failed to offer any response, and therefore the court could not find that she had met her burden in establishing that an award of expenses to Petitioner was clearly inappropriate. Petitioner sought $3,974.86 for expenses incurred by him personally, and submitted an affidavit supported by receipts. His expenses included the costs Petitioner incurred flying to North Carolina and back to the Republic of Ireland along with the costs of his lodging in North Carolina ($2,648.63), the costs Petitioner incurred flying E.L.W.J. from North Carolina to the Republic of Ireland ($844.30), and the cost of Petitioner's rental car in North Carolina ($481.93). The court found all these expenses to be reasonable and necessarily related to Petitioner's efforts to have E.L.W.J. returned to the Republic of Ireland. Petitioner also sought $673.84 for expenses incurred on his behalf by the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC . Petitioner's counsel represented Petitioner pro bono in this proceeding, and accordingly, Petitioner was not seeking attorney's fees. He was seeking the expenses WCSR incurred on his behalf, including the filing fee for this action ($350.00), the cost of photocopies ($64.10), and his counsel's travel expenses to attend the hearing ($259.74). Petitioner's counsel submitted an affidavit detailing those expenses. The court found the expenses were reasonable and were related to the return of E.L.W.J. Accordingly, the court found that the total amount of $4,648.70 in expenses incurred by Petitioner or on his behalf to be reasonable and necessary to his efforts to have his child returned to the Republic of Ireland.
Chavez v Sequera, 2011 WL 3666581 (W.D.Tex.) [Mexico] [Default Judgment]
In Chavez v Sequera, 2011 WL 3666581 (W.D.Tex.) Plaintiffs filed their "Original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Return of a Child Victim of International Abduction" in which they contended that on August 13, 2010 a female minor (N.H.S.) was with her parents in Ciudad Juarez when her parents were shot and killed. Juarez police allegedly delivered N.H. S. to Plaintiffs--N.H. S .'s paternal grandparents. The next day, while the minor child was left with her aunts, Defendants--the minor child's maternal grandparents and other relatives-allegedly acted together to physically overpower the aunts, abduct the minor child, and remove her to El Paso, TX. Plaintiffs subsequently initiated custody proceedings in the First Family Court of the Judicial District of Bravos, Chihuahua, Mexico, which they contended was a court of proper venue and represented that the court granted them temporary legal custody of N.H.S. in absentia since Defendants were "avoiding detection" in both Mexico and the United States. On March 4, 2011, Defendants were served with the Petition. Defendants had until March 25, 2011 to file an answer, but failed to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). On March 31, 2011 the Clerk of the Court filed an "Entry of Default." As a result, Plaintiffs asked that the Court grant default judgment in their favor. The district court noted that a defendant must serve a responsive pleading within 21 days after being served with a summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). When a defendant fails to otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. If a plaintiff's claim is not for a "sum certain" or for an amount that can be made certain by computation, application for the entry of a judgment by default must be made to the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(B)(2). It indicated that on April 18, 2011, with all parties present, the Court held a hearing in order to apprise Defendants of the consequences of failing to answer Plaintiffs' Petition. At that time the Court explained its limited role under the Hague Convention and made it clear to Defendants that it was not the Court's duty to make an independent determination about the best interests of the child nor to opine as to the substantive legal proceedings relating to the issue of custody which were before the Mexican legal system. Further, the Court informed Defendants that they had failed to comply with the law by filing an answer timely.
Defendants did not formally appear either through counsel or pro se and did not file responsive pleadings to the Petition or to the Motion for Default Judgment. Based on the pleadings, the Court found that the allegations in Plaintiffs' Petition were facial sufficient to state their claim and merit the relief they were seeking. As a result, the Court granted the Motion for Default Judgment. It directed that that Defendants contact Plaintiffs' counsel, and arrange for the physical return of N.H. S. to Plaintiffs not more than seven (7) days following the service of its Order. It further ordered, among other things, that should Defendants fail to timely return physical custody of N.H. S. to Plaintiffs, upon notification from Plaintiffs of such deficiency, the Court may enlist the services of the United States Marshal to assist Plaintiffs in carrying out the provisions of its Order.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Avendano v Smith, 2011 WL 3503330 (D.N.M.) [Federal Rules of Evidence]
In Avendano v Smith, 2011 WL 3503330 (D.N.M.) Smith argued that the Federal Rules of Evidence did not apply to proceedings under the Hague Convention. The District Court disagreed with her. It observed that Rule 1101(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: "These rules apply generally to civil actions and proceedings, including admiralty and maritime cases, to criminal cases and proceedings, to contempt proceedings except those in which the court may act summarily, and to proceedings and cases under title 11, United States Code."
The cases the Court found suggested that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in a court's consideration of a petition for return of children. It noted that in Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F .3d 289 (1st Cir.2004), the mother removed her two daughters from the Kingdom of Sweden to the United States of America in violation of a Swedish Court order, and the father filed suit in the United States seeking to have the children returned pursuant to the "International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed the district court's conclusion, under rule 1101(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, that "the summary character of Hague Convention proceedings does not require application of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding hearsay...." 386 F.3d at 296. The First Circuit stated: "While summary proceedings certainly may occur in cases under the Convention, this was not one. Indeed, this was a full trial." 386 F.3d at 296. The First Circuit stated, however: "Whatever our doubts, nonetheless, Danaipour has not directly raised on appeal the point of the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence; at most he argues that the mother's family's recounting of the children's statements to physicians constituted inadmissible double hearsay and was inherently unreliable."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has also suggested that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in adjudications of petitions for return of children under the Hague Convention. See Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 455 F.3d 280, 285 (3d Cir.2006)(rejecting Karkkainen's claim that the district court improperly permitted testimony regarding the daughter's best interests, stating that "Karkkainen points to no specific instances in which the District Court permitted such testimony, and we have found none within the record. We also conclude that the District Court admitted hearsay testimony only under the exceptions of the Federal Rules and properly limited its use," and concluding, "[t]hus, we find no abuse of discretion on these points").
The Court thus concluded that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to its consideration of the Petition.
The cases the Court found suggested that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in a court's consideration of a petition for return of children. It noted that in Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F .3d 289 (1st Cir.2004), the mother removed her two daughters from the Kingdom of Sweden to the United States of America in violation of a Swedish Court order, and the father filed suit in the United States seeking to have the children returned pursuant to the "International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed the district court's conclusion, under rule 1101(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, that "the summary character of Hague Convention proceedings does not require application of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding hearsay...." 386 F.3d at 296. The First Circuit stated: "While summary proceedings certainly may occur in cases under the Convention, this was not one. Indeed, this was a full trial." 386 F.3d at 296. The First Circuit stated, however: "Whatever our doubts, nonetheless, Danaipour has not directly raised on appeal the point of the applicability of the Federal Rules of Evidence; at most he argues that the mother's family's recounting of the children's statements to physicians constituted inadmissible double hearsay and was inherently unreliable."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has also suggested that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in adjudications of petitions for return of children under the Hague Convention. See Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 455 F.3d 280, 285 (3d Cir.2006)(rejecting Karkkainen's claim that the district court improperly permitted testimony regarding the daughter's best interests, stating that "Karkkainen points to no specific instances in which the District Court permitted such testimony, and we have found none within the record. We also conclude that the District Court admitted hearsay testimony only under the exceptions of the Federal Rules and properly limited its use," and concluding, "[t]hus, we find no abuse of discretion on these points").
The Court thus concluded that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to its consideration of the Petition.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Radu v Toader, 2011 WL 3418368 (E.D.N.Y.) [Romania] [Rights of Custody][Ne Exeat Rights]
In Radu v Toader, 2011 WL 3418368 (E.D.N.Y.) Iulian Cristian Radu ("petitioner") brought an action against Petruta Toader ("respondent") for the return of their child L.R. to Romania pursuant to the Hague Convention. Petitioner was a Romanian citizen, and currently lived in Romania. Respondent and L.R. were also Romanian citizens, but currently resided in Forest Hills, New York. The petition was filed on April 6, 2011. Petitioner and respondent were born in Romania and were Romanian citizens. In January 2003, the two married in Romania. Two years later, on January 13, 2005, L.R. was born in Romania. Petitioner, respondent, and L.R. lived together in respondent's parent's home in Bucharest, Romania until August 2009. In May 2009, respondent took a business trip to New York for approximately five days. Upon her return, she demanded that the family move to New York. When petitioner refused, respondent filed for divorce at the end of May 2009. Petitioner contended that after respondent filed for divorce, she refused to let him see his child. On October 2, 2009, a Bucharest court issued a Divorce Decree granting respondent sole custody of the child and granting petitioner visitation rights, for one year, for two weekends each month, two weeks during the summer, one week during winter vacation, and one week during the Easter holiday. The Divorce Decree provided that, pursuant to Romanian Family Code and Law no. 272/2004, the noncustodial parent "shall retain the right to a personal relationship with the child," have input in the "upbringing and education of the child," and maintain a "close emotional relationship" with the child. The Decree also required that petitioner pay 300 Lei each month in alimony, which he continued to do since the divorce. The court defines the custody determination as a "final and irrevocable court decision." The Divorce Decree stated that the dissolution of the marriage was by "shared fault." Both parties were represented by counsel during the signing of the Decree and there was no other evidence to indicate that there was any illegality in its construction. The district court noted that petitioners visitation rights did not amount to custodial rights as required for the return of the child to Romania. Between the divorce in October 2009 and L.R.'s removal from Romania in September 2010, petitioner exercised his visitation rights and provided financial and emotional support to the child. From approximately December 2009 to June 2010, respondent permitted petitioner to have additional visits with the child beyond his decreed visitation schedule. On September 17, 2010, respondent and the child moved to the United States without notifying petitioner. Respondent noted that she did not tell petitioner that she intended to change the child's domicile because she was "unsure how her relationship with another man-now her husband-would turn out." Respondent also maintained that her Romanian attorney told her that, pursuant to law 248/500, respondent did not need petitioner's permission to change the child's domicile. On September 25, 2010, petitioner went to pick up his child from respondent's home for his scheduled visit and was told by respondent's parents that respondent and the child had resettled in the United States. On September 29, 2010, petitioner received a letter from respondent's attorney, which provided him with respondent and L.R.'s new
address and telephone number in Forest Hills, New York. Petitioner has since had telecommunications with his child via both phone calls and video conference.
On February 25, 2011, petitioner filed a petition in the Bucharest Court seeking a decision that respondent's removal and retention of L.R. outside of Romania was illegal. On May 5, 2011, the Bucharest Court dismissed the action, finding that petitioner did not have standing to bring the suit and was without remedy of law.
The District Court observed that in order to raise a prima facie case, a petitioner had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: "(1) the child was habitually resident in one State and has been ... retained in a different State; (2) the ... retention was in breach of the petitioner's custody rights under the law of the State of habitual residence; and (3) the petitioner was exercising those rights [or would have exercised those rights] at the time of the ... retention." Gitter v Gitter, 396 F.3d at 130-131. If a court deems that there has been a wrongful removal or retention of a child under the age of sixteen, and the petition was brought within a year of the wrongful removal or retention, the country in which the child is located must "order the return of the child forthwith," unless the respondent is able to raise an affirmative defense. Hague Convention art. 12.
The District Court found that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of wrongful removal and retention by a preponderance of the evidence. The parties did not dispute that L.R. was a habitual resident of Romania at the time of his removal. The pinnacle issue was whether respondent's unilateral decision to change the child's domicile was in breach of petitioner's rights of custody. Both sides cited to Abbott as the seminal case in determining whether petitioner has a ne exeat right-the right of a parent to require his consent before a child is taken out of the country. In Abbott, the Court held that a parent's ne exeat right qualifies as right of a custody under the Hague Convention. See 130 S.Ct. at 1990. Therein, the father and mother separated and a Chilean court awarded visitation rights to the father. Id. at 1988. The Court found that while visitation rights or "rights of access" alone did not amount to a ne exeat right, where the law of the country of residence explicitly requires a parent to give consent before removing the child, a custodial right exists. Thus, absent an explicit award of custody, the Court consulted the law of the country of residence to determine whether a parent had a ne exeat right.
The district court observed that the final and irrevocable Divorce Decree only awarded petitioner visitation rights, not custodial rights. The Court rejected petitioners argument that his visitation rights, in conjunction with four Romanian laws, amounted to a ne exeat right. The first law to which petitioner cited was the Romanian Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child, Law 272/2004, which concerns a child's temporary travel abroad. That law provides, in part, that "the child[ ]'s travel in the country or abroad may only be done when both parents have been notified and have agreed; any misunderstanding between the parents concerning the expression of this agreement is ruled upon by the court of law." Here, respondent did not notify petitioner of L.R.'s travel to the United States; however, any disagreement arising from the child's travel outside of Romania had already been ruled upon by "the court of law"--that is, the irrevocable and final decision rendered in the Divorce Decree, which granted sole custody to respondent. Although petitioner argued that his visitation rights alone created a ne exeat right, this argument was misguided. See Abbott, 130 S.Ct. at 1988-89 (finding that "direct and regular visitation rights," are recognized as "rights of access," but that these rights alone do not offer a return remedy under the Convention). Upon reading Law 272/2004 in full, the district court observed that the law clearly anticipated that a final and irrevocable custody determination would modify and limit the very parental rights which Law 272/2004 espoused. Article 16, for example, provides that the "court of law, considering the best interests of the child as a priority, can limit the exercise of the [noncustodial parent's right to maintain direct contact]." The Bucharest court that issued the parties' Divorce Decree did just that, and negated petitioner's custodial rights by awarding respondent sole custody of the child. Thus, petitioner failed to establish that the Divorce Decree and law 272/2004 created a ne exeat right. The second law to which petitioner cited was the Status of the Free Movement of the Romanian Citizens Abroad Law 248/2005, ("248/2005"), which states that a minor Romanian citizen may leave the country when accompanied by one of his parents "without the need for the other parent's affidavit, only if the accompanying parent presents proof that she has custody of the minor based on a final and irrevocable court decree." This law clarified that because respondent has a final and irrevocable Divorce Decree vesting her with sole custody of L.R., she could temporarily remove L.R. from Romania without petitioner's permission. The Court found that the Divorce Decree superseded the prior Romanian law requiring both parents' consent. The Romanian Consulate affirmed this finding in a letter to this Court, noting that "[i]n accordance with the Romanian Law no. 248/2005, as amended, the parent who has the custody of the child is entitled to request the issuance of a Romanian passport/travel document for the said child and to approve any trip abroad, without the other parent's consent." Accordingly, Law 248/2005 failed to confer upon petitioner a ne exeat right.
The Court concluded that petitioner had not established that he had any ne exeat rights as to L.R. under the Divorce Decree or Romanian law. The Romanian court rendered a final and irrevocable custodial determination in favor of respondent, did not award any custodial rights to petitioner, and was silent as to petitioner's ne exeat rights. This Decree, under Romanian law, then superseded any ne exeat right that petitioner may have had. Accordingly, petitioner failed to establish that respondent's retention of L.R. was in violation of his custodial rights.. Because the Divorce Decree did not afford petitioner with custodial rights, and Romanian law does not grant a ne exeat right in the face of the superseding Divorce Decree, petitioner had no custodial rights to exercise at the time of L.R.'s removal. Accordingly, petitioner failed to meet the third element of his prima facie case. The petition was therefore dismissed.
address and telephone number in Forest Hills, New York. Petitioner has since had telecommunications with his child via both phone calls and video conference.
On February 25, 2011, petitioner filed a petition in the Bucharest Court seeking a decision that respondent's removal and retention of L.R. outside of Romania was illegal. On May 5, 2011, the Bucharest Court dismissed the action, finding that petitioner did not have standing to bring the suit and was without remedy of law.
The District Court observed that in order to raise a prima facie case, a petitioner had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: "(1) the child was habitually resident in one State and has been ... retained in a different State; (2) the ... retention was in breach of the petitioner's custody rights under the law of the State of habitual residence; and (3) the petitioner was exercising those rights [or would have exercised those rights] at the time of the ... retention." Gitter v Gitter, 396 F.3d at 130-131. If a court deems that there has been a wrongful removal or retention of a child under the age of sixteen, and the petition was brought within a year of the wrongful removal or retention, the country in which the child is located must "order the return of the child forthwith," unless the respondent is able to raise an affirmative defense. Hague Convention art. 12.
The District Court found that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of wrongful removal and retention by a preponderance of the evidence. The parties did not dispute that L.R. was a habitual resident of Romania at the time of his removal. The pinnacle issue was whether respondent's unilateral decision to change the child's domicile was in breach of petitioner's rights of custody. Both sides cited to Abbott as the seminal case in determining whether petitioner has a ne exeat right-the right of a parent to require his consent before a child is taken out of the country. In Abbott, the Court held that a parent's ne exeat right qualifies as right of a custody under the Hague Convention. See 130 S.Ct. at 1990. Therein, the father and mother separated and a Chilean court awarded visitation rights to the father. Id. at 1988. The Court found that while visitation rights or "rights of access" alone did not amount to a ne exeat right, where the law of the country of residence explicitly requires a parent to give consent before removing the child, a custodial right exists. Thus, absent an explicit award of custody, the Court consulted the law of the country of residence to determine whether a parent had a ne exeat right.
The district court observed that the final and irrevocable Divorce Decree only awarded petitioner visitation rights, not custodial rights. The Court rejected petitioners argument that his visitation rights, in conjunction with four Romanian laws, amounted to a ne exeat right. The first law to which petitioner cited was the Romanian Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child, Law 272/2004, which concerns a child's temporary travel abroad. That law provides, in part, that "the child[ ]'s travel in the country or abroad may only be done when both parents have been notified and have agreed; any misunderstanding between the parents concerning the expression of this agreement is ruled upon by the court of law." Here, respondent did not notify petitioner of L.R.'s travel to the United States; however, any disagreement arising from the child's travel outside of Romania had already been ruled upon by "the court of law"--that is, the irrevocable and final decision rendered in the Divorce Decree, which granted sole custody to respondent. Although petitioner argued that his visitation rights alone created a ne exeat right, this argument was misguided. See Abbott, 130 S.Ct. at 1988-89 (finding that "direct and regular visitation rights," are recognized as "rights of access," but that these rights alone do not offer a return remedy under the Convention). Upon reading Law 272/2004 in full, the district court observed that the law clearly anticipated that a final and irrevocable custody determination would modify and limit the very parental rights which Law 272/2004 espoused. Article 16, for example, provides that the "court of law, considering the best interests of the child as a priority, can limit the exercise of the [noncustodial parent's right to maintain direct contact]." The Bucharest court that issued the parties' Divorce Decree did just that, and negated petitioner's custodial rights by awarding respondent sole custody of the child. Thus, petitioner failed to establish that the Divorce Decree and law 272/2004 created a ne exeat right. The second law to which petitioner cited was the Status of the Free Movement of the Romanian Citizens Abroad Law 248/2005, ("248/2005"), which states that a minor Romanian citizen may leave the country when accompanied by one of his parents "without the need for the other parent's affidavit, only if the accompanying parent presents proof that she has custody of the minor based on a final and irrevocable court decree." This law clarified that because respondent has a final and irrevocable Divorce Decree vesting her with sole custody of L.R., she could temporarily remove L.R. from Romania without petitioner's permission. The Court found that the Divorce Decree superseded the prior Romanian law requiring both parents' consent. The Romanian Consulate affirmed this finding in a letter to this Court, noting that "[i]n accordance with the Romanian Law no. 248/2005, as amended, the parent who has the custody of the child is entitled to request the issuance of a Romanian passport/travel document for the said child and to approve any trip abroad, without the other parent's consent." Accordingly, Law 248/2005 failed to confer upon petitioner a ne exeat right.
The Court concluded that petitioner had not established that he had any ne exeat rights as to L.R. under the Divorce Decree or Romanian law. The Romanian court rendered a final and irrevocable custodial determination in favor of respondent, did not award any custodial rights to petitioner, and was silent as to petitioner's ne exeat rights. This Decree, under Romanian law, then superseded any ne exeat right that petitioner may have had. Accordingly, petitioner failed to establish that respondent's retention of L.R. was in violation of his custodial rights.. Because the Divorce Decree did not afford petitioner with custodial rights, and Romanian law does not grant a ne exeat right in the face of the superseding Divorce Decree, petitioner had no custodial rights to exercise at the time of L.R.'s removal. Accordingly, petitioner failed to meet the third element of his prima facie case. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Vasquez v Colores,--- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3366380 (8th Cir.(Minn.))[Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Evidence]
In Vasquez v Colores,--- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3366380 (8th Cir.(Minn.)) Dr. Carlos Colores Vasquez filed a petition to return his twenty-two-month-old daughter, I.R.C., to Mexico. Stephanie Colores, Dr. Colores's estranged wife and mother of I.R.C., opposed the petition. The district court entered an order granting the petition. Ms. Colores appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying her motion for a continuance and in excluding the testimony of two witnesses. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The Court observed that the Article 13(b) exception, on which Ms. Colores relied, applies if the party opposing the petition establishes by clear and convincing evidence that "there is grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." It indicated that it has recognized two types of grave risk that are cognizable under Article 13(b): cases in which a child is sent to a zone of war, famine, or disease and those involving serious abuse or neglect. (Citing Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886, 900 (8th Cir.2003).
Ms. Colores, an American citizen, and Dr. Colores married in Minnesota in the summer of 2007 and moved to Mexico. Their daughter, I.R.C., was born in December 2008. In early May 2010, Ms. Colores left Mexico with I.R.C. and traveled to South Carolina, where her mother was vacationing. The three returned to her mother's home in Minnesota in late May. Dr. Colores filed his petition for emergency ex parte relief under the Convention on August 23, 2010. The district court granted that petition two days later. Ms. Colores sought a continuance, claiming that she needed more time to obtain additional information from the United States Embassy in Mexico City and security footage from the gated community in which she and Dr. Colores had lived. Dr. Colores objected to the continuance, arguing that Ms. Colores had failed to demonstrate that the information was material to the petition. The district court denied the motion for a continuance, and the parties commenced the first of three evidentiary hearings on September 1. The parties agreed that I.R.C. was a habitual resident of Mexico and that her removal was wrongful because Dr. Colores did not consent and I.R.C. did not have a valid passport.
Ms. Colores claimed that the Article 13(b) exception applied and thus the district court was not obligated to return I.R.C. to Mexico. Over the course of the hearings, she sought to establish that Dr. Colores's anger problems and history of abuse posed a grave risk of physical or psychological harm that satisfied the Article 13(b) exception. She testified that Dr. Colores had abused I.R.C. by shaking her head forcefully six to ten times a month, head-butting her two to three times a month, or hitting her on the back with his fist. Barbara Jo Gangl, Ms. Colores's mother, testified that she had witnessed Dr. Colores shake I.R.C.'s head forcefully and pull her hair. Following Ms. Colores's testimony, she sought to elicit testimony from John Gangl, her stepfather. She proffered that he would corroborate her account of Dr. Colores's episodes of rage by recounting a telephone conversation in which Dr. Colores allegedly lashed out at Gangl after he complained about Dr. Colores's refusal to pick up Barbara Jo from the airport when she visited. The district court inquired whether Gangl had witnessed Dr. Colores in a rage in the presence of I.R.C. and was told that he had not. The district court concluded that the proffered testimony was not relevant and excluded it. Ms. Colores also sought to elicit expert testimony from Dr. Jeffrey L. Edleson, Professor and Director of Research at the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota and the Director of the Minnesota Center against Violence and Abuse. On September 7, 2010, when Ms. Colores first broached the topic of calling Dr. Edleson with the district court, he was unavailable to appear because he had been hospitalized. When questioned, counsel for Ms. Colores could not provide the court with more information why Dr. Edleson had been hospitalized or when he might be available. As part of her offer of proof, Ms. Colores recounted Dr. Edleson's expertise in the area of domestic violence and referred to a study, funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, that addressed "the risk of harm to children in the context of domestic violence against parents and children in [Hague Convention cases]." At the time, the study was unpublished and not subject to peer review. Dr. Colores objected to the proposed testimony, noting that the witness had not been disclosed previously and had not examined I.R.C. or interviewed either of her parents. Dr. Colores argued that the proffer consisted of a generalized summary of phenomena associated with domestic abuse and was irrelevant to the specific issues at issue in the proceedings. Dr. Colores also maintained that such testimony would not shed light on the specific claims Ms. Colores made, but would only extend the proceedings and thereby exacerbate his financial hardship. The district court excluded
Dr. Edleson's testimony, concluding that it was unreliable and irrelevant.
On September 14, 2010, the district court entered an order granting Dr. Colores's petition. It did not find credible Ms. Colores's allegations that there was a grave risk that I.R.C. would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise be placed in an intolerable situation if she were returned to Mexico. It cited findings of a pediatric neurologist who had examined I.R.C. at the district court's request and who opined, based on his examination and on I.R.C.'s normal, age-appropriate neurological development, that there was no evidence of any neurologic injury. The district court also found that Ms. Colores had never reported any injury and had been willing to leave I.R.C. with Dr. Colores for ten days when she returned to the United States to attend a funeral.
The Court of Appeals pointed out that Ms. Colores's motion for a continuance was based on her claim that she needed to gather evidence that was located in Mexico. According to Ms. Colores, the evidence consisted of witness statements and videotapes from surveillance cameras of the gated community in which she and Dr. Colores had lived, as well as a copy of a report she had allegedly filed with the U.S. Embassy documenting Dr. Colores's abuse of herself and of I.R.C. Dr. Colores contended that Ms. Colores failed to establish that the evidence she sought was material and that the district court appropriately denied the motion in light of the prejudice Dr. Colores suffered from continued delay and the primacy placed on expediency in Convention proceedings. Given the underlying circumstances and the professed goal of expediency in Convention proceedings, the Court of Appeals agreed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
The Court also observed that a district court enjoys wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of proffered evidence, and evidentiary rulings should only be overturned if there was a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. To warrant reversal, an error must affect a substantial right of the objecting party, and the burden of showing prejudice rests on that party. Ms. Colores maintained that her stepfather's testimony would have corroborated her account of Dr. Colores's rage and anger. The incident at the heart of the proffer occurred in December 2008, when Gangl and Dr. Colores argued on the telephone after Dr. Colores refused to pick up Barbara Jo from the airport when she came to visit and instead asked that she take a cab to the house. After hearing the details of the phone conversation and determining that Gangl was not physically present with I.R.C. when it occurred, the district court concluded that the proffered testimony was not relevant and excluded it. The Court of Appeals held that at best, the proffered testimony repeated Ms. Colores's account of her husband's behavior on the night of the telephone call. But I .R.C. was not implicated in the particulars of the phone call, and Gangl's proffered testimony would have been cumulative of prior testimony from Ms. Colores and her mother. Accordingly, it could not say that the district court abused its discretion in excluding this testimony.
Ms. Colores argued that the district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from Dr. Edleson. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admission of expert testimony and requires that the district court function as a gatekeeper to "ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence is not only relevant, but reliable." (Citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," an expert may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise so long as "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." Fed.R.Evid. 702.
The Court held that it did not have to determine whether Dr. Edleson's testimony was unreliable because the report that would have served as its basis had not yet been published or peer-reviewed, because it concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony as irrelevant after finding that Dr. Edleson had not interviewed either of the parties or I.R.C. The district court concluded that Dr. Edleson's testimony would not have directly aided the fact-finder in sorting out whether abuse had occurred and, if so, what effect it had on I.R.C. It emphasized that there was little physical evidence of abuse or mistreatment and that the veracity of the allegations of abuse turned primarily on the credibility of the parties' testimony. Questions of admissibility "are not to be measured by what we may have done were we the district court," but whether its evidentiary decisions constitute "a clear abuse of discretion." Dunn v. Nexgrill Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 1049, 1057 (8th Cir.2011). Ms. Colores did not demonstrate that excluding the testimony was so prejudicial as to require reversal. She did not contend that Dr. Edleson had concluded that Ms. Colores or I.R.C. had been abused or that I.R.C. faced a grave risk of harm if she were returned to Mexico. So far as the district court was aware, Ms. Colores did not contend that Dr. Edleson had formed any opinion as to I.R.C. It concluded that the exclusion of Dr. Edleson's testimony did not warrant reversal.
Suarez v Castrillo, 2011 WL 2669198 (D.Colo.) [Venezuela] [Availability of Hague Convention as a Remedy]
In Suarez v Castrillo, 2011 WL 2669198 (D.Colo.) Petitioner and Respondent were the parents of three minor children. On or about June 29, 2011, Ms. Suarez filed a Petition For Enforcement of Child Custody Decree in the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe County. That Petition alleged that the parties were subject to a 2003 divorce and custody decree from a court in Venezuela that gave Ms. Suarez legal custody of the children. The Petition recited that the children resided with Ms. Suarez pursuant to that decree, first in Venezuela and, upon Ms. Suarez's move in September 2007, in Alberta, Canada. Ms. Suarez alleged that she and Mr. Castrillo reached an agreement by which the children would temporarily reside with Mr. Castrillo in Colorado for one school year, and then be returned to Canada. Ms. Suarez alleges that that agreement had now expired, but Mr. Castrillo refused to return the children to Canada.
The District Court observed that Ms. Suarez's proceeding in Arapahoe County invoked C.R.S.14-13-101 et seq., Colorado's implementation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. Part 3 of that Act incorporates the principles of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980. The statute provides that Colorado courts "shall recognize and enforce a child-custody determination of a court of another state," including foreign nations, and allows those courts to "grant any relief normally available under the law of this state to enforce a registered child-custody determination made by a court of another state." Upon a properly-supported petition by a parent claiming custodial rights over a child, the state court is required to hold an expedited hearing and direct that the petitioning parent "take immediate physical custody of the child" unless the respondent parent demonstrates certain specific facts calling the validity of the custody order into question.
On July 5, 2011, Mr. Castrillo filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1446, removing the action from the Colorado District Court to this Court. Mr. Castrillo contended that this Court had original jurisdiction over the proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441, insofar as this action "involves a federal question," although Mr. Castrillo did not specifically identify the source of that question. He noted that Ms. Suarez's petition uses terms that are "used only in matters pursuant to the Hague Convention," that Ms. Suarez had previously filed a request with Canadian authorities under the Hague Convention, and thus, apparently concluded that this action "arises under the Hague Convention."
The District Court held that on its face, Ms. Suarez's petition did not invoke a federal question. Her claims arose exclusively under Colorado statutory law; she did not invoke any provisions of the federal International Child Abduction Remedies Act ("ICARA"), 42 U.S.C. s 11601, either directly or inferentially. The fact that she used terminology consistent with the Hague Convention (and, for that matter, with ICARA) was of no significance, insofar as Colorado's UCCJEA is expressly cognizant of
the Hague Convention, and incorporates by reference certain aspects of that treaty. Ms. Suarez could have asserted a claim under ICARA either in lieu of or in addition to her claims under Colorado's UCCJEA, see 2 U.S.C. s 11603(a) (conferring concurrent jurisdiction on state and federal courts over ICARA claims), but for whatever reason, Ms. Suarez elected to pursue only those remedies that Colorado provides. Accordingly, the face of her pleading did not invoke any federal question. Mr. Castrillo's citation to Matter of Mahmoud, 1997 WL 43542 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (unpublished), was inapposite. There, the petitioning parent had filed an ICARA claim in state court, which the respondent parent sought to remove to federal court. Thus, the Court found that Ms. Suarez's claim arose purely under state law and was not preempted by federal law. Accordingly, Mr. Castrillo failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the Court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the action and it was remanded to the Colorado District Court for Arapahoe County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).
Judge v Williams, 2011 WL 3100346 (E.D.N.C.) [Ireland] [Rights of Custody]
In Judge v Williams, 2011 WL 3100346 (E.D.N.C.) Petitioner Brian Anthony Judge filed a Verified Petition Under Hague Convention seeking the return of his minor child, E.L.W.J. ( "Child") to the Republic of Ireland. In an order filed on July 20, 2011, the court found, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11604 and North Carolina General Statute s 50A-31, that E.L.W.J. was imminently likely to be removed from the state by her mother, Respondent Rebecca Lynn Williams, if not taken into immediate custody pending the court's ultimate disposition of the Hague Petition. Accordingly, the court ordered that a warrant be issued directing the United States Marshal to take physical custody of E.L.W.J. and deliver her to the court for a hearing on the Hague Petition set for July 21,2011, at 4 p.m. The court ordered that the Marshal could, if necessary, deliver E.L.W.J. into the custody of Petitioner pending the hearing.
The matter came on for hearing on July 21, 2011. Petitioner was present with his attorney, Jennifer Lyday, and E.L.W.J. Respondent was present, without an attorney. The undersigned asked Respondent if she was prepared to go forward without an attorney, and Respondent answered yes. Both Petitioner and Respondent testified, and introduced evidence. Based on the testimony and evidence at the hearing and the Verified Hague Petition and Verified Application, the found that E.L.W.J. was born in the Republic of Ireland on May 4, 2007. Petitioner was E.L .W.J.'s father, and Respondent was E.L.W.J.'s mother. Petitioner and Respondent have never married. On January 26, 2010, Petitioner and Respondent executed a statutory guardianship declaration which granted Petitioner joint guardianship of E.L.W.J. under Irish Law pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Children Act of 1997. From E.L.W.J.'s birth until July 2009, Petitioner lived with the Child and raised the Child with Respondent. Both Petitioner and Respondent lived with the Child again from January 2010 until June 2010. From July 2009 to January 2010 and again from June 2010 until the events giving rise to the filing of the Hague Petition, Petitioner spent time with the Child every Wednesday and Saturday. The Child spent the night with Petitioner every other Saturday. E.L.W.J. lived in Ireland from her birth until March 2011. She was enrolled in a Montessori classes for the school term of September 2010-June 2010. In January 2011, Respondent told Petitioner that she would like to visit the United States to see her sister, and that she would like to take E.L.W.J. with her. Petitioner refused to sign a passport application for E.L.W.J. Petitioner averred that Respondent nevertheless obtained a United States passport for E.L.W.J. without his knowledge or consent. On the passport application, Respondent stated she would be using the passport to travel to the United States for six weeks. The passport was issued on March 3, 2011. On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Petitioner spent time with E.L.W .J. during his regularly-scheduled access time. Respondent told him at the conclusion of the access time that she was planning on taking a trip over the upcoming weekend so Petitioner would not have his regularly-scheduled Saturday access time. On March 19, 2011, Petitioner sent Respondent a text message asking to speak with E.L.W.J. Respondent replied that Petitioner would be able to speak with E.L.W.J. on Monday. On March 22, 2011, Respondent emailed Petitioner telling him she was "gone for good." She told Petitioner it was in the best interest for her, E.L.W.J., and her older child to be away from Petitioner. She warned Petitioner not to come looking for her because he would never find her. Petitioner reported Respondent's taking of E.L.W.J. to the local police. He filed an application with the Irish Central Authority, the office designated by Ireland to administer its responsibilities under the Hague Convention. Petitioner thereafter filed for sole custody of E.L.W.J. He testified that the Irish District Court for the Dublin Metropolitan District served Respondent in the United States with notice of the hearing on the application. Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Irish District Court granted Petitioner sole interim custody of E.L.W.J. and scheduled another hearing on September 29, 2011. Respondent testified she did not feel E.L.W.J. was safe in Petitioner's custody. She testified that in the past Petitioner allowed E.L.W.J. to insert an object in her nostrils, necessitating a visit to the emergency room, and blamed the incident on E.L.W.J.'s older half-sister. She also testified that Petitioner had, on one occasion, locked E.L.W.J. and her half-sister in a sitting room for hours. In June 2010, he took painkillers that did not belong to him and was impaired. She also testified that E.L.W.J.'s half-sister was a witness to Petitioner physically assaulting Respondent on one occasion, and that Petitioner broke Respondent's arm while on a vacation in Spain. Respondent also testified that Petitioner spoke to E.L.W.J.'s half-sister about topics which were inappropriate. She introduced into evidence email correspondence between herself and Petitioner, wherein each accused the other of drug use and inappropriate behavior. Respondent testified that Petitioner had not, however, ever harmed E.L.W.J. Respondent also testified that separating E.L.W.J. from her half-sister would result in psychological harm to both children.
The District Court granted the petition. It noted that "Habitual residence" is not defined by the Hague Convention. Miller, 240 F.3d at 400. The Fourth Circuit has concluded, however, that "there is no real distinction between ordinary residence and habitual residence." A court must make a fact-specific inquiry on a case-by-case basis to determine a child's customary residence prior to the removal or retention. In undertaking this inquiry, the court uses a two-part framework. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 588 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir.2009). The court first examines whether the parents shared a settled intention to abandon the former country of residence. The court then examines the extent of the child's acclimatization to the new country of residence. Under the framework set forth in Maxwell, E.L.W.J.'s habitual residence was the Republic of Ireland. First, there was no shared parental intent to abandon the Republic of Ireland as E.L.W.J .'s habitual residence. Second, there was no indication that the short four months E.L.W.J. has spent in the United States rendered her so acclimatized to her life in this country that the court "can say with confidence that [E.L.W.J.'s] relative attachments to the two countries have changed to the point where requiring return to the original forum would now be tantamount to taking the child out of the family life and social environment in which [her] life has developed." Petitioner had "custody rights" as to E.L.W.J. as they are defined under the Hague Convention and Irish law. The Hague Convention defines "rights of custody" as including "rights relating to the care of the person of the child, and in particular, the right to determine the child's residence." Convention, art. 5. The Eleventh Circuit, in examining Irish law, has observed that "guardianship" under Irish law " 'concerns matters of overriding seminal importance to a child's upbringing' " and " 'the duty to ensure that a child is properly cared for and that decisions relating to the child are made with his or her best interests at heart.' " Hanley v. Roy, 485 F.3d 641, 646 (11th Cir.2007). The Eleventh Circuit concluded that guardianship rights under Irish law "necessarily involve 'the care of the person of the child' within the meaning of the [Hague] Convention." The district court similarly concluded that joint guardianship under Irish law is a right of custody within the meaning of the Hague Convention. Additionally, it was undisputable that Petitioner had "custody rights" as to E.L.W.J. after June 29, 2011, when the Irish District Court awarded him interim sole custody of the child. Respondent's removal of E.L.W.J. from Ireland was in breach of Petitioner's custody rights. Petitioner's custody rights--by virtue of his joint guardianship of E.L.W.J.--included the right to make decisions of overriding seminal importance to E.L.W.J.'s upbringing. The nation where E.L.W.J. is reared is a matter of overriding seminal importance to E.L.W.J.'s upbringing, and Petitioner had the
right to take part in that decision. Moreover, Respondent's retention of E.L.W.J.
in the United States after the Irish District Court awarded Petitioner interim
sole custody of the child was in breach of Petitioner's custody rights. Petitioner was exercising his custody rights at the time of the E.L.W.J.'s removal from Ireland and retention in the United States. Courts "will 'liberally find "exercise" whenever a parent with de jure custody rights keeps, or seeks to keep, any sort of regular contact with his or her child.' " Bader v. Kramer, 484 F.3d 666, 671 (4th Cir.2007)(quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1065 (6th Cir.1996) ("Friedrich II "). The Fourth Circuit has explained that under this approach: " 'a person [who] has valid custody rights to a child under the law of the country of the child's habitual residence ... cannot fail to 'exercise those custody rights under the Hague Convention short of acts that constitute clear and
unequivocal abandonment of the child." Here, Petitioner had been active part in E.L.W.J.'s life from her birth until she was removed from Ireland.
The court found that Petitioner established, by preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case under the Hague Convention. It next found that the Respondent had not met her burden in establishing the "grave risk of harm" affirmative defense. Petitioner had never harmed E.L.W.J. nor was there any suggestion that he would harm her. Nor was there evidence of a sustained pattern of physical abuse and/or propensity for violent abuse. Moreover, there was no evidence that E.L.W J.'s separation from her half-sister would result in the type of severe psychological harm envisioned by the affirmative defense. See Freier v. Freier, 969 F.Supp. 436, 443 (E.D.Mich.1996)(finding that a child's separation from her mother and two half-siblings did not establish the "grave risk" defense because "this sort of adjustment problem common in the relocation of most children is not enough"). Finally, Respondent had not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that returning E.L.J.W. to Ireland would subject her to an intolerable situation.
The matter came on for hearing on July 21, 2011. Petitioner was present with his attorney, Jennifer Lyday, and E.L.W.J. Respondent was present, without an attorney. The undersigned asked Respondent if she was prepared to go forward without an attorney, and Respondent answered yes. Both Petitioner and Respondent testified, and introduced evidence. Based on the testimony and evidence at the hearing and the Verified Hague Petition and Verified Application, the found that E.L.W.J. was born in the Republic of Ireland on May 4, 2007. Petitioner was E.L .W.J.'s father, and Respondent was E.L.W.J.'s mother. Petitioner and Respondent have never married. On January 26, 2010, Petitioner and Respondent executed a statutory guardianship declaration which granted Petitioner joint guardianship of E.L.W.J. under Irish Law pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Children Act of 1997. From E.L.W.J.'s birth until July 2009, Petitioner lived with the Child and raised the Child with Respondent. Both Petitioner and Respondent lived with the Child again from January 2010 until June 2010. From July 2009 to January 2010 and again from June 2010 until the events giving rise to the filing of the Hague Petition, Petitioner spent time with the Child every Wednesday and Saturday. The Child spent the night with Petitioner every other Saturday. E.L.W.J. lived in Ireland from her birth until March 2011. She was enrolled in a Montessori classes for the school term of September 2010-June 2010. In January 2011, Respondent told Petitioner that she would like to visit the United States to see her sister, and that she would like to take E.L.W.J. with her. Petitioner refused to sign a passport application for E.L.W.J. Petitioner averred that Respondent nevertheless obtained a United States passport for E.L.W.J. without his knowledge or consent. On the passport application, Respondent stated she would be using the passport to travel to the United States for six weeks. The passport was issued on March 3, 2011. On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Petitioner spent time with E.L.W .J. during his regularly-scheduled access time. Respondent told him at the conclusion of the access time that she was planning on taking a trip over the upcoming weekend so Petitioner would not have his regularly-scheduled Saturday access time. On March 19, 2011, Petitioner sent Respondent a text message asking to speak with E.L.W.J. Respondent replied that Petitioner would be able to speak with E.L.W.J. on Monday. On March 22, 2011, Respondent emailed Petitioner telling him she was "gone for good." She told Petitioner it was in the best interest for her, E.L.W.J., and her older child to be away from Petitioner. She warned Petitioner not to come looking for her because he would never find her. Petitioner reported Respondent's taking of E.L.W.J. to the local police. He filed an application with the Irish Central Authority, the office designated by Ireland to administer its responsibilities under the Hague Convention. Petitioner thereafter filed for sole custody of E.L.W.J. He testified that the Irish District Court for the Dublin Metropolitan District served Respondent in the United States with notice of the hearing on the application. Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Irish District Court granted Petitioner sole interim custody of E.L.W.J. and scheduled another hearing on September 29, 2011. Respondent testified she did not feel E.L.W.J. was safe in Petitioner's custody. She testified that in the past Petitioner allowed E.L.W.J. to insert an object in her nostrils, necessitating a visit to the emergency room, and blamed the incident on E.L.W.J.'s older half-sister. She also testified that Petitioner had, on one occasion, locked E.L.W.J. and her half-sister in a sitting room for hours. In June 2010, he took painkillers that did not belong to him and was impaired. She also testified that E.L.W.J.'s half-sister was a witness to Petitioner physically assaulting Respondent on one occasion, and that Petitioner broke Respondent's arm while on a vacation in Spain. Respondent also testified that Petitioner spoke to E.L.W.J.'s half-sister about topics which were inappropriate. She introduced into evidence email correspondence between herself and Petitioner, wherein each accused the other of drug use and inappropriate behavior. Respondent testified that Petitioner had not, however, ever harmed E.L.W.J. Respondent also testified that separating E.L.W.J. from her half-sister would result in psychological harm to both children.
The District Court granted the petition. It noted that "Habitual residence" is not defined by the Hague Convention. Miller, 240 F.3d at 400. The Fourth Circuit has concluded, however, that "there is no real distinction between ordinary residence and habitual residence." A court must make a fact-specific inquiry on a case-by-case basis to determine a child's customary residence prior to the removal or retention. In undertaking this inquiry, the court uses a two-part framework. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 588 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir.2009). The court first examines whether the parents shared a settled intention to abandon the former country of residence. The court then examines the extent of the child's acclimatization to the new country of residence. Under the framework set forth in Maxwell, E.L.W.J.'s habitual residence was the Republic of Ireland. First, there was no shared parental intent to abandon the Republic of Ireland as E.L.W.J .'s habitual residence. Second, there was no indication that the short four months E.L.W.J. has spent in the United States rendered her so acclimatized to her life in this country that the court "can say with confidence that [E.L.W.J.'s] relative attachments to the two countries have changed to the point where requiring return to the original forum would now be tantamount to taking the child out of the family life and social environment in which [her] life has developed." Petitioner had "custody rights" as to E.L.W.J. as they are defined under the Hague Convention and Irish law. The Hague Convention defines "rights of custody" as including "rights relating to the care of the person of the child, and in particular, the right to determine the child's residence." Convention, art. 5. The Eleventh Circuit, in examining Irish law, has observed that "guardianship" under Irish law " 'concerns matters of overriding seminal importance to a child's upbringing' " and " 'the duty to ensure that a child is properly cared for and that decisions relating to the child are made with his or her best interests at heart.' " Hanley v. Roy, 485 F.3d 641, 646 (11th Cir.2007). The Eleventh Circuit concluded that guardianship rights under Irish law "necessarily involve 'the care of the person of the child' within the meaning of the [Hague] Convention." The district court similarly concluded that joint guardianship under Irish law is a right of custody within the meaning of the Hague Convention. Additionally, it was undisputable that Petitioner had "custody rights" as to E.L.W.J. after June 29, 2011, when the Irish District Court awarded him interim sole custody of the child. Respondent's removal of E.L.W.J. from Ireland was in breach of Petitioner's custody rights. Petitioner's custody rights--by virtue of his joint guardianship of E.L.W.J.--included the right to make decisions of overriding seminal importance to E.L.W.J.'s upbringing. The nation where E.L.W.J. is reared is a matter of overriding seminal importance to E.L.W.J.'s upbringing, and Petitioner had the
right to take part in that decision. Moreover, Respondent's retention of E.L.W.J.
in the United States after the Irish District Court awarded Petitioner interim
sole custody of the child was in breach of Petitioner's custody rights. Petitioner was exercising his custody rights at the time of the E.L.W.J.'s removal from Ireland and retention in the United States. Courts "will 'liberally find "exercise" whenever a parent with de jure custody rights keeps, or seeks to keep, any sort of regular contact with his or her child.' " Bader v. Kramer, 484 F.3d 666, 671 (4th Cir.2007)(quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1065 (6th Cir.1996) ("Friedrich II "). The Fourth Circuit has explained that under this approach: " 'a person [who] has valid custody rights to a child under the law of the country of the child's habitual residence ... cannot fail to 'exercise those custody rights under the Hague Convention short of acts that constitute clear and
unequivocal abandonment of the child." Here, Petitioner had been active part in E.L.W.J.'s life from her birth until she was removed from Ireland.
The court found that Petitioner established, by preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case under the Hague Convention. It next found that the Respondent had not met her burden in establishing the "grave risk of harm" affirmative defense. Petitioner had never harmed E.L.W.J. nor was there any suggestion that he would harm her. Nor was there evidence of a sustained pattern of physical abuse and/or propensity for violent abuse. Moreover, there was no evidence that E.L.W J.'s separation from her half-sister would result in the type of severe psychological harm envisioned by the affirmative defense. See Freier v. Freier, 969 F.Supp. 436, 443 (E.D.Mich.1996)(finding that a child's separation from her mother and two half-siblings did not establish the "grave risk" defense because "this sort of adjustment problem common in the relocation of most children is not enough"). Finally, Respondent had not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that returning E.L.J.W. to Ireland would subject her to an intolerable situation.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Carnelli v Pas, 2011 WL 1983360 (D.N.J.) [United Kingdom] [Return to Different Country than Habitual Residence] [Wishes of Child]
In Carnelli v Pas, 2011 WL 1983360 (D.N.J.) Not for Publication, a Petition was filed by Mirna Judith Rodriguez Carnelli ("Petitioner") for the return of her minor child. The District Court denied the Petition based on the "wishes of the child" exception.
Petitioner and Respondent, both natives of Uruguay, were married on May 3, 1988 in Uruguay. In June 1988, Respondent emigrated to the United States, and his wife and young daughter, Virginia, followed in 1990. The family settled in Kearny, New Jersey. On September 20, 1996, Daniel was born in Belleville, New Jersey. The family resided together in Kearny until 2002, when Petitioner and Respondent separated. At that point, Petitioner and her children continued to live in Kearny, New Jersey, while Respondent resided in a separate home in the neighboring town of Harrison. When Petitioner lost her job at a bank in 2004, she was unable to find new employment, a circumstance she attributed to her immigration status. Through personal connections, she was offered a job in Mallorca, Spain. Her emigration to Spain required her to depart from her native Uruguay, where she was a citizen and could obtain the necessary travel authorization. Prior to departing for Uruguay in or about January 2005, she and Respondent reached an agreement regarding the minor children: Virginia would live in the United States in Respondent's care and Daniel would
remain with his mother. Petitioner and Respondent jointly obtained a United States passport for Daniel's international travel to Uruguay, and then to Spain.
While in Uruguay, Petitioner sought to dissolve her marriage with Respondent. Although Respondent also contends that he did not consent to the divorce, he admitted that he signed the divorce documents. The Uruguayan court entered a Divorce Decree terminating the marriage of the parties on or about September 28, 2005. It included a custody agreement, whereby Respondent would continue to exercise custody over Virginia and Petitioner would exercise custody over Daniel.
Petitioner and Daniel moved to Spain, where they remained until January 2009. At that time, a loss of employment prompted Petitioner to relocate. She was offered a job in London, and so in or about January 2009, Petitioner, Daniel, and Petitioner's second husband, whom she married on September 23, 2008, moved to the United Kingdom. Per a signed authorization transmitted from the Uruguayan Consulate in
New York to the Uruguayan Consulate in Palma de Mallorca, Respondent consented to Daniel's residence in Spain and the United Kingdom in the custody of Petitioner. In or about July 2009, Daniel traveled from the United Kingdom to the United States to spend the summer with his father, as he had done every year since leaving the United States in 2005. While Daniel was visiting Respondent, Petitioner's husband returned to
his native Argentina upon the death of his mother, and Petitioner soon relocated there to help her husband care for his ailing father. Petitioner informed Respondent of her situation and asked that he keep Daniel in his care until she was able to sort out her residency, which was necessary for Daniel to obtain his own Argentine residency. She admited that she agreed to his enrollment in school in New Jersey, given the uncertainty regarding how long it would take for her residency to be approved but stressed that she made it clear to Respondent that Daniel should be returned to her once she obtained residency. When the residency was approved on October 15, 2009, Petitioner asked for Daniel to return but Respondent refused. Petitioner claimed that at that point, she began to encounter consistent difficulty in establishing contact with Respondent and ultimately was unable to establish contact at all. Daniel remained in the physical custody of his father since July 2009 to the present. Petitioner filed the Petition in this Court on June 16, 2010. At that time, Daniel was 13 years old. He was currently 14.
The Court found that Petitioner met her burden of proving that Daniel was wrongfully retained. The retention occurred in or about October 2009, when, according to Petitioner's testimony, she asked that Daniel be returned to her and Respondent failed to comply with her wishes. Petitioner conceded that the United Kingdom was the child's place of habitual residence. Petitioner's request for Daniel's return showed her exercise of her custody rights. Having found a wrongful retention, the Court noted that this case presented a slightly unusual situation with regard to the interplay between Article 3, which sets forth the standard for wrongful removal or retention, and Article 12, which directs the return of the child forthwith if that standard is met. The country in which Daniel was habitually resident immediately before his wrongful detention--which Petitioner conceded was the United Kingdom–was not the country to which Petitioner sought he be returned. Petitioner relocated to Argentina after Daniel traveled to the United States. Nor was Argentina a place Daniel ever called home, such that his return to his mother would effect the Convention's goal of having custody disputes resolved in the home country, as opposed to the place where the child has been wrongfully removed or retained. Petitioner argued that the discrepancy between the country of habitual residence, as defined by the Convention, and the country to which she sought Daniel's return should not foreclose the relief she sought because Article 12 of the Convention was deliberately silent on the matter of where the return of a wrongfully removed or retained child should be ordered. Petitioner appeared to be correct. Article 12 simply provides that "the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith," without specifying, as the preamble to the Convention contemplates, that the return be to the country of habitual residence. (see also Von Kennell Gaudin v.
Remis, 282 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that Convention does not make
clear to what country a child must be returned and pointing out difference between
Convention's preamble and its actual text). The Convention's official commentary, cited
by Petitioner in support of her argument, bears out the view that a court handling a
Convention claim may order the return of a child to the custodial parent even if the
parent is not in the place of the child's habitual residence. ( See Elisa Perez Vera, Explanatory Report P 110, in 3 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session, Child Abduction 459-60 (1982).
Though the Court agreed with Petitioner's argument that it was authorized under the Convention to return Daniel to his mother's custody in Argentina, the Court found that Respondent had proven, by the required preponderance of the evidence standard, that Article 13's "wishes of the child" defense applied. Article 13 provides that "[t]he judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its [sic] views." Daniel unequivocally testified that he wished to remain in the United States with his father. There is no set age under the Convention at which a child is deemed to be sufficiently mature; rather, the Third Circuit guides that the district court hearing the matter must make this fact-intensive determination on a case-by-case basis. Tsai-Yi Yang, 499 F.3d at 279. Daniel, who is 14, expressed his wishes to stay with his father in a cogent and well-reasoned manner. He explained that he enjoyed meaningful and close relationships with many family members also living in or near his father's home in Kearny, New Jersey, including specifically his sister, Virginia, his cousin Michael and his Aunt Betsy. He also testified that he was happy with his schooling as a student in Kearny High School, where he enjoyed friendships and, as the records demonstrated, had achieved good grades. In contrast, he described an itinerant and somewhat lonely lifestyle with his mother. He also testified that while he spoke a little Spanish, he was not fluent in the language, which further provided a reasoned basis for his desire to remain with his father in the United States. Moreover, there was no indication that Daniel's wishes to remain with his father were somehow the product of undue influence by his father or some other family member or third-party. The Court also noted that his wishes did not appear to arise from a teenager's rebellious streak or some aversion to his mother. Daniel made it very clear that he loved both of his parents and wished to have a harmonious relationship with both of them. His preference to remain in the United States with his father would seem to stem, rather, from a desire for a more stable lifestyle than his mother was able to provide. Petitioner drew attention to the fact that during this period of time that Daniel had been living with his father, it has been very difficult for her to contact Daniel and that, moreover, the infrequent contact she did have with him (mostly over computer chats, as opposed to telephone) had been strained. She indicated her belief that this breakdown of communication with her son evidenced Respondent's efforts to alienate Daniel from Petitioner. The Court observed that communication between Petitioner and her son had been lacking. Daniel did display feelings of resentment toward his mother, but based on his testimony, the Court understood this tension to stem from Daniel's frustration with his mother's lack of candor with respect to her pursuit of this Petition and her role in the commencement of an ultimately unsubstantiated child welfare investigation by New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services. The Court listened attentively to Daniel's testimony, and it did not perceive the communication problems between Daniel and Petitioner to be indicative of any manipulation by Respondent of Daniel's thoughts and feelings but rather of the boy's difficult position in which he is caught in a tug-of-war between his adversarial parents. The Court weighed this unfortunate circumstance and concluded that it does not diminish the reasonableness of Daniel's wish to remain in the United States with his father. The Court found that Daniel presented as a thoughtful and intelligent young man, who, at the age of 14, demonstrated a degree of maturity at which it was appropriate for the Court to consider his views regarding whether to stay with his father or be returned to his mother. Accordingly, the Court denied the Petition under Article 13 of the Convention and the implementing statutory provision, 42 U.S.C. 11603(e)(2)(B).
Petitioner and Respondent, both natives of Uruguay, were married on May 3, 1988 in Uruguay. In June 1988, Respondent emigrated to the United States, and his wife and young daughter, Virginia, followed in 1990. The family settled in Kearny, New Jersey. On September 20, 1996, Daniel was born in Belleville, New Jersey. The family resided together in Kearny until 2002, when Petitioner and Respondent separated. At that point, Petitioner and her children continued to live in Kearny, New Jersey, while Respondent resided in a separate home in the neighboring town of Harrison. When Petitioner lost her job at a bank in 2004, she was unable to find new employment, a circumstance she attributed to her immigration status. Through personal connections, she was offered a job in Mallorca, Spain. Her emigration to Spain required her to depart from her native Uruguay, where she was a citizen and could obtain the necessary travel authorization. Prior to departing for Uruguay in or about January 2005, she and Respondent reached an agreement regarding the minor children: Virginia would live in the United States in Respondent's care and Daniel would
remain with his mother. Petitioner and Respondent jointly obtained a United States passport for Daniel's international travel to Uruguay, and then to Spain.
While in Uruguay, Petitioner sought to dissolve her marriage with Respondent. Although Respondent also contends that he did not consent to the divorce, he admitted that he signed the divorce documents. The Uruguayan court entered a Divorce Decree terminating the marriage of the parties on or about September 28, 2005. It included a custody agreement, whereby Respondent would continue to exercise custody over Virginia and Petitioner would exercise custody over Daniel.
Petitioner and Daniel moved to Spain, where they remained until January 2009. At that time, a loss of employment prompted Petitioner to relocate. She was offered a job in London, and so in or about January 2009, Petitioner, Daniel, and Petitioner's second husband, whom she married on September 23, 2008, moved to the United Kingdom. Per a signed authorization transmitted from the Uruguayan Consulate in
New York to the Uruguayan Consulate in Palma de Mallorca, Respondent consented to Daniel's residence in Spain and the United Kingdom in the custody of Petitioner. In or about July 2009, Daniel traveled from the United Kingdom to the United States to spend the summer with his father, as he had done every year since leaving the United States in 2005. While Daniel was visiting Respondent, Petitioner's husband returned to
his native Argentina upon the death of his mother, and Petitioner soon relocated there to help her husband care for his ailing father. Petitioner informed Respondent of her situation and asked that he keep Daniel in his care until she was able to sort out her residency, which was necessary for Daniel to obtain his own Argentine residency. She admited that she agreed to his enrollment in school in New Jersey, given the uncertainty regarding how long it would take for her residency to be approved but stressed that she made it clear to Respondent that Daniel should be returned to her once she obtained residency. When the residency was approved on October 15, 2009, Petitioner asked for Daniel to return but Respondent refused. Petitioner claimed that at that point, she began to encounter consistent difficulty in establishing contact with Respondent and ultimately was unable to establish contact at all. Daniel remained in the physical custody of his father since July 2009 to the present. Petitioner filed the Petition in this Court on June 16, 2010. At that time, Daniel was 13 years old. He was currently 14.
The Court found that Petitioner met her burden of proving that Daniel was wrongfully retained. The retention occurred in or about October 2009, when, according to Petitioner's testimony, she asked that Daniel be returned to her and Respondent failed to comply with her wishes. Petitioner conceded that the United Kingdom was the child's place of habitual residence. Petitioner's request for Daniel's return showed her exercise of her custody rights. Having found a wrongful retention, the Court noted that this case presented a slightly unusual situation with regard to the interplay between Article 3, which sets forth the standard for wrongful removal or retention, and Article 12, which directs the return of the child forthwith if that standard is met. The country in which Daniel was habitually resident immediately before his wrongful detention--which Petitioner conceded was the United Kingdom–was not the country to which Petitioner sought he be returned. Petitioner relocated to Argentina after Daniel traveled to the United States. Nor was Argentina a place Daniel ever called home, such that his return to his mother would effect the Convention's goal of having custody disputes resolved in the home country, as opposed to the place where the child has been wrongfully removed or retained. Petitioner argued that the discrepancy between the country of habitual residence, as defined by the Convention, and the country to which she sought Daniel's return should not foreclose the relief she sought because Article 12 of the Convention was deliberately silent on the matter of where the return of a wrongfully removed or retained child should be ordered. Petitioner appeared to be correct. Article 12 simply provides that "the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith," without specifying, as the preamble to the Convention contemplates, that the return be to the country of habitual residence. (see also Von Kennell Gaudin v.
Remis, 282 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that Convention does not make
clear to what country a child must be returned and pointing out difference between
Convention's preamble and its actual text). The Convention's official commentary, cited
by Petitioner in support of her argument, bears out the view that a court handling a
Convention claim may order the return of a child to the custodial parent even if the
parent is not in the place of the child's habitual residence. ( See Elisa Perez Vera, Explanatory Report P 110, in 3 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session, Child Abduction 459-60 (1982).
Though the Court agreed with Petitioner's argument that it was authorized under the Convention to return Daniel to his mother's custody in Argentina, the Court found that Respondent had proven, by the required preponderance of the evidence standard, that Article 13's "wishes of the child" defense applied. Article 13 provides that "[t]he judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its [sic] views." Daniel unequivocally testified that he wished to remain in the United States with his father. There is no set age under the Convention at which a child is deemed to be sufficiently mature; rather, the Third Circuit guides that the district court hearing the matter must make this fact-intensive determination on a case-by-case basis. Tsai-Yi Yang, 499 F.3d at 279. Daniel, who is 14, expressed his wishes to stay with his father in a cogent and well-reasoned manner. He explained that he enjoyed meaningful and close relationships with many family members also living in or near his father's home in Kearny, New Jersey, including specifically his sister, Virginia, his cousin Michael and his Aunt Betsy. He also testified that he was happy with his schooling as a student in Kearny High School, where he enjoyed friendships and, as the records demonstrated, had achieved good grades. In contrast, he described an itinerant and somewhat lonely lifestyle with his mother. He also testified that while he spoke a little Spanish, he was not fluent in the language, which further provided a reasoned basis for his desire to remain with his father in the United States. Moreover, there was no indication that Daniel's wishes to remain with his father were somehow the product of undue influence by his father or some other family member or third-party. The Court also noted that his wishes did not appear to arise from a teenager's rebellious streak or some aversion to his mother. Daniel made it very clear that he loved both of his parents and wished to have a harmonious relationship with both of them. His preference to remain in the United States with his father would seem to stem, rather, from a desire for a more stable lifestyle than his mother was able to provide. Petitioner drew attention to the fact that during this period of time that Daniel had been living with his father, it has been very difficult for her to contact Daniel and that, moreover, the infrequent contact she did have with him (mostly over computer chats, as opposed to telephone) had been strained. She indicated her belief that this breakdown of communication with her son evidenced Respondent's efforts to alienate Daniel from Petitioner. The Court observed that communication between Petitioner and her son had been lacking. Daniel did display feelings of resentment toward his mother, but based on his testimony, the Court understood this tension to stem from Daniel's frustration with his mother's lack of candor with respect to her pursuit of this Petition and her role in the commencement of an ultimately unsubstantiated child welfare investigation by New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services. The Court listened attentively to Daniel's testimony, and it did not perceive the communication problems between Daniel and Petitioner to be indicative of any manipulation by Respondent of Daniel's thoughts and feelings but rather of the boy's difficult position in which he is caught in a tug-of-war between his adversarial parents. The Court weighed this unfortunate circumstance and concluded that it does not diminish the reasonableness of Daniel's wish to remain in the United States with his father. The Court found that Daniel presented as a thoughtful and intelligent young man, who, at the age of 14, demonstrated a degree of maturity at which it was appropriate for the Court to consider his views regarding whether to stay with his father or be returned to his mother. Accordingly, the Court denied the Petition under Article 13 of the Convention and the implementing statutory provision, 42 U.S.C. 11603(e)(2)(B).
Monday, May 23, 2011
Khalip v Khalip, 2011 WL 1882514 (E.D.Mich.) [Ukrane] [Federal and State Judicial Remedies]
In Khalip v Khalip, 2011 WL 1882514 (E.D.Mich.) Petitioner Oleg Yuriyovich Khalip (Petitioner) sought the return of his two minor children, claiming that the children's mother, Respondent Alla Viktorivna Khalip, a/k/a Alla Viktorivna Galkin, (Respondent), wrongfully removed them from the Ukraine to Michigan. Petitioner was born in 1964 in the Ukraine and was a citizen and resident of the Ukraine since his birth. Respondent was born in 1977 in the Ukraine. She was a native and citizen of the Ukraine, where she resided until June 11, 2010. Petitioner and Respondent were married on January 25, 2002. Their two children were born in the Ukraine; IOK in 2002 and KOK in 2003. On November 20, 2009, Petitioner and Respondent divorced; a custody agreement was not reached during the divorce proceedings. On May 11, 2010, Petitioner signed a notarized application, which gave consent to Respondent to permanently move IOK and KOK to the United States. On June 1, 2010, Petitioner signed a notarized application revoking his consent because, according to Petitioner, Respondent breached an oral agreement related generally to the upbringing of the children and their permanent residence after the age of 16. According to Petitioner, he personally served the revocation application on Respondent on June 8, 2010. In support, he proffed three affidavits from witnesses who said that they overheard the conversation between Petitioner and Respondent. Respondent disputed that she was ever served with Respondent's revocation. On June 10, 2010, Respondent moved to Michigan with IOK and KOK, where they permanently resided since. According to Petitioner, Respondent picked up the children from school on June 10, 2010, and secretly took them to Michigan without Petitioner's knowledge. According to Respondent, Petitioner agreed to the move. Respondent asserted that upon their arrival in Michigan, she provided Petitioner with telephone and email contact information. She said that the children had regular contact with Petitioner via phone and video chat and that Petitioner visited them twice in Michigan within two months. Petitioner did not admit or deny the visits. On June 14, 2010, Respondent remarried to Leonardo Alex Galkin (Galkin). Respondent, Galkin, and the two children now lived together in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Court observed that under Ukrainian law, each spouse has equal rights and obligations in the marriage and family. Article 51, Ukraine Constitution. The Family Code of Ukraine establishes the equal rights and duties of the parents with regard to a child whether they were married or not. Article 141, Ukraine Family Code. Particularly, a divorce does not influence on the extent of the parental rights and duties. A child's residence under the age of ten shall be determined by the consent of his or her parents. Article 160, Ukraine Family Code. If a mother and a father who live separately have not come to agreement in the question where the minor children should live, their dispute may be resolved by a court. Article 161, Ukraine Family Code. Finally, if one of the parents or any other person willfully, without consent of another parent or another persons, with whom the minor child lived according to the law or by the court decision, change the place of his or her residence, also by means of abduction, a court, upon application of the interested person, has the right to deliver immediately the decision on depriving the child and his or her return to the last place of residence. Article 162, Ukraine Family Code.
On July 7, 2010, a Ukraine district court entered a decision in response to Petitioner's consent revocation application, which certified Petitioner's revocation and held that Respondent had illegally taken the children without Petitioner's consent. The Ukrainian appeals courts affirmed the lower court's decision, after which the Ukranian district court ordered immediate taking of the children. On February 2, 2011, Respondent appealed to the Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine. The high court accepted the appeal, effectively staying the lower court's rulings.
On September 3, 2010, Petitioner filed the petition. On March 9, 2011, the Court heard oral argument on the petition. On March 23, 2011, the Court interviewed the children in chambers. Each articulated the reasons that they do not want to return to the Ukraine: generally, because they recalled that the Ukraine was dirty and preferred the United States, which they said was cleaner and bigger. KOK stated that she did not want to be without her mother. Petitioner moved the Court to appoint an independent psychologist to interview the children, and the Court ordered a psychologist to "determine and report to the Court and both parties whether or not the children have attained an age and degree of maturity for the Court to take account of their views." If the answer to the first question was "yes," the psychologist was further ordered to "determine and report the children's views regarding returning to the Ukraine to live." The psychologist's report was filed with the Court, and both parties, on April 19, 2011. In response to the Court's first question, the psychologist stated: In my professional opinion, speaking as a psychologist, neither child (IOK or KOK) is at his or her present age and stage of cognitive and emotional development capable of conducting a mature (in the sense of: thoughtful, rational, and reasonably balanced and comprehensive) analysis of his or her own best interests with respect to the question of returning to live in the Ukraine with their father.
Respondent conceded that the Ukraine, where the children were born and had always lived, was the habitual residence of the children prior to their removal. To demonstrate that he was exercising valid custody rights at the time the children were removed to Michigan, Petitioner, inter alia, cited his consent revocation application and the decisions from the Ukraine district and appellate courts, which certified the revocation and ordered the children's return. Respondent said she did not wrongfully remove the children because Petitioner consented to the children's permanent change of residency, relying on the May 11, 2010, consent application. She asserted that she was not aware of Petitioner's June 1, 2010, revocation at the time that she moved with the children on June 10, 2010. Based on the evidence, particularly the consent revocation document, which was notarized before Respondent moved with the children, the court held that Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to show that at the time the children were removed he was exercising his custody rights. Further, the surreptitious nature of Respondent's move with the children--without Petitioner present and executed in an unplanned manner by picking up the children from school without the Petitioner's knowledge or that of the children's caretaker--weighed in favor of Petitioner's assertion that Respondent moved without his consent. Finally, even if Respondent was not aware of the revocation, it did not take away from the fact that Petitioner exercised his rights by expressly revoking his consent in a notarized writing, which he then filed in the Ukranian courts for certification. This was not a case where Petitioner simply changed his mind. Thus, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were wrongfully removed.
Respondent argued that Petitioner consented to the removal when he signed the consent application, and that he subsequently acquiesced in the removal of the children when he visited them in Michigan on two occasions. In response, Petitioner argued that he did not consent to the children's removal and again profferred the consent revocation document and the Ukranian district and appellate court decisions to support his assertion. On balance, the evidence weighed in Petitioner's favor. Particularly, the consent revocation document and the Ukranian district and appellate court decisions persuaded the Court that Petitioner was actively exercising his custodial rights before and after the children were removed. Also, the manner in which the children were removed supported the inference that Petitioner did not consent to the children's removal. Petitioner's visits to Michigan and communication over email and through video chat failed to demonstrate that he acquiesced in the removal. The Court also found that IOK and KOK had not reached the requisite level of maturity that a Court should consider their views. Accordingly, the Court found that the age and maturity defense did not apply.
The Petition was granted and it was ordered that the parties' children, IOK and KOK, be returned to the Ukraine, pursuant to the Convention and ICARA. However, in light of Respondent's May 13, 2011, supplemental filing, submitted on the eve of the Court's decision, the Court stayed the effectiveness of this decision for 30 days. The Court recognized that the July 7, 2010, decision from a district court in the Ukraine, which ordered the immediate return of the children appeared to have been effectively stayed by the Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine. In the Ukraine, "High Specialized Courts shall consider cassation complaints of respective court jurisdiction; analyze, study, and cumulate court practice; assist lower courts to ensure identical application of Constitutional norms and laws in court practice; perform other functions." Martindale-Hubbell Law Digest, Ukraine, 11 (2008). The Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine "ruled": (1) [t]o start cassation proceedings, concerning the claim of [Petitioner] towards [Respondent] ... concerning separation of the children, their return to the permanent place of residence to Ukraine and determination of the place of residence of the children with [Petitioner]"; (2) [t]o suspend execution of decision of Leninskiy district court of Zaporizhya city dated July 07, 2010 till termination of the cassation proceedings of the case"; (3) "[t]o demand the mentioned civil case from Leninskiy district court of Zaporizhya city"; and (4) "[t]o send the copies of the cassation appeal and the enclosed materials of the case to the persons who participate in the case[,] to explain their right to file an objection to cassation appeal till May 20, 2011."
Based on the above ruling, the nature of the future proceedings in the Ukraine courts was not altogether clear. As it related to the present petition, under Article 15 of the Convention: judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to the making of an order for the return of the child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination. The Court should also consider the "length of time it will take to obtain the required documentation." Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Department of State, March 26, 1986, at 14-15. In the interest of comity, the Court gave considerable weight to the Ukraine court decisions in deciding whether the children were wrongfully removed and should therefore be returned to Petitioner; the Highest Specialized Court's decision is no different. On the other hand, the Court has an obligation under the Convention to make an expeditious decision. With these conflicting considerations in mind, effectiveness of this decision was stayed for 30 days to allow the parties the opportunity to further illuminate the status of the legal proceedings in the Ukraine, including the time it will take the courts in the Ukraine to resolve the pending proceedings.
The Court observed that under Ukrainian law, each spouse has equal rights and obligations in the marriage and family. Article 51, Ukraine Constitution. The Family Code of Ukraine establishes the equal rights and duties of the parents with regard to a child whether they were married or not. Article 141, Ukraine Family Code. Particularly, a divorce does not influence on the extent of the parental rights and duties. A child's residence under the age of ten shall be determined by the consent of his or her parents. Article 160, Ukraine Family Code. If a mother and a father who live separately have not come to agreement in the question where the minor children should live, their dispute may be resolved by a court. Article 161, Ukraine Family Code. Finally, if one of the parents or any other person willfully, without consent of another parent or another persons, with whom the minor child lived according to the law or by the court decision, change the place of his or her residence, also by means of abduction, a court, upon application of the interested person, has the right to deliver immediately the decision on depriving the child and his or her return to the last place of residence. Article 162, Ukraine Family Code.
On July 7, 2010, a Ukraine district court entered a decision in response to Petitioner's consent revocation application, which certified Petitioner's revocation and held that Respondent had illegally taken the children without Petitioner's consent. The Ukrainian appeals courts affirmed the lower court's decision, after which the Ukranian district court ordered immediate taking of the children. On February 2, 2011, Respondent appealed to the Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine. The high court accepted the appeal, effectively staying the lower court's rulings.
On September 3, 2010, Petitioner filed the petition. On March 9, 2011, the Court heard oral argument on the petition. On March 23, 2011, the Court interviewed the children in chambers. Each articulated the reasons that they do not want to return to the Ukraine: generally, because they recalled that the Ukraine was dirty and preferred the United States, which they said was cleaner and bigger. KOK stated that she did not want to be without her mother. Petitioner moved the Court to appoint an independent psychologist to interview the children, and the Court ordered a psychologist to "determine and report to the Court and both parties whether or not the children have attained an age and degree of maturity for the Court to take account of their views." If the answer to the first question was "yes," the psychologist was further ordered to "determine and report the children's views regarding returning to the Ukraine to live." The psychologist's report was filed with the Court, and both parties, on April 19, 2011. In response to the Court's first question, the psychologist stated: In my professional opinion, speaking as a psychologist, neither child (IOK or KOK) is at his or her present age and stage of cognitive and emotional development capable of conducting a mature (in the sense of: thoughtful, rational, and reasonably balanced and comprehensive) analysis of his or her own best interests with respect to the question of returning to live in the Ukraine with their father.
Respondent conceded that the Ukraine, where the children were born and had always lived, was the habitual residence of the children prior to their removal. To demonstrate that he was exercising valid custody rights at the time the children were removed to Michigan, Petitioner, inter alia, cited his consent revocation application and the decisions from the Ukraine district and appellate courts, which certified the revocation and ordered the children's return. Respondent said she did not wrongfully remove the children because Petitioner consented to the children's permanent change of residency, relying on the May 11, 2010, consent application. She asserted that she was not aware of Petitioner's June 1, 2010, revocation at the time that she moved with the children on June 10, 2010. Based on the evidence, particularly the consent revocation document, which was notarized before Respondent moved with the children, the court held that Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to show that at the time the children were removed he was exercising his custody rights. Further, the surreptitious nature of Respondent's move with the children--without Petitioner present and executed in an unplanned manner by picking up the children from school without the Petitioner's knowledge or that of the children's caretaker--weighed in favor of Petitioner's assertion that Respondent moved without his consent. Finally, even if Respondent was not aware of the revocation, it did not take away from the fact that Petitioner exercised his rights by expressly revoking his consent in a notarized writing, which he then filed in the Ukranian courts for certification. This was not a case where Petitioner simply changed his mind. Thus, Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were wrongfully removed.
Respondent argued that Petitioner consented to the removal when he signed the consent application, and that he subsequently acquiesced in the removal of the children when he visited them in Michigan on two occasions. In response, Petitioner argued that he did not consent to the children's removal and again profferred the consent revocation document and the Ukranian district and appellate court decisions to support his assertion. On balance, the evidence weighed in Petitioner's favor. Particularly, the consent revocation document and the Ukranian district and appellate court decisions persuaded the Court that Petitioner was actively exercising his custodial rights before and after the children were removed. Also, the manner in which the children were removed supported the inference that Petitioner did not consent to the children's removal. Petitioner's visits to Michigan and communication over email and through video chat failed to demonstrate that he acquiesced in the removal. The Court also found that IOK and KOK had not reached the requisite level of maturity that a Court should consider their views. Accordingly, the Court found that the age and maturity defense did not apply.
The Petition was granted and it was ordered that the parties' children, IOK and KOK, be returned to the Ukraine, pursuant to the Convention and ICARA. However, in light of Respondent's May 13, 2011, supplemental filing, submitted on the eve of the Court's decision, the Court stayed the effectiveness of this decision for 30 days. The Court recognized that the July 7, 2010, decision from a district court in the Ukraine, which ordered the immediate return of the children appeared to have been effectively stayed by the Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine. In the Ukraine, "High Specialized Courts shall consider cassation complaints of respective court jurisdiction; analyze, study, and cumulate court practice; assist lower courts to ensure identical application of Constitutional norms and laws in court practice; perform other functions." Martindale-Hubbell Law Digest, Ukraine, 11 (2008). The Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine "ruled": (1) [t]o start cassation proceedings, concerning the claim of [Petitioner] towards [Respondent] ... concerning separation of the children, their return to the permanent place of residence to Ukraine and determination of the place of residence of the children with [Petitioner]"; (2) [t]o suspend execution of decision of Leninskiy district court of Zaporizhya city dated July 07, 2010 till termination of the cassation proceedings of the case"; (3) "[t]o demand the mentioned civil case from Leninskiy district court of Zaporizhya city"; and (4) "[t]o send the copies of the cassation appeal and the enclosed materials of the case to the persons who participate in the case[,] to explain their right to file an objection to cassation appeal till May 20, 2011."
Based on the above ruling, the nature of the future proceedings in the Ukraine courts was not altogether clear. As it related to the present petition, under Article 15 of the Convention: judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to the making of an order for the return of the child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination. The Court should also consider the "length of time it will take to obtain the required documentation." Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Department of State, March 26, 1986, at 14-15. In the interest of comity, the Court gave considerable weight to the Ukraine court decisions in deciding whether the children were wrongfully removed and should therefore be returned to Petitioner; the Highest Specialized Court's decision is no different. On the other hand, the Court has an obligation under the Convention to make an expeditious decision. With these conflicting considerations in mind, effectiveness of this decision was stayed for 30 days to allow the parties the opportunity to further illuminate the status of the legal proceedings in the Ukraine, including the time it will take the courts in the Ukraine to resolve the pending proceedings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)