In Salinier v. Moore, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3515699 (D.Colo.) the matter was before the court on petitioner's motion for fees and expenses Incurred regarding the petition for return of the minor child pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s 11607(b)(3). On March 1, 2010, the District Court ordered Respondent to return the minor child to Petitioner's custody in France in accordance with the Convention on International Child Abduction. Consequently, Petitioner was entitled to an order requiring 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 clearlyinappropriate." 42 U.S.C. s 11607(b)(3).
The Petitioner sought $24,397.67 in attorney fees, $3,350.84 in costs for litigating all aspects of this case, and $4,482.87 in travel and lodging expenses. In response, while Respondent does not contest "the reasonableness of the fees incurred ... [Respondent] suggest[s] that the paralegal time was excessive and that Respondent should not have to be liable for the costs for the travel expenses of Petitioner's Wife and other relatives." Respondent also contended that a fee award would be "clearly inappropriate" because it would limit her ability to support herself and her four other children.
The Court observed that : "The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). "In other words, to determine the reasonableness of a fee request, a court must begin by calculating the so-called 'lodestar amount' of a fee, and a claimant is entitled to the presumption that this lodestar amount reflects a 'reasonable' fee. Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1281 (10th Cir.1998)"A district court should approach this reasonableness inquiry 'much as a senior partner in a private law firm would review the eports of subordinate attorneys when billing clients.' "However, '[t]he record ought to assure [the appellate court] that the district court did not eyeball the fee request and cut it down by an arbitrary percentage.'
Petitioner sought fees in the amount of $24,397.67-76 .9 hours at $200 per hour for Attorney Courtney Leathers and 55.5 hours at $100 per hour for Paralegal Cathy Butler. Respondent suggested, without providing any supporting authority or documentation, that the number of paralegal hours spent on this case was excessive. Respondent does not object to the $3,350.84 request for costs.
The Court noted that in determining the reasonableness of the hours expended, it must consider several factors, including: (1) whether the amount of time spent on a particular task appears reasonable in light of the complexity of the case, the strategies pursued, and the responses necessitated by an opponent's maneuvering; (2) whether the amount of time spent is reasonable in relation to counsel's experience; and (3) whether the billing entries are sufficiently detailed, showing how much time was allotted to specific task. See Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 553-54 (10th Cir.1983),
The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed." Hensley, 461 U .S. at 433. The Tenth Circuit has noted that "[c]ounsel for the party claiming the fees has the burden of proving hours to the district court by submitting meticulous, contemporaneous time records that reveal, for each lawyer for whom fees are sought, all hours for which compensation is requested and how those hours were allotted to specific tasks." Case, 157 F.3d at 1250. "A district court is justified in reducing the reasonable number of hours if the attorney's time records are 'sloppy and imprecise' and fail to document adequately how he or she utilized large blocks of time. Once the court has adequate time records before it, "it must then ensure that the winning attorneys have exercised 'billing judgment.' " Case, 157 F.3d at 1250 (quoting Ramos, 713 F.2d at 553). "Billing judgment consists of winnowing the hours actually expended down to the hours reasonably expended." "Hours that an attorney would not properly bill to his or her client cannot reasonably be billed to the adverse party, making certain time presumptively unreasonable." In other words, the district court should exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were not 'reasonably expended.' " Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (quotation omitted). "After examining the specific tasks and whether they are properly chargeable, the district court should look at the hours expended on each task to determine if they are reasonable." "The Ramos court suggested that among the factors to be considered were (1) whether the tasks being billed 'would normally be billed to a paying client,' (2) the number of hours spent on each task, (3) 'the complexity of the case,' (4) 'the number of reasonable strategies pursued,' (5) 'the responses necessitated by the maneuvering of the other side,' and (6) 'potential duplication of services' by multiple lawyers. Roberts, 160 F.3d at 1281 (quoting Ramos, 761 F.2d at 554). "In this analysis, [the court should] ask what hours a reasonable attorney would have incurred and billed in the marketplace under similar circumstances."
Petitioner's counsel submitted detailed billing records that "reveal, for each lawyer [and paralegal] for whom fees are sought, all hours for which compensation is requested and how those hours were allotted to specific tasks." Considering the Ramos factors, the court found that a large majority of the tasks Petitioner's counsel billed would normally be billed to a paying client. It found that although this case was resolved quickly, it involved highly contested, complex and sensitive issues. The court was unpersuaded by Respondent's argument that excessive paralegal hours were billed. In response, Petitioner's counsel stated that "it is this firm's policy to utilize paralegals to keep costs down for our clients, as it would be twice as expensive to have attorneys handling all tasks." The Court found Petitioner's counsel's billing statements reasonable and necessary. As to the hourly rate, the Tenth Circuit indicates that "the court must look to 'what the evidence shows the market commands for civil rights or analogous litigation.' The "local market rate" is usually the state or city in which counsel practices. Ellis v. Univ. of Kansas Medical Center, 163 F.3d 1186, 1203 (10th Cir.1998). The court is also entitled to consider the quality of counsel's performance in setting the fee. Ellis, 163 F.3d at 1203.
Respondent did not contest Ms. Leathers' hourly fee of $200 or Ms. Butler's hourly fee of $100, and thus, the court found the rates to be reasonable. It also found the request for $3,350.84 in costs to be reasonable.
In light of Respondent's financial status and her obligations to her children, the court held that it would be "clearly inappropriate" for Respondent to pay for Petitioner's parents' airplane tickets. However, it found that Respondent was financially responsible for costs associated with the travel of Petitioner's wife, who testified at the hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for travel and lodging expenses was reduced by the total cost of Petitioner's parents' airplane tickets.
Respondent asserts that she was a stay-at-home mother. She was currently pregnant and the primary caretaker of three minor children ages 12 years, 2 years and 8 months. Respondent stated that she was unemployed, had only nominal assets and any award of fees and costs would "substantially impair ... [her] ability to support herself, her unborn child and her four living children." The Court had discretion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s 11607(b)(3), to reduce any potential award to to allow for the financial condition of the Respondent. See Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 373-74 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, it believed a fee award which unduly limited Respondent's ability to support her children would be "clearly inappropriate." As a result, it reduced the attorneys fee by 25% or $6,099.42. See Berendsen v. Nichols, 938 F.Supp. 737, 739 (D.Kan.1996) (reducing fee award by 15% to account for respondent's financial condition).
Petitioner was awarded attorney fees in the amount of $18,298.25, which was the original fee award, $24,397.67, reduced by 25% or $6,099.42. Petitioner was awarded costs for litigating all aspects of this case in the amount of $3,350.84. Petitioner was awarded $4,482.87 in travel and lodging expenses reduced by the total cost of Petitioner's parents' airplane tickets.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Velasquez v Green, 2012 WL 2885662 (E.D.Tex.)) [Canada] [Well-Settled in New Environment] [Age and Maturity]
In Velasquez v Green, 2012 WL 2885662 (E.D.Tex.)) on February 8, 2012, Petitioner Beatriz Velasquez filed an action seeking the return of her daughter ("JCVG"), to Canada.
JCVG was born in Canada on March 1, 2000. Petitioner and Respondent were never married, and there was no formal custody agreement in place. Petitioner alleged that from her birth until late 2010, JCVG resided with her mother in Canada, with her father, Respondent, visiting her occasionally. In late 2010, with the apparent consent of her mother, JCVG traveled from Canada to Texas to visit her father for the holidays. According to Petitioner, the understanding between the parties was that JCVG would return to Canada at the start of 2011. Respondent claimed that the parties never agreed to a temporary stay in Texas but that the plan was for JCVG to come to live with him indefinitely. In any event, JCVG remained in Texas since late 2010 and did not return to Canada. Several months after JCVG came to Texas, Respondent commenced custody proceedings in Texas state court, seeking custody of his child.
At the hearing held on June 6, 2012, the Court heard testimony and Petitioner a submitted documentary evidence including, JCVG's Canadian birth certificate, JCVG's Canadian social security and insurance cards, JCVG's Canadian medical and school records, a Tenancy Agreement for Petitioner in Canada, and Facebook communications between Petitioner and Respondent and Petitioner and her daughter. Petitioner also introduced a copy of the Denton County Petition for Conservatorship of JCVG filed by Respondent and asked that the Court take judicial notice of a Canadian statute regarding custody. By agreement of the parties, the Court questioned JCVG in the courtroom outside the presence of her parents or any witnesses. Counsel for both sides were present but were not permitted to question the witness.
Petitioner testified that she lived in Canada since 1990 and had been a Canadian citizen since 1995. She had a job as a flower designer and was in school for real estate. According to Petitioner, she and Respondent met in 1998 but never lived together and were never married. Their child, JCVG, was born in March of 2000 in Canada, had a Canadian social security number, and was a Canadian citizen. Petitioner testified that she regularly took JCVG to the doctor in Canada, that JCVG received all required vaccinations, and that JCVG was enrolled in school in Canada and involved in after school programs there. Petitioner testified that Respondent would see his daughter a few times a month or over a weekend and sometimes take her to his home in Buffalo and then return her to Canada. According to Petitioner, with the exception of an extended visit to Texas in the summer of 2010, those visits were never longer than a weekend. Petitioner testified that she agreed to allow JCVG to visit her father in Texas for the 2010 winter holiday but expected Respondent to return JCVG to Canada at the end of January 2011. According to Petitioner, it was not until October 2011, when she was served with court papers from Texas seeking custody of JCVG, that she realized that Respondent planned on keeping JCVG in Texas. She subsequently testified that JCVG went to Texas in "December 2009 or 2010 or somewhere around there."Despite Petitioner's confusion, her pleadings, as well as other witnesses' testimony, indicated that the removal/retention at issue involved a winter 2010 trip to Texas.
Respondent testified that he was present at JCVG's birth and that he would see his daughter almost daily from 2000 until 2003. After that, he would visit her approximately two weekends out of the month. After moving to Texas in 2007, Respondent testified, he would visit JCVG a few times a year and made regular phone calls to her. Respondent claimed that Petitioner surrendered custody to him in Buffalo in November 2010. According to Respondent, due to ongoing health and legal issues with Petitioner and difficulties she was facing with JCVG's behavior, he and Petitioner arranged for JCVG to live with him in Texas in November 2010. Respondent conceded that they never determined how long JCVG would live with him but stated that the intention of the trip was more than just a holiday visit. Respondent testified that he and Petitioner decided that his mother would meet Petitioner and JCVG in Buffalo and then his mother would return with JCVG to Texas on November 22, 2010. According to Respondent, JCVG spent Thanksgiving 2010 with him in McKinney, Texas. Respondent also testified that he enrolled JCVG in McKinney schools in November 2010. Respondent stated that this was why he had requested her school and shot records from Petitioner. According to Respondent, JCVG started school in Texas on December 8, 2010, had only missed three days of classes since being in Texas schools, received B’s in her classes, and participated in sports since moving there. Respondent testified that Petitioner only called her daughter 11 times since the move to Texas and he had not changed his phone number since moving there. According to Respondent, JCVG talked to her mom frequently on Facebook and Respondent never restricted any calls from Petitioner. Respondent testified that Petitioner did not ask for him to return JCVG until September 2011.
There was no question here that, prior to November 2010, JCVG was a habitual resident of Canada. As shown by Petitioner, and not disputed by Respondent, she was born there, received medical care there, and was schooled there.
It was undisputed that there was no formal custody agreement in place as to JCVG when she left Canada in 2010. The court observed that when no formal custody agreement exists between the parents, courts must apply the laws of the country of the child's habitual residence to determine if the non-removing parent had "rights of custody" within the meaning of the Convention. Sealed v. Sealed, 394 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir.2004). Petitioner cited to Ontario law, R.S.O.1990, Chapter C.12(20)(4), which provides "[w]here the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other of them, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement of custody ... is suspended until a separation agreement or order otherwise provides." The Court found that Petitioner established that she had ne exeat rights as to JCVG when she left for Texas in November 2010.
The court found that the evidence supported Respondent's claim that-at the time JCVG left Canada, the plan was for her to remain in Texas indefinitely. The Court was not convinced that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that JCVG was wrongfully retained in Texas. Nor was the Court convinced that Respondent had shown by of preponderance of the evidence Petitioner's consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period of time. Because there was significant dispute as to whether Petitioner consented to have JCVG live in Texas and because some of Petitioner's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with both her pleadings and the testimony of other witnesses, the Court was hesitant to find that Petitioner sustained her burden in showing wrongful retention. The Court held that it need not make a determination as to wrongful retention to find that JCVG need not be returned to Canada until a further custody order is issued as the Court found exceptions to return applied.
The Court pointed out that Article 12 of the Convention is very clear that the Court looks to the date on which these proceedings were commenced in applying the one-year limitations period. see, e.g.,Muhlenkamp v. Blizzard, 521 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1152 (E.D.Wash.2007). This case was filed on February 8, 2012. JCVG was removed from Canada in November 2010. Petitioner asked the Court to look to the filing of the Denton County petition for conservatorship to determine when JCVG was wrongfully retained. Petitioner testified that she was served with the state court action in October 2011 and claimed that it was not until this date, almost a year after JCVG went to Texas for the holidays, that she realized that Respondent would not be returning her daughter to Canada. Thus, Petitioner argued, this was the date that triggered the running of the one-year limitations proceedings. The Court disagreed .The Court found that the proceedings were not commenced within a year of any wrongful retention, which occurred, if at all, sometime in January 2011, based on Petitioner's position at the time suit was filed.
Because more than a year had elapsed, the Court then looked to whether JCVG was well-settled. It noted that Courts determining whether a child is well-settled can look to the following factors: (1) the age of the child; (2) the stability and duration of the child's new residence; (3) whether the child attends school or daycare consistently; (4) whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area; (5) the child's participation in community or extracurricular school activities, such as team sports, youth groups, or school clubs; (6) whether the child attends church regularly; and (7) the father's employment and financial stability. Edoho v. Edoho, 2010 WL 3257480, 6 (S.D.Tex.2010); Van Driessche v. Ohio-Esezeoboh, 466 F.Supp.2d 828, 847 (S.D.Tex.2006). "[F]or the child to be well-settled, the court should consider more than whether he or she has a comfortable material existence, taking into consideration the child's living environment and any active measures taken to conceal a child." Van Driessche, 466 F.Supp.2d at 848.
Having considered the testimony presented, the Court found that JCVG was well-settled in the United States. Since coming to Texas, she has been enrolled in-and regularly attended-school. She testified to having friends and appeared to be a well-adjusted pre-teen girl. She lived her father, her brother, and her paternal grandmother. She testified that she had a close relationship with her grandmother (an individual who appeared to be active in JCVG's daily life) and had a good relationship with her father. Moreover, her father was employed and appeared financially stable. More than one year had elapsed since JCVG came to, and remained in, Texas, and she was well-settled here. Thus, the exception set forth in Article 12 of the Hague Convention applied and return was not appropriate.
The Court also found that JCVG's desire to remain in Texas should be taken into account. The Hague Convention permits the Court to refuse to return a 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 her views. Art. 13. It is not enough that the child has maintained friendships, prefers her new residence over the country of removal, or enjoys a more stabilized situation to support a finding that the child is mature enough for the Court to take into account her views. England v. England, 234 F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir.2000). No age is too young or old enough as a matter of law for the exception to apply, but must be determined on a case-by-case basis. When questioning JCVG, it was clear to the Court that she was sufficiently mature such that her wishes should be taken into account. She, unlike many seasoned counsel and adults who appear before the Court, listened to directions, heeded the Court's warnings regarding proper court conduct, and was a polite in her testimony. She behaved appropriately, was well-spoken, and even knew the precise name of her father's employer. She also testified that she preferred to remain in Texas in part because she was receiving a better education here. The Court found this statement exemplified her level of maturity and that her wishes were another basis to deny the request that she be returned to Canada.
Because the Court found that even if there were wrongful retention, Respondent satisfied the well-settled and age and maturity exceptions outlined in the Hague Convention, the Magistrate found that Petition for Return of Child should be denied and this matter should be closed on the Court's docket.
JCVG was born in Canada on March 1, 2000. Petitioner and Respondent were never married, and there was no formal custody agreement in place. Petitioner alleged that from her birth until late 2010, JCVG resided with her mother in Canada, with her father, Respondent, visiting her occasionally. In late 2010, with the apparent consent of her mother, JCVG traveled from Canada to Texas to visit her father for the holidays. According to Petitioner, the understanding between the parties was that JCVG would return to Canada at the start of 2011. Respondent claimed that the parties never agreed to a temporary stay in Texas but that the plan was for JCVG to come to live with him indefinitely. In any event, JCVG remained in Texas since late 2010 and did not return to Canada. Several months after JCVG came to Texas, Respondent commenced custody proceedings in Texas state court, seeking custody of his child.
At the hearing held on June 6, 2012, the Court heard testimony and Petitioner a submitted documentary evidence including, JCVG's Canadian birth certificate, JCVG's Canadian social security and insurance cards, JCVG's Canadian medical and school records, a Tenancy Agreement for Petitioner in Canada, and Facebook communications between Petitioner and Respondent and Petitioner and her daughter. Petitioner also introduced a copy of the Denton County Petition for Conservatorship of JCVG filed by Respondent and asked that the Court take judicial notice of a Canadian statute regarding custody. By agreement of the parties, the Court questioned JCVG in the courtroom outside the presence of her parents or any witnesses. Counsel for both sides were present but were not permitted to question the witness.
Petitioner testified that she lived in Canada since 1990 and had been a Canadian citizen since 1995. She had a job as a flower designer and was in school for real estate. According to Petitioner, she and Respondent met in 1998 but never lived together and were never married. Their child, JCVG, was born in March of 2000 in Canada, had a Canadian social security number, and was a Canadian citizen. Petitioner testified that she regularly took JCVG to the doctor in Canada, that JCVG received all required vaccinations, and that JCVG was enrolled in school in Canada and involved in after school programs there. Petitioner testified that Respondent would see his daughter a few times a month or over a weekend and sometimes take her to his home in Buffalo and then return her to Canada. According to Petitioner, with the exception of an extended visit to Texas in the summer of 2010, those visits were never longer than a weekend. Petitioner testified that she agreed to allow JCVG to visit her father in Texas for the 2010 winter holiday but expected Respondent to return JCVG to Canada at the end of January 2011. According to Petitioner, it was not until October 2011, when she was served with court papers from Texas seeking custody of JCVG, that she realized that Respondent planned on keeping JCVG in Texas. She subsequently testified that JCVG went to Texas in "December 2009 or 2010 or somewhere around there."Despite Petitioner's confusion, her pleadings, as well as other witnesses' testimony, indicated that the removal/retention at issue involved a winter 2010 trip to Texas.
Respondent testified that he was present at JCVG's birth and that he would see his daughter almost daily from 2000 until 2003. After that, he would visit her approximately two weekends out of the month. After moving to Texas in 2007, Respondent testified, he would visit JCVG a few times a year and made regular phone calls to her. Respondent claimed that Petitioner surrendered custody to him in Buffalo in November 2010. According to Respondent, due to ongoing health and legal issues with Petitioner and difficulties she was facing with JCVG's behavior, he and Petitioner arranged for JCVG to live with him in Texas in November 2010. Respondent conceded that they never determined how long JCVG would live with him but stated that the intention of the trip was more than just a holiday visit. Respondent testified that he and Petitioner decided that his mother would meet Petitioner and JCVG in Buffalo and then his mother would return with JCVG to Texas on November 22, 2010. According to Respondent, JCVG spent Thanksgiving 2010 with him in McKinney, Texas. Respondent also testified that he enrolled JCVG in McKinney schools in November 2010. Respondent stated that this was why he had requested her school and shot records from Petitioner. According to Respondent, JCVG started school in Texas on December 8, 2010, had only missed three days of classes since being in Texas schools, received B’s in her classes, and participated in sports since moving there. Respondent testified that Petitioner only called her daughter 11 times since the move to Texas and he had not changed his phone number since moving there. According to Respondent, JCVG talked to her mom frequently on Facebook and Respondent never restricted any calls from Petitioner. Respondent testified that Petitioner did not ask for him to return JCVG until September 2011.
There was no question here that, prior to November 2010, JCVG was a habitual resident of Canada. As shown by Petitioner, and not disputed by Respondent, she was born there, received medical care there, and was schooled there.
It was undisputed that there was no formal custody agreement in place as to JCVG when she left Canada in 2010. The court observed that when no formal custody agreement exists between the parents, courts must apply the laws of the country of the child's habitual residence to determine if the non-removing parent had "rights of custody" within the meaning of the Convention. Sealed v. Sealed, 394 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir.2004). Petitioner cited to Ontario law, R.S.O.1990, Chapter C.12(20)(4), which provides "[w]here the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other of them, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement of custody ... is suspended until a separation agreement or order otherwise provides." The Court found that Petitioner established that she had ne exeat rights as to JCVG when she left for Texas in November 2010.
The court found that the evidence supported Respondent's claim that-at the time JCVG left Canada, the plan was for her to remain in Texas indefinitely. The Court was not convinced that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that JCVG was wrongfully retained in Texas. Nor was the Court convinced that Respondent had shown by of preponderance of the evidence Petitioner's consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period of time. Because there was significant dispute as to whether Petitioner consented to have JCVG live in Texas and because some of Petitioner's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with both her pleadings and the testimony of other witnesses, the Court was hesitant to find that Petitioner sustained her burden in showing wrongful retention. The Court held that it need not make a determination as to wrongful retention to find that JCVG need not be returned to Canada until a further custody order is issued as the Court found exceptions to return applied.
The Court pointed out that Article 12 of the Convention is very clear that the Court looks to the date on which these proceedings were commenced in applying the one-year limitations period. see, e.g.,Muhlenkamp v. Blizzard, 521 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1152 (E.D.Wash.2007). This case was filed on February 8, 2012. JCVG was removed from Canada in November 2010. Petitioner asked the Court to look to the filing of the Denton County petition for conservatorship to determine when JCVG was wrongfully retained. Petitioner testified that she was served with the state court action in October 2011 and claimed that it was not until this date, almost a year after JCVG went to Texas for the holidays, that she realized that Respondent would not be returning her daughter to Canada. Thus, Petitioner argued, this was the date that triggered the running of the one-year limitations proceedings. The Court disagreed .The Court found that the proceedings were not commenced within a year of any wrongful retention, which occurred, if at all, sometime in January 2011, based on Petitioner's position at the time suit was filed.
Because more than a year had elapsed, the Court then looked to whether JCVG was well-settled. It noted that Courts determining whether a child is well-settled can look to the following factors: (1) the age of the child; (2) the stability and duration of the child's new residence; (3) whether the child attends school or daycare consistently; (4) whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area; (5) the child's participation in community or extracurricular school activities, such as team sports, youth groups, or school clubs; (6) whether the child attends church regularly; and (7) the father's employment and financial stability. Edoho v. Edoho, 2010 WL 3257480, 6 (S.D.Tex.2010); Van Driessche v. Ohio-Esezeoboh, 466 F.Supp.2d 828, 847 (S.D.Tex.2006). "[F]or the child to be well-settled, the court should consider more than whether he or she has a comfortable material existence, taking into consideration the child's living environment and any active measures taken to conceal a child." Van Driessche, 466 F.Supp.2d at 848.
Having considered the testimony presented, the Court found that JCVG was well-settled in the United States. Since coming to Texas, she has been enrolled in-and regularly attended-school. She testified to having friends and appeared to be a well-adjusted pre-teen girl. She lived her father, her brother, and her paternal grandmother. She testified that she had a close relationship with her grandmother (an individual who appeared to be active in JCVG's daily life) and had a good relationship with her father. Moreover, her father was employed and appeared financially stable. More than one year had elapsed since JCVG came to, and remained in, Texas, and she was well-settled here. Thus, the exception set forth in Article 12 of the Hague Convention applied and return was not appropriate.
The Court also found that JCVG's desire to remain in Texas should be taken into account. The Hague Convention permits the Court to refuse to return a 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 her views. Art. 13. It is not enough that the child has maintained friendships, prefers her new residence over the country of removal, or enjoys a more stabilized situation to support a finding that the child is mature enough for the Court to take into account her views. England v. England, 234 F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir.2000). No age is too young or old enough as a matter of law for the exception to apply, but must be determined on a case-by-case basis. When questioning JCVG, it was clear to the Court that she was sufficiently mature such that her wishes should be taken into account. She, unlike many seasoned counsel and adults who appear before the Court, listened to directions, heeded the Court's warnings regarding proper court conduct, and was a polite in her testimony. She behaved appropriately, was well-spoken, and even knew the precise name of her father's employer. She also testified that she preferred to remain in Texas in part because she was receiving a better education here. The Court found this statement exemplified her level of maturity and that her wishes were another basis to deny the request that she be returned to Canada.
Because the Court found that even if there were wrongful retention, Respondent satisfied the well-settled and age and maturity exceptions outlined in the Hague Convention, the Magistrate found that Petition for Return of Child should be denied and this matter should be closed on the Court's docket.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Luedtke v Luedtke Thomsen, 2012 WL 2562405 (S.D.Ind.) [Switzerland] [Habitual Residence]
In Luedtke v Luedtke Thomsen, 2012 WL 2562405 (S.D.Ind.) Petitioner Nathan Luedtke's filed a Petition for Return of his two children to Switzerland. Nathan Luedtke and Respondent Heidi Luedtke-Thomsen were married in 2006. Nathan, who was born in Naperville, Illinois, met Heidi, who was born in California, in California, and the couple lived together there while Nathan was a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego. The couple then moved to New Haven, Connecticut, where Nathan completed a two year post-doctoral fellowship. For the past six years the couple lived in Switzerland, where Nathan worked as a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Zurich. Heidi was the primary caretaker of the couple's two children-a four-and-a-half year-old girl and a fifteen month-old boy-both of whom were born in Switzerland.
On March 26, 2012, Nathan arrived at the couple's apartment to find his wife
and children absent without any indication of their whereabouts. He soon discovered that the family's legal documents, including passports and birth certificates, were missing, as were the children's toys. Nathan discovered email messages containing receipts for airline tickets to San Francisco, where Heidi's brother lived. Nathan contacted Heidi's brother in San Francisco and asked him to meet her at the airport and help her care for the children.
Nathan was eventually able to make contact by email with Heidi, although she was unwilling to talk to him on the phone. During these conversations, Nathan learned that Heidi was concerned that he had developed a brain tumor and Heidi feared that violence would befall the children and herself at Nathan's hands. However, Nathan never threatened Heidi or the children, nor had there ever been any domestic violence in the family. Nathan's general practitioner never recommended that he be psychologically evaluated, nor had Nathan ever experienced an episode that he would characterize as "manic," "bipolar," or "clinically depressed."
On April 7, Nathan arrived at Heidi's mother's house in the United States while Heidi was en route to her mother's house. Nathan then met with Heidi on April 9 and asked her to return the children to Switzerland, but Heidi indicated that she was not willing to do so. During the conversation, Nathan observed that Heidi, who appeared to have lost about twenty pounds, looked off into the distance and would then return to the conversation with "new ideas." Nathan and Heidi met with a doctor at the University of California-Irvine on April 11. The doctor suggested that Heidi may be suffering from an unknown psychological problem and recommended that Heidi be admitted for a 72-hour inpatient evaluation. Following an incident outside the doctor's office, Nathan returned to Heidi's mother's home and, with Heidi's mother's approval, took the children to his brother's home in Carmel, Indiana, where the children still were. The children communicated daily with their mother by video chat, and Nathan received approximately ten text messages and five emails per day from Heidi.
After relocating the children to Indiana, Nathan traveled to Switzerland, where
he filed for legal separation and also filed a Hague petition with the Central Authority. While in Switzerland, Nathan underwent an MRI according to his agreement with Heidi that they both would seek medical evaluation. The MRI results were normal. Nathan has since returned to the United States, where he rented an apartment for himself and his two children while waiting for this matter to be resolved.
The District Court observed that a petitioner seeking return of children must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a child under sixteen years of age was (2) wrongfully removed (3) from his or her habitual residence. There can be no dispute as to the first element of Nathan's case: the Luedtke children are well under the age of sixteen. Because whether the removal is wrongful depends on the habitual residence of the child, the Court turns to analysis of that element next. It noted that Courts should interpret "habitual residence" according to the "ordinary and natural meaning of the two words it contains, as a question of fact to be decided by reference to all the circumstances of any particular case." Koch, 450 F.3d at 712 (describing the habitual residence test articulated in Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir.2001), and adopting its approach). With respect to young children, the intent of the child's parents rather than the intent of the child is most useful in determining the child's habitual residence. Koch, 450 F.3d at 713. In determining the parents' intent, the court considers whether the parents' primary "residence was effectively abandoned and a new residence established by the shared actions and intent of the parents coupled with the passage of time." In doing so, the court may consider actions as
well as declarations.
Here, the evidence clearly established that the Luedtkes intended to abandon
the United States and make Switzerland their habitual residence. As a preliminary
point, the record revealed that the Luedtke family had lived in Switzerland for the
past six years. While sheer length of stay is not dispositive, other evidence indicated that the Luedtkes had abandoned residence in the United States and established residence in Switzerland. Nathan was recently awarded tenure status as a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Zurich. Because Heidi did not testify at the hearing, it was more difficult to discern her intent. However, the Court found that her decision to seek a larger flat, which required committing to a one-year lease, to accommodate the Luedtkes' growing family spoke to her intent to make her home in Switzerland. For these reasons, the Court concluded that the Luedtkes abandoned any residence they had in the United States and, at the time Heidi brought the children to the United States, their habitual residence was Switzerland.
The District Court found that the removal of the children from Switzerland was wrongful. Pursuant to Article 297, paragraph 1 of the Swiss Civil Code, parents exercise custody jointly during marriage. Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph two of the same Article, if the parents cease living together or they are separated, the court may award
parental custody to one spouse. There was no evidence to suggest that, at the time
Heidi removed the children from Switzerland, any court order existed as to custody
of the Luedtke children. For this reason, the Court concluded that Nathan and Heidi had joint parental custody under Swiss law at the time the children were removed. Thus, when Heidi took the children to another country, she effectively precluded Nathan from caring for the children or having any say in where the children would reside. The removal of the children from Switzerland breached Nathan's custody rights and constitutes wrongful removal. The Court had little trouble concluding that Nathan was actually exercising his custody rights, given his testimony that he participated in caring for the children on evenings and weekends.
Heidi argued that the children should not be returned to Switzerland because
doing so posed a grave risk of psychological harm to the children. While Heidi argued that Nathan posed a risk of harm to the children, she offered little evidence supporting her allegations. The only evidence Heidi pointed was the fact that the Swiss Court where the petition for separation was pending requested psychological evaluations of both parents. But this "evidence" shed little light, if any, on whether Nathan posed a risk of grave harm to the children; especially given that, in the meantime, the Swiss Court has ordered that custody remains with both parties. As such, Heidi fell far short of stablishing a risk of harm by clear and convincing evidence. Nathan Luedtke's Petition for Return of Children was granted.
On March 26, 2012, Nathan arrived at the couple's apartment to find his wife
and children absent without any indication of their whereabouts. He soon discovered that the family's legal documents, including passports and birth certificates, were missing, as were the children's toys. Nathan discovered email messages containing receipts for airline tickets to San Francisco, where Heidi's brother lived. Nathan contacted Heidi's brother in San Francisco and asked him to meet her at the airport and help her care for the children.
Nathan was eventually able to make contact by email with Heidi, although she was unwilling to talk to him on the phone. During these conversations, Nathan learned that Heidi was concerned that he had developed a brain tumor and Heidi feared that violence would befall the children and herself at Nathan's hands. However, Nathan never threatened Heidi or the children, nor had there ever been any domestic violence in the family. Nathan's general practitioner never recommended that he be psychologically evaluated, nor had Nathan ever experienced an episode that he would characterize as "manic," "bipolar," or "clinically depressed."
On April 7, Nathan arrived at Heidi's mother's house in the United States while Heidi was en route to her mother's house. Nathan then met with Heidi on April 9 and asked her to return the children to Switzerland, but Heidi indicated that she was not willing to do so. During the conversation, Nathan observed that Heidi, who appeared to have lost about twenty pounds, looked off into the distance and would then return to the conversation with "new ideas." Nathan and Heidi met with a doctor at the University of California-Irvine on April 11. The doctor suggested that Heidi may be suffering from an unknown psychological problem and recommended that Heidi be admitted for a 72-hour inpatient evaluation. Following an incident outside the doctor's office, Nathan returned to Heidi's mother's home and, with Heidi's mother's approval, took the children to his brother's home in Carmel, Indiana, where the children still were. The children communicated daily with their mother by video chat, and Nathan received approximately ten text messages and five emails per day from Heidi.
After relocating the children to Indiana, Nathan traveled to Switzerland, where
he filed for legal separation and also filed a Hague petition with the Central Authority. While in Switzerland, Nathan underwent an MRI according to his agreement with Heidi that they both would seek medical evaluation. The MRI results were normal. Nathan has since returned to the United States, where he rented an apartment for himself and his two children while waiting for this matter to be resolved.
The District Court observed that a petitioner seeking return of children must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a child under sixteen years of age was (2) wrongfully removed (3) from his or her habitual residence. There can be no dispute as to the first element of Nathan's case: the Luedtke children are well under the age of sixteen. Because whether the removal is wrongful depends on the habitual residence of the child, the Court turns to analysis of that element next. It noted that Courts should interpret "habitual residence" according to the "ordinary and natural meaning of the two words it contains, as a question of fact to be decided by reference to all the circumstances of any particular case." Koch, 450 F.3d at 712 (describing the habitual residence test articulated in Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir.2001), and adopting its approach). With respect to young children, the intent of the child's parents rather than the intent of the child is most useful in determining the child's habitual residence. Koch, 450 F.3d at 713. In determining the parents' intent, the court considers whether the parents' primary "residence was effectively abandoned and a new residence established by the shared actions and intent of the parents coupled with the passage of time." In doing so, the court may consider actions as
well as declarations.
Here, the evidence clearly established that the Luedtkes intended to abandon
the United States and make Switzerland their habitual residence. As a preliminary
point, the record revealed that the Luedtke family had lived in Switzerland for the
past six years. While sheer length of stay is not dispositive, other evidence indicated that the Luedtkes had abandoned residence in the United States and established residence in Switzerland. Nathan was recently awarded tenure status as a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Zurich. Because Heidi did not testify at the hearing, it was more difficult to discern her intent. However, the Court found that her decision to seek a larger flat, which required committing to a one-year lease, to accommodate the Luedtkes' growing family spoke to her intent to make her home in Switzerland. For these reasons, the Court concluded that the Luedtkes abandoned any residence they had in the United States and, at the time Heidi brought the children to the United States, their habitual residence was Switzerland.
The District Court found that the removal of the children from Switzerland was wrongful. Pursuant to Article 297, paragraph 1 of the Swiss Civil Code, parents exercise custody jointly during marriage. Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph two of the same Article, if the parents cease living together or they are separated, the court may award
parental custody to one spouse. There was no evidence to suggest that, at the time
Heidi removed the children from Switzerland, any court order existed as to custody
of the Luedtke children. For this reason, the Court concluded that Nathan and Heidi had joint parental custody under Swiss law at the time the children were removed. Thus, when Heidi took the children to another country, she effectively precluded Nathan from caring for the children or having any say in where the children would reside. The removal of the children from Switzerland breached Nathan's custody rights and constitutes wrongful removal. The Court had little trouble concluding that Nathan was actually exercising his custody rights, given his testimony that he participated in caring for the children on evenings and weekends.
Heidi argued that the children should not be returned to Switzerland because
doing so posed a grave risk of psychological harm to the children. While Heidi argued that Nathan posed a risk of harm to the children, she offered little evidence supporting her allegations. The only evidence Heidi pointed was the fact that the Swiss Court where the petition for separation was pending requested psychological evaluations of both parents. But this "evidence" shed little light, if any, on whether Nathan posed a risk of grave harm to the children; especially given that, in the meantime, the Swiss Court has ordered that custody remains with both parties. As such, Heidi fell far short of stablishing a risk of harm by clear and convincing evidence. Nathan Luedtke's Petition for Return of Children was granted.
Font Paulus ex rel. P.F.V. v. Vittini Cordero, 2012 WL 2524772 (M.D.Pa.) [Dominican Republic] [Well Settled in New Environment] [Wishes of the Child]
In Font Paulus ex rel. P.F.V. v. Vittini Cordero, 2012 WL 2524772 (M.D.Pa.) Alberto Eugenio Font filed a Verified Petition for Return in which he alleged that P.F.V.'s mother, Respondent Ana Virginia Vittini Cordero, wrongfully retained P.F.V. in the United States without his permission. He sought the return of his child P.F.V. to the Dominican Republic where the Petitioner and his daughter were citizens.
The Court observed that it must first determine when an alleged wrongful removal or retention occurred so that it could establish the relevant date of the child's habitual residence. ( Karkkainen, 445 F.3d at 290). Wrongful removal refers to the
noncustodial parent's physical taking of the child out of the country. Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363, 369 (3d Cir.2005). Thus, a noncustodial parent may remove a child from the country with permission, but then wrongfully retain the child outside the country. The assertion in this matter was not that P.F.V. was wrongfully removed to the United States, but that she was unlawfully retained here by her mother.
The Court observed that in determining the date of a wrongful retention, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that it "does not begin until the noncustodial parent...clearly communicates her desire to regain custody and asserts her parental right to have [her child] live with her." Karkkainen, 445 F.3d at 290. Here, it appeared that the wrongful retention occurred on July 8, 2010. Mr. Font Paulus signed an agreement limiting the period in which his former spouse could keep his daughter outside of her home country. That agreement specifically stated that she would be "returning to [Santo Domingo] on July 8, 2010." Therefore, the wrongful retention occurred when Ms. Vittini Cordero did not return P.F.V. to the Dominican Republic on that date: July 8, 2010.
It was necessary to determine "the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention. "Convention Art. 3a. The Court noted that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a child's habitual residence as "the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient or acclimatization and which has a 'degree of settled purpose' from the child's perspective." Baxter, 423 F.3d at 368. The inquiry focuses on the child and "consists of an analysis of the child's circumstances in that place and the parents' present, shared intentions regarding their child's presence there." "When a child is too young to have an intent regarding her habitual residence, the touchstone inquiry is 'shared parental intent.' " In re Application of Adan, 437 F.3d 381, 392 (3d Cir.2006) The focus is the "degree of settled purpose." It is not necessary that the person intends to stay in a place indefinitely. All that is necessary is that the purpose of living where one does has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled. Where the parents have stipulated to the child's residence in a written agreement, their shared intent need not be inferred from their actions. Mr. Font Paulus successfully demonstrated that P.F.V.'s habitual residence at the time of the wrongful retention was in the Dominican Republic. P.F.V. was born in the Dominican Republic and there was no evidence presented that, prior to her departure in June of 2010, she had ever been to another country. She had lived in the Dominican Republic for ten years, meaning she was acclimatized and settled there. While there was evidence presented indicating that P.F.V.'s parents perhaps did not envision P.F.V. remaining forever in the Dominican Republic, including Mr. Font Paulus's consent to P.F.V. obtaining United States citizenship, this was immaterial to the termination. Mr. Font Paulus testified credibly that he believed permanent residency status would be used for P.F.V. to travel to the United States for vacations only, and that P.F.V. would ultimately decide her residence upon turning eighteen. Moreover, as to the particular trip at issue, the power of attorney / authorization to travel explicitly provided for P.F.V.'s return to the Dominican Republic after just one month. Mr. Font Paulus testified that he had rejected attempts at longer periods and that it was his expectation and intention that P.F.V. would return to her school in the Dominican Republic in the fall. Together, this indicated that P .F.V. was a habitual resident of the Dominican Republic at the time she was retained in the United States.
The third inquiry considered whether there had been a breach of the Petitioner's rights of custody. The testimony presented at the hearing established that Ms. Vittini Cordero left P.F.V. with Mr. Font Paulus from 2003 until December of 2009. During this period, on June 6, 2005, the two parties signed a divorce agreement stating "that they have agreed by means of the present act to transfer the mother Ana Virginia the watch and tutelage of the girl [P.F.V.]." Conversely, in a May 11, 2009 agreement, the parties acknowledged that the Father had exercised de facto custody of P.F.V. for the preceding seven years. From the testimony before the Court, it appeared that the de facto custody arrangement would have continued except that Ms. Vittini Cordero took possession of the child in December of 2009 and would not return her to Mr. Font Paulus. This caused Mr. Font Paulus to file a petition for custody on April 5, 2010, which was denied on October 13, 2010 as it was "physically impossible" for that court to secure the girl's testimony.
This general arrangement was in accordance with the Court of Appeals for Children and Adolescents of the National District of the Dominican Republic which determined that, when affirming the denial of Ms. Vittini Cordero's request for unilateral authorization to take P.F.V. out of the Dominican Republic, while the divorce settlement agreement gave Ms. Vittini Cordero custody of her daughter, that Mr. Font Paulus had been exercising de facto custody. Like the lower court, the appellate court held that "it is not appropriate to grant permission to depart until the custody of the minor and the place where she is to reside (abroad or in the Dominican Republic) is definitively decided upon."
However, by the time of that decision, June 28, 2010, P.F.V. was already in the
United States with her mother by operation of the power of attorney / authorization to travel. This authorization was necessary as the Court for Children and Adolescent of the National District of the Dominican Republic denied Ms. Vittini Cordero's petition requesting authorization for P.F.V. to travel. This would have been necessary as the
Dominican Code for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, Act No. I4-94,
Article 116 provides that "No child or adolescent may travel outside the country
unless accompanied by a parent or guardian."Pertinent to this matter, Article 117
elaborates on this by establishing that a court is responsible for granting such
permission "in the event of disagreement about it between their parents or legal
representatives."
This restriction conferred a ne exeat right on the Petitioner over his child. Such is "[a]n equitable writ restraining a person from leaving, or removing a child or property from, the jurisdiction . And, such a right will be found where a parent has a right to consent before the other parent removes the child from the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that ne exeat rights are sufficient to support right of custody under the convention. In this case, having failed to secure a proper court order, Ms. Vittini Cordero's authority to take P.F.V. outside of the country was predicated on the power of attorney, which expired on July 8, 2010. Therefore, it was unnecessary to analyze the complexities of the de facto custody arrangement between the parties as it was clear that as of July 8, 2010, Ms. Vittini Cordero was retaining P.F.V. in the United States in violation of Mr. Font Paulus's ne exeat rights. Such a right triggered "the Convention's protection of a parent's custodial"right to determine the child's place of residence."
The Respondent presented evidence that from the end of December 2009 to the
departure on June 8, 2010, some six months, P.F.V. lived with her at the home of
Respondent's mother. Moreover, the evidence was that Petitioner was not permitted
to see P.F.V. and saw her only when he went to her school. Respondent contended
that during this period she was exercising custody rights conferred by the divorce
settlement. Without analyzing whether these rights were abandoned by Respondent's
absence for two years, it sufficed to say that this six-month period did not
overcome the ne exeat rights of Petitioner, assuming arguendo he did not have de
facto custody during this period. Therefore, Mr. Font Paulus was exercising his custody rights at the time of the wrongful retention and he established a wrongful
detention.
The Court noted that the well-settled exception only applies where the proceedings have been commenced after the period of one year from the date of the wrongful retention. The wrongful detention in this case began on July 8, 2010. As these proceedings were initiated on May 24, 2012, they were commenced more than one year from the date of the wrongful retention. In determining whether a child is so well-settled, Courts review a list of factors. Within this Circuit, district courts had considered: (1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the child's new residence; (3) whether the child attends school or daycare consistently; (4) whether the child attends church regularly; (5) the stability of the [parent's] employment or
other means of support; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the area; ... (7) to what extent the child has maintained ties to the country of habitual residence ... [8] the level of parental involvement in the child's life[;][9] active measures to conceal [the] child's whereabouts (and the possibility of criminal prosecution related thereto) [;] and [10] the immigration status of the child and respondent.
The court noted that the most important factor in the analysis will usually be "the length and stability of the child's residence in the new environment." In re B. Del C.S.B., 559 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir.2009). Most pertinent to the instant case, however, was the recognition in element nine (9) above that concealment is a relevant factor in the analysis. Though the Third Circuit has not addressed the issue, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to the Convention. See Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir.2008); Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 723 (11th Cir.2004) . Under this rule, "equitable principles may be applied to toll the one-year period when circumstances suggest that the abducting parent took steps to conceal the whereabouts of the child from the parent seeking return and such concealment delayed the filing of the petition for return." Duarte, 526 F.3d at 570. The Eleventh Circuit noted that federal limitations periods are customarily subject to equitable tolling, Furnes, 362 F.3d at 423, and the Ninth Circuit reasoned that "awarding an abducting parent an affirmative defense if that parent hides the child from the parent seeking return would not only encourage child abductions, but also encourage hiding the child from the parent seeking return."The U.S. State Department similarly stated in its public notice on the Convention that "[i]f the alleged wrongdoer concealed the child's whereabouts from the custodian necessitating a long search for the child and thereby delayed the commencement of a return proceeding by the applicant, it is highly questionable whether the respondent should be permitted to benefit from such conduct absent strong countervailing considerations.”
The Court held that based on the credible testimony of Mr. Font Paulus, equitable tolling was properly applied to this matter. Mr. Font Paulus testified that after July 8, 2010, he had contact with his daughter once on August 1, 2010 when she called him and did not leave a telephone number or the address at which she was staying. Following that date, Mr. Font Paulus was unable to ascertain her whereabouts until December of 2011 when he developed a belief that P .F.V. could be in Pennsylvania based on a birthday phone call received by Mr. Font Paulus's mother on December 31, 2010. Conversely, Ms. Vittini Cordero testified that she informed her ex-husband as to their move to Pennsylvania and that Facebook somehow provided the specific addresses, but this testimony was confusing, uncorroborated, and lacking in credibility. The Court declined to credit P.F.V.'s specific statements that she had kept her father updated on the addresses since it did not find it particularly credible due to the child's lack of maturity and her mother's influence. Instead, it found that even through the exercise of appropriate diligence that Mr. Font Paulus could not determine the location of his daughter from July 8, 2010 until December 31, 2010. Therefore, the one-year period for the application of the well-settled defense was tolled until December 31, 2010, and since the application was filed on May 24, 2012, this defense could not apply on its face.
However, the court held that even if the period were not tolled, the defense would be inapplicable since the facts did not suggest a stable residence in the United States. While there was very little evidence proffered at the hearing suggesting that P.F.V. was well-settled in the United States, there was significant testimony that her stay here had actually been rather chaotic. There was no affirmative evidence suggesting stability in the child's new residence, any consistency in the child's religious activities, whether the mother was employed or providing support, or whether there were any useful support structures which could assist the child and her mother within the United States. Instead, the testimony reflected a series of moves within New York City and within Pennsylvania, a disastrous fire which apparently destroyed all of P.F.V.'s possessions and killed her neighbors, and a subsequent period in which Ms. Vittini Cordero was so pressed to secure housing that she was unable to even contact friends or family members. The only fact which suggested that P.F.V. was well-settled was her uncorroborated statement that she had attended Trinity Academy since 2010. Even taken as true, this singular fact did not render her well-settled within the Untied States. Therefore, since the exception did not apply based on tolling, and since there were inadequate facts to support its application, it was not be applied to this case.
The Court found that the “wishes of the child” defense failed for the same reason, that any attachment P.F.V. has developed to the United States had largely been the product of the time she was wrongfully retained here and was not derived from the period in which Mr. Font Paulus permitted her to be here on vacation. P.F.V. did not express any strong attachment to the United States. Although P.F.V. testified that she did prefer life in the United States, this preference was largely based on that she had more friends and things here, and that she was getting better grades in her classes. This could hardly be characterized as a strong attachment. Even more fundamentally, the Convention looks to whether the child objects to being returned, and P.F.V. candidly explained that she would not object returning to the Dominican Republic where she also liked school and had friends. Therefore, since the child did not object to returning, this exception was denied.
The Court observed that it must first determine when an alleged wrongful removal or retention occurred so that it could establish the relevant date of the child's habitual residence. ( Karkkainen, 445 F.3d at 290). Wrongful removal refers to the
noncustodial parent's physical taking of the child out of the country. Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363, 369 (3d Cir.2005). Thus, a noncustodial parent may remove a child from the country with permission, but then wrongfully retain the child outside the country. The assertion in this matter was not that P.F.V. was wrongfully removed to the United States, but that she was unlawfully retained here by her mother.
The Court observed that in determining the date of a wrongful retention, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that it "does not begin until the noncustodial parent...clearly communicates her desire to regain custody and asserts her parental right to have [her child] live with her." Karkkainen, 445 F.3d at 290. Here, it appeared that the wrongful retention occurred on July 8, 2010. Mr. Font Paulus signed an agreement limiting the period in which his former spouse could keep his daughter outside of her home country. That agreement specifically stated that she would be "returning to [Santo Domingo] on July 8, 2010." Therefore, the wrongful retention occurred when Ms. Vittini Cordero did not return P.F.V. to the Dominican Republic on that date: July 8, 2010.
It was necessary to determine "the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention. "Convention Art. 3a. The Court noted that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a child's habitual residence as "the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient or acclimatization and which has a 'degree of settled purpose' from the child's perspective." Baxter, 423 F.3d at 368. The inquiry focuses on the child and "consists of an analysis of the child's circumstances in that place and the parents' present, shared intentions regarding their child's presence there." "When a child is too young to have an intent regarding her habitual residence, the touchstone inquiry is 'shared parental intent.' " In re Application of Adan, 437 F.3d 381, 392 (3d Cir.2006) The focus is the "degree of settled purpose." It is not necessary that the person intends to stay in a place indefinitely. All that is necessary is that the purpose of living where one does has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled. Where the parents have stipulated to the child's residence in a written agreement, their shared intent need not be inferred from their actions. Mr. Font Paulus successfully demonstrated that P.F.V.'s habitual residence at the time of the wrongful retention was in the Dominican Republic. P.F.V. was born in the Dominican Republic and there was no evidence presented that, prior to her departure in June of 2010, she had ever been to another country. She had lived in the Dominican Republic for ten years, meaning she was acclimatized and settled there. While there was evidence presented indicating that P.F.V.'s parents perhaps did not envision P.F.V. remaining forever in the Dominican Republic, including Mr. Font Paulus's consent to P.F.V. obtaining United States citizenship, this was immaterial to the termination. Mr. Font Paulus testified credibly that he believed permanent residency status would be used for P.F.V. to travel to the United States for vacations only, and that P.F.V. would ultimately decide her residence upon turning eighteen. Moreover, as to the particular trip at issue, the power of attorney / authorization to travel explicitly provided for P.F.V.'s return to the Dominican Republic after just one month. Mr. Font Paulus testified that he had rejected attempts at longer periods and that it was his expectation and intention that P.F.V. would return to her school in the Dominican Republic in the fall. Together, this indicated that P .F.V. was a habitual resident of the Dominican Republic at the time she was retained in the United States.
The third inquiry considered whether there had been a breach of the Petitioner's rights of custody. The testimony presented at the hearing established that Ms. Vittini Cordero left P.F.V. with Mr. Font Paulus from 2003 until December of 2009. During this period, on June 6, 2005, the two parties signed a divorce agreement stating "that they have agreed by means of the present act to transfer the mother Ana Virginia the watch and tutelage of the girl [P.F.V.]." Conversely, in a May 11, 2009 agreement, the parties acknowledged that the Father had exercised de facto custody of P.F.V. for the preceding seven years. From the testimony before the Court, it appeared that the de facto custody arrangement would have continued except that Ms. Vittini Cordero took possession of the child in December of 2009 and would not return her to Mr. Font Paulus. This caused Mr. Font Paulus to file a petition for custody on April 5, 2010, which was denied on October 13, 2010 as it was "physically impossible" for that court to secure the girl's testimony.
This general arrangement was in accordance with the Court of Appeals for Children and Adolescents of the National District of the Dominican Republic which determined that, when affirming the denial of Ms. Vittini Cordero's request for unilateral authorization to take P.F.V. out of the Dominican Republic, while the divorce settlement agreement gave Ms. Vittini Cordero custody of her daughter, that Mr. Font Paulus had been exercising de facto custody. Like the lower court, the appellate court held that "it is not appropriate to grant permission to depart until the custody of the minor and the place where she is to reside (abroad or in the Dominican Republic) is definitively decided upon."
However, by the time of that decision, June 28, 2010, P.F.V. was already in the
United States with her mother by operation of the power of attorney / authorization to travel. This authorization was necessary as the Court for Children and Adolescent of the National District of the Dominican Republic denied Ms. Vittini Cordero's petition requesting authorization for P.F.V. to travel. This would have been necessary as the
Dominican Code for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, Act No. I4-94,
Article 116 provides that "No child or adolescent may travel outside the country
unless accompanied by a parent or guardian."Pertinent to this matter, Article 117
elaborates on this by establishing that a court is responsible for granting such
permission "in the event of disagreement about it between their parents or legal
representatives."
This restriction conferred a ne exeat right on the Petitioner over his child. Such is "[a]n equitable writ restraining a person from leaving, or removing a child or property from, the jurisdiction . And, such a right will be found where a parent has a right to consent before the other parent removes the child from the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that ne exeat rights are sufficient to support right of custody under the convention. In this case, having failed to secure a proper court order, Ms. Vittini Cordero's authority to take P.F.V. outside of the country was predicated on the power of attorney, which expired on July 8, 2010. Therefore, it was unnecessary to analyze the complexities of the de facto custody arrangement between the parties as it was clear that as of July 8, 2010, Ms. Vittini Cordero was retaining P.F.V. in the United States in violation of Mr. Font Paulus's ne exeat rights. Such a right triggered "the Convention's protection of a parent's custodial"right to determine the child's place of residence."
The Respondent presented evidence that from the end of December 2009 to the
departure on June 8, 2010, some six months, P.F.V. lived with her at the home of
Respondent's mother. Moreover, the evidence was that Petitioner was not permitted
to see P.F.V. and saw her only when he went to her school. Respondent contended
that during this period she was exercising custody rights conferred by the divorce
settlement. Without analyzing whether these rights were abandoned by Respondent's
absence for two years, it sufficed to say that this six-month period did not
overcome the ne exeat rights of Petitioner, assuming arguendo he did not have de
facto custody during this period. Therefore, Mr. Font Paulus was exercising his custody rights at the time of the wrongful retention and he established a wrongful
detention.
The Court noted that the well-settled exception only applies where the proceedings have been commenced after the period of one year from the date of the wrongful retention. The wrongful detention in this case began on July 8, 2010. As these proceedings were initiated on May 24, 2012, they were commenced more than one year from the date of the wrongful retention. In determining whether a child is so well-settled, Courts review a list of factors. Within this Circuit, district courts had considered: (1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the child's new residence; (3) whether the child attends school or daycare consistently; (4) whether the child attends church regularly; (5) the stability of the [parent's] employment or
other means of support; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the area; ... (7) to what extent the child has maintained ties to the country of habitual residence ... [8] the level of parental involvement in the child's life[;][9] active measures to conceal [the] child's whereabouts (and the possibility of criminal prosecution related thereto) [;] and [10] the immigration status of the child and respondent.
The court noted that the most important factor in the analysis will usually be "the length and stability of the child's residence in the new environment." In re B. Del C.S.B., 559 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir.2009). Most pertinent to the instant case, however, was the recognition in element nine (9) above that concealment is a relevant factor in the analysis. Though the Third Circuit has not addressed the issue, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to the Convention. See Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563, 569 (9th Cir.2008); Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 723 (11th Cir.2004) . Under this rule, "equitable principles may be applied to toll the one-year period when circumstances suggest that the abducting parent took steps to conceal the whereabouts of the child from the parent seeking return and such concealment delayed the filing of the petition for return." Duarte, 526 F.3d at 570. The Eleventh Circuit noted that federal limitations periods are customarily subject to equitable tolling, Furnes, 362 F.3d at 423, and the Ninth Circuit reasoned that "awarding an abducting parent an affirmative defense if that parent hides the child from the parent seeking return would not only encourage child abductions, but also encourage hiding the child from the parent seeking return."The U.S. State Department similarly stated in its public notice on the Convention that "[i]f the alleged wrongdoer concealed the child's whereabouts from the custodian necessitating a long search for the child and thereby delayed the commencement of a return proceeding by the applicant, it is highly questionable whether the respondent should be permitted to benefit from such conduct absent strong countervailing considerations.”
The Court held that based on the credible testimony of Mr. Font Paulus, equitable tolling was properly applied to this matter. Mr. Font Paulus testified that after July 8, 2010, he had contact with his daughter once on August 1, 2010 when she called him and did not leave a telephone number or the address at which she was staying. Following that date, Mr. Font Paulus was unable to ascertain her whereabouts until December of 2011 when he developed a belief that P .F.V. could be in Pennsylvania based on a birthday phone call received by Mr. Font Paulus's mother on December 31, 2010. Conversely, Ms. Vittini Cordero testified that she informed her ex-husband as to their move to Pennsylvania and that Facebook somehow provided the specific addresses, but this testimony was confusing, uncorroborated, and lacking in credibility. The Court declined to credit P.F.V.'s specific statements that she had kept her father updated on the addresses since it did not find it particularly credible due to the child's lack of maturity and her mother's influence. Instead, it found that even through the exercise of appropriate diligence that Mr. Font Paulus could not determine the location of his daughter from July 8, 2010 until December 31, 2010. Therefore, the one-year period for the application of the well-settled defense was tolled until December 31, 2010, and since the application was filed on May 24, 2012, this defense could not apply on its face.
However, the court held that even if the period were not tolled, the defense would be inapplicable since the facts did not suggest a stable residence in the United States. While there was very little evidence proffered at the hearing suggesting that P.F.V. was well-settled in the United States, there was significant testimony that her stay here had actually been rather chaotic. There was no affirmative evidence suggesting stability in the child's new residence, any consistency in the child's religious activities, whether the mother was employed or providing support, or whether there were any useful support structures which could assist the child and her mother within the United States. Instead, the testimony reflected a series of moves within New York City and within Pennsylvania, a disastrous fire which apparently destroyed all of P.F.V.'s possessions and killed her neighbors, and a subsequent period in which Ms. Vittini Cordero was so pressed to secure housing that she was unable to even contact friends or family members. The only fact which suggested that P.F.V. was well-settled was her uncorroborated statement that she had attended Trinity Academy since 2010. Even taken as true, this singular fact did not render her well-settled within the Untied States. Therefore, since the exception did not apply based on tolling, and since there were inadequate facts to support its application, it was not be applied to this case.
The Court found that the “wishes of the child” defense failed for the same reason, that any attachment P.F.V. has developed to the United States had largely been the product of the time she was wrongfully retained here and was not derived from the period in which Mr. Font Paulus permitted her to be here on vacation. P.F.V. did not express any strong attachment to the United States. Although P.F.V. testified that she did prefer life in the United States, this preference was largely based on that she had more friends and things here, and that she was getting better grades in her classes. This could hardly be characterized as a strong attachment. Even more fundamentally, the Convention looks to whether the child objects to being returned, and P.F.V. candidly explained that she would not object returning to the Dominican Republic where she also liked school and had friends. Therefore, since the child did not object to returning, this exception was denied.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Reyes v Jeffcoat, 2012 WL 2428587 (D.S.C.) [Venezuela] [Habitual Residence] [Video Testimony]
In Reyes v Jeffcoat, 2012 WL 2428587 (D.S.C.) the Petitioner, Maritza Meszaros Reyes and the Respondent, Harry Lee Langford Jeffcoat were married and had three children, one of whom was over the age of 16. On January 21, 2012, Petitioner commenced a suit by filing a Verified Petition for Return of Child to Petitioner and for Issuance of a Show Cause Order. Petitioner and Respondent filed divorce proceedings in Venezuela and in the United States, respectively. Both proceedings were stayed while this court decided the issues. Over the course of the trial, the court heard testimony from live witnesses who came from both the United States and Venezuela, witnesses by video conference from Venezuela. The court took in camera testimony from all three children.
The Court found that Petitioner and Respondent were married in Venezuela in 1993. They had three children-an oldest son, born in 1994; a daughter, born in 1996; and a youngest son, born in 2000. All three children had dual citizenship. Petitioner was a citizen of Venezuela. Since 2003, she held a United States Permanent Resident Card (also known as a green card), which she used each time she entered the United States. Respondent was a citizen of the United States. Between 1992 and 2003, he
possessed a Venezuelan resident visa, allowing him to permanently reside in Venezuela. That visa expired in 2003. He had not been authorized to live or work in Venezuela since 2003. Each time Respondent entered Venezuela since 2003, he entered as a tourist and was prohibited from staying in Venezuela for longer than 90 consecutive days. The family resided in Venezuela from 1993 until 2001. The Respondent was employed in Venezuela from 1993 to 2000. The Petitioner remained continuously employed in Venezuela, except for a two-year period beginning in 2001 when the Respondent took a job in South Carolina and Petitioner took a "leave of absence" from her employment. In 2001, the family moved to South Carolina.
Between 2001 and 2011, all three children spent substantial amounts of time in
both the United States and Venezuela. They participated in various activities, including educational, religious, social, musical, and athletic endeavors while present in each country. Since 2006, the Petitioner owned a large apartment in Caracas, Venezuela, and, since 2008, the Petitioner and the Respondent jointly owned a large house in Lexington, South Carolina. Both properties were capable of being a home for the entire family. Between 2006 and 2008, the father and children resided in Lexington, South Carolina. During this time, the children attended school at Heritage Christian Academy in Lexington, South Carolina. The parties' daughter began attending Heritage in the 2005-2006 school year. Both the daughter and the youngest son attended Heritage for the full 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years. Beginning in September 2008 and continuing until September 2011, the father and the children frequently traveled between the United States and Venezuela. The father and children never spent more than 90 consecutive days in Venezuela. The only time that they spent more than 90 consecutive days in the United States was from June 9, 2011 until September 12, 2011, the time period immediately preceding the date on which the mother alleged that the wrongful retention began.
Since 2008, the children were home schooled through the South Carolina
Association of Independent Home Schools. Mostly, the children worked on their studies in Caracas, Venezuela; however, educational activities also took place while the children were present in Lexington, South Carolina. Between September 2008 and September 2011, the children regularly traveled between the United States and Venezuela, using their United States passports when entering and exiting Venezuela and the United States. When they entered Venezuela, the children entered as tourists.
In October 2009, the parties renewed the three children's United States passports. The renewal applications for the United States passports listed the Lexington, South Carolina address as the children's permanent address. In May 2011, the parties renewed the daughter's and the oldest son's Venezuelan passports. The renewal applications for the Venezuelan passports listed the Caracas, Venezuela address as the children's current residence. Since 2008, the children were covered by a United States based health insurance plan through the mother's employer. The children's primary pediatrician and dentist were located in South Carolina. The children had received pediatric and dental care in Venezuela. The children's only orthodontist and eye doctor were located in South Carolina. They never received orthodontic or ophthalmologic care in Venezuela. The children indicated that they considered themselves Americans and wished to remain in the United States.
The Court concluded that because only two of the parties' children were under the age of sixteen, it would only make a determination as to whether those two children were wrongfully retained by the Respondent on or about September 12, 2011. It observed that Federal courts have developed a two-part framework to assist in the habitual residence analysis." Maxwell v. Maxwell, 588 F.3d 245, 251 (4th Cir.2009). Under the two-part framework, courts evaluate the following: (1) shared parental intent-whether the parents shared a settled intention to abandon the former country of residence; and (2) acclimatization-whether there was an actual change in geography coupled with the passage of an appreciable period of time, one sufficient for acclimatization by the children to the new environment. With regard to shared parental intent, federal courts have cautioned that " 'the representations of the parties cannot be accepted at face value, and courts must determine [habitual residence] from all available evidence.' "(quoting Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 135 (2d Cir.2005)). Federal courts have considered the following factors as evidence of parental intent: parental employment in the new country of residence; the purchase of a home in the new country and the sale of a home in the former country; marital stability; the retention of close ties to the former country; the storage and shipment of family possessions; the citizenship status of the parents and children; and the stability of the home environment in the new country of residence. The question of acclimatization " 'is not simply whether the child's life in the new country shows some minimal degree of settled purpose,' but whether the 'child's relative attachments to the countries have changed to the point where ordering the child's return would now be tantamount to taking the child out of the family and social environment in which its life has developed.' " (quoting Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1081 (9th Cir.2001). With regards to the acclimatization of the children, courts have considered the following: school environment; participation in social activities; the length of stay in the relative countries; and the child's age.
The Court found the facts of the case distinguishable from those of other cases were federal courts have explored the habitual residence of children under the Hague Convention. Because this family was a family of considerable means, many of the factors that federal courts consider in determining habitual residence (both those under shared intent and acclimatization) were unhelpful in the analysis of habitual residence in this case. It was clear from the facts presented that the parties' children had full and active lives in the United States and in Venezuela. The parties had very nice homes in both countries, and the facts show that the children spent considerable time in both places throughout their lives.
The following facts supported the mother's argument that as of September 12, 2011, the parties' children were habitually resident in Venezuela: the mother, the sole provider of the family since 2006, was employed as an attorney in Venezuela and is only licensed to practice in Venezuela; between September 2008 and September 2011, the children completed the majority of their homeschool activities while physically located in Venezuela; and * between September 2008 and September 2011, the children's time in the United States was during times traditionally considered holiday/vacation. The following facts supported the father's argument that as of September 12, 2011, the parties' children were habitually resident in the United States:
the children lived and attended school in South Carolina from 2006 to September 2008; the children participated in a South Carolina homeschool curriculum; the father was prohibited from remaining in Venezuela for more than 90 consecutive days; since 2008, the children always entered Venezuela as tourists using their United States passports; and the children's primary pediatrician and dentist were located in South Carolina, and the children's only eye doctor and orthodontist were located in South Carolina.
In balancing all of the facts, this court resolved the issue of habitual residence in favor of the father and found that since approximately 2006, the children's habitual residence had been the United States. Importantly, although the children stayed in Venezuela for an appreciable period of time from September 2008 to September 2011, they continued to travel in and out of Venezuela as tourists using their American passports. Also, their father, who administered their homeschool lessons, entered Venezuela as a tourist and was prohibited from staying in Venezuela for more than 90 days at a time. As such, neither the father nor the children were ever present in Venezuela for 90 consecutive days or more during the three-year period from September 2008 to September 2011. It may have been the mother's intent for her family to move to Venezuela in September 2008; however, the father did not share her intent, and the children's pattern of travel and their activities from September 2008 to September 2011 were not sufficient to establish Venezuela as their new habitual residence. Thus, from September 2008 to September 2011 the habitual residence of the children remained the United States.
Accordingly, the court found that Petitioner had not proven a prima facie case of wrongful retention and denied the petition.
Redmond v Redmond, 2012 WL 2368800 (N.D.Ill.) [Ireland] [Habitual Residence]
In Redmond v Redmond, 2012 WL 2368800 (N.D.Ill.) Derek Redmond filed a petition for the return of his son ("JMR") to Ireland. Ms. Redmond was born in the United States on December 24, 1977. Although a United States citizen, Ms. Redmond testified that she also held citizenship in Ireland, where her father was born. Mr. Redmond was born in Ireland on June 14, 1975. In 1996, at the age of nineteen, Ms. Redmond went to Ireland and attended college. Around this time, she began an intimate relationship with Mr. Redmond. Mr. Redmond and Ms. Redmond never married. Ms. Redmond received her Irish Associates Degree in 1998, and continued to live in Ireland until November 2007. In 2006, the parties, who were living together, conceived a child. They agreed that the child should be born in the United States. On March 28, 2007, JMR was born in Blue Island, Illinois. Mr. Redmond was present for JMR's birth and was listed as the father on JMR's United States birth certificate. On April 8, 2007 the parties returned with JMR to their common residence in Ireland. From his birth until November 2007, JMR lived with both of his parents in Ireland. During this time, Mr. and Ms. Redmond shared the intent that JMR be raised in Ireland. By November 10, 2007, however, the relationship soured and Ms. Redmond "changed her intent as to where she wanted to live and where JMR should be raised. Respondent informed Petitioner personally of her intent to return permanently to the United States on November 10, 2007.". Mr. Redmond has never changed his intent that JMR be raised in Ireland. On
November 10, 2007, Ms. Redmond took JMR to Illinois. Ms. Redmond returned to Ireland with JMR in February 2008 for a period of about two months.
On March 25, 2008, Mr. Redmond filed a petition in the Irish district court seeking legal guardianship and custody of JMR and the matter was set for hearing on April 17, 2008. At the time he filed the petition, Ms. Redmond and JMR were in Ireland. After learning that they were planning to leave Ireland, Mr. Redmond obtained an ex parte Order preventing them from doing so. Pursuant to that Order, the Irish National Police stopped Ms. Redmond and JMR from departing Ireland on April 8, 2008. Mr. and Ms. Redmond were represented by counsel throughout the Irish proceedings. On April 17, 2008, Ms. Redmond attended the hearing and moved to set aside the April 8 Order. Her motion was denied and she appealed. On April 22, 2008, the appellate court ruled in her favor, setting aside the April 8 Order. The Order noted that Ms. Redmond had agreed to return to Ireland for a future hearing. On April 23, 2008, Ms. Redmond left with JMR for Illinois. On June 25, 2008, the Irish district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Redmond's application for guardianship and custody because JMR had been removed to the United States. Mr. Redmond appealed and a hearing was set for July 29, 2008. On July 23, 2008, Mr. Redmond obtained an ex parte Order requiring Ms. Redmond to appear with JMR at the July 29 hearing. At the hearing, neither Ms. Redmond nor JMR appeared. The Irish appellate court found that it had jurisdiction to consider Mr. Redmond's application for guardianship and custody. Ms. Redmond subsequently appealed to the Irish High Court. The High Court heard the matter on November 18, 2008, and issued judgment on November 26, 2008, ruling against Ms. Redmond. Ms. Redmond conceded in January 2009 that the Irish courts had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Redmond's custody application.
In January 2009, Ms. Redmond filed her own application in the Irish courts for an Order allowing JMR to permanently relocate with her to the United States. On February 10, 2011, the Irish court, after a hearing, denied Ms. Redmond's application to relocate JMR to the United States and granted Mr. Redmond guardianship and joint custody of JMR. The Order directed Ms. Redmond not to make any application to any court outside the State in respect of JMR; not to remove JMR to a third country"; and "to live within a reasonable distance of Ballymurphy bearing in mind the Court's order that JMR
should attend Ballymurphy National School. The court also directed the parties to "share access to JMR on a 50/50 basis.
In response to the February 10 Order, Ms. Redmond requested leave of court to return to the United States for a short period in order to settle her affairs. The Irish court granted her request on the condition that she promise to: (1) return to Ireland with JMR no later than March 30, 2011; (2) not to apply to another court for custody; (3) terminate her employment in Illinois; (4) move to County Carlow, Ireland, and live within a reasonable distance of Ballymurphy National School; (5) have JMR attend Ballymurphy National School; (6) share custody with Mr. Redmond on an every-other-day basis; and (7) purchase a plane ticket for JMR's return trip to Ireland within seven days of her return to the United States. Ms. Redmond conceded that she made each of these promises under oath, and that she never intended to keep any of them. Ms. Redmond ailed to comply with all of the above sworn promises. Ms. Redmond admitted this at the June 8, 2012 evidentiary hearing.
On February 15, 2011, Ms. Redmond returned with JMR to Illinois. On March 23, 2011, she retained Illinois counsel and filed a petition for award of sole custody in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Ms. Redmond did not return with JMR to Ireland on March 30, 2011. On May 10, 2011, the Irish court issued an Order requiring Ms. Redmond to produce JMR on June 30, 2011. The Irish court further declared that the retention of JMR in the United States after March 30, 2011 was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. When Ms. Redmond failed to personally appear on June 30, the Irish court issued an Order directing that Ms. Redmond be attached and brought before the court to answer for her failure to comply with the promises that she made in February 2011. On July 27, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County denied Ms. Redmond's petition for custody, finding that the Irish courts had jurisdiction over the underlying custody issues. At the June 8, 2012 evidentiary hearing, Ms. Redmond testified to learning, that morning, of an outstanding warrant for her arrest in Ireland based on her failure to comply with the custody order.
The District Court observed that the Hague Convention does not define the term habitual residence," but rather regards it as a question of fact. Koch v. Koch. 450 F.3d 703, 712 (7th Cir.2006). The determination of 'habitual residence' is to be based on the everyday meaning of these words rather than on the legal meaning that a particular jurisdiction attaches to them. Avila, 538 F.3d at 583. The first step in determining a child's habitual residence is to discern when the alleged wrongful removal or retention took place, for 'the text of the Convention directs courts to only one point in time in determining habitual residence: the point in time 'immediately before the removal or retention.'" Barzilay v. Barzilay, 600 F.3d 912, 918 (8th Cir.2010). The Court found that the date of the alleged wrongful retention was March 30, 2011, the date upon which JMR's retention in Illinois first violated Irish law. The Court had to decide whether JMR was a habitual resident of Ireland immediately prior to March 30, 2011 and did not consider the events in JMR's life after March 30, 2011. In determining habitual residence, the Court first examines the shared intent of the parents. Koch, 450 F.3d at 715; see also Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 133 (2d. Cir.2005) In nearly all of the cases that arise under the Convention ... the parents have come to disagree as to the place of the child's habitual residence. It then becomes the court's task to determine the intentions of the parents as of the last time that their intentions were shared.". This examination is especially relevant in cases involving young children such as JMR. See Koch, 450 F.3d at 713 ("In the case of young children, the court found it most prudent to focus on the intent of the parents rather than the intent of the child in determining the child's habitual residence.").
The Court noted that Mr. and Ms. Redmond, unmarried, had an intimate relationship for over ten years and maintained a home in Ireland. Ms. Redmond was born in the United States, but at the time of her pregnancy with JMR, had lived in Ireland for a decade. While JMR was also born in the United States, Mr. and Ms. Redmond immediately returned with him to Ireland when he was only eleven-days-old. The parties lived together with JMR in Ireland until November 2007. The quick return with JMR to their home in Ireland after his birth evidences the parents' shared intent that JMR reside in Ireland. Therefore, at least initially, JMR's habitual residence was in Ireland. Since November 2007, the parties have not maintained a shared intent as to the location of JMR's habitual residence. The question before the Court, therefore, was whether JMR's habitual residence has changed from Ireland to Illinois. There are no bright line rules as to when habitual residence changes. Rather, a flexible application of the law to the unique facts of every case has created a continuum. On one end are cases where "the court finds that the family as a unit has manifested a settled purpose to change habitual residence, despite the fact that one parent may have had qualms about the move." Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir.2001). On the other end "are cases where the child's initial translocation from an established habitual residence was clearly intended to be of a specific, delimited period." "In these cases, courts have generally refused to find that the changed intentions of one parent led to an alteration in the child's habitual residence." The present dispute fell much closer to the latter end.
Ms. Redmond's actions revealed that she was fully aware that JMR's status in Illinois has always been contingent on the Irish custody proceedings. Both Mr. and Ms. Redmond vigorously litigated their cases before the Irish courts. Ms. Redmond was represented throughout the Irish custody proceedings and fully participated in them, frequently traveling with JMR to Ireland for court dates. Ms. Redmond was well aware that Mr. Redmond was seeking guardianship and custody rights of JMR in Ireland. In January 2009, Ms. Redmond filed her own application in the Irish courts for an Order allowing JMR to relocate with her to the United States. Although she may have hoped to move permanently to Illinois, Ms. Redmond also recognized that Ireland would have the ultimate say. For his part, Mr. Redmond never wavered that Ireland is JMR's habitual residence, as he filed for custody and guardianship shortly after Ms. Redmond first left. These circumstances weighed against a finding that JMR's habitual residence changed from Ireland to Illinois. JMR's status in Illinois-as evidenced by the conduct of both parties-has always been "contingent" or "temporary," and has never been "settled." Ms. Redmond acknowledged so much when she met with the Irish community welfare officer on March 12, 2008, when she petitioned the Irish courts to allow JMR to relocate with her to the United States in January 2009, and when she promised the Irish court in February 2011 that she would return with JMR to Ireland by March 30, 2011.
The next question was whether acclimatization should suffice to establish a change in JMR's habitual residence. Courts will often consider a child's habitual residence to be "the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has a 'degree of settled purpose' from the child's perspective." Feder v. Evans-Feder. 63 F.3d 217, 224 (3d. Cir.1995). Under this framework, if JMR had become "acclimatized to the new environment to such a degree," then he can become "a habitual resident of the new country despite the parents' shared intentions." Koch. 450 F.3d at 714. Ms. Redmond contended that JMR's life in Illinois from November 2007 through March 30, 2011, changed his habitual residence from Ireland to Illinois. Ms. Redmond testified that JMR had a pediatrician and dentist in Illinois and that she placed him in KinderCare from the age of two-and-a-half through three-and-a-half. She further testified that JMR went with her (or her parents) to St. Michael's church, had play dates with his friends, and frequently interacted with his large extended family in Illinois. Ms. Redmond noted that JMR spent approximately ten-and-a-half weeks in Ireland between November 2007 and February 2011, but that these returns were (with the exception of the first) all for court dates.
While these facts, coupled with the passage of nearly three-and-a-half years of very early childhood, suggested that JMR was happy and well-adjusted to his life in Illinois, such a finding was not dispositive of habitual residence in this case. The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that despite the superficial appeal of focusing primarily on the child's contacts in the new country, in the absence of settled parental intent, courts should be slow to infer from such contacts that an earlier habitual residence has been abandoned." Ms. Redmond unilaterally removed JMR from his original habitual residence in Ireland. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Redmond initiated custody proceedings to get JMR back. Indeed, what makes this case unique is Mr. Redmond's vigorous (and thus far successful) pursuit of his custody rights for nearly the entire duration of JMR's life in Illinois. As properly recognized by the Irish courts as well as the Circuit Court of Cook County, this is an Irish custody dispute, the merits of which have been, and should continue to be, adjudicated in Ireland. Ms. Redmond's flight to Illinois-which was only permitted in the first place because she promised under oath to return to Ireland-is
precisely the conduct that the Convention is designed to prevent.
The Court found that JMR's habitual residence was and still is in Ireland.
The Irish courts granted Mr. Redmond joint custody rights on February 10, 2011. While Ms. Redmond was granted leave to settle her affairs in the United States, she was ordered to return to Ireland with JMR by March 30, 2011, in order to share custody of JMR with Mr. Redmond "on a 50/50 basis." While ostensibly settling her affairs, she filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Ms. Redmond never returned to Ireland with JMR, and thereby breached Mr. Redmond's custody rights under Irish law.
Once a petitioner has established that he or she has custody rights under the laws of the country of habitual residence, courts 'liberally' find the exercise of those custody rights." Mr. Redmond exercised or attempted to exercise his custody rights since March 25, 2008, the date he initiated the Irish custody case. Mr. Redmond continued to actively pursue those rights through the instant petition under the Convention. Through his past and continued legal efforts, Mr. Redmond has established that he would have exercised his custody rights but for JMR's retention in Illinois. Mr. Redmond established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as of March 30, 2011, JMR was wrongfully retained in Illinois, in violation of the Convention.
Mr. Redmond's petition for the return of JMR to Ireland was granted.
November 10, 2007, Ms. Redmond took JMR to Illinois. Ms. Redmond returned to Ireland with JMR in February 2008 for a period of about two months.
On March 25, 2008, Mr. Redmond filed a petition in the Irish district court seeking legal guardianship and custody of JMR and the matter was set for hearing on April 17, 2008. At the time he filed the petition, Ms. Redmond and JMR were in Ireland. After learning that they were planning to leave Ireland, Mr. Redmond obtained an ex parte Order preventing them from doing so. Pursuant to that Order, the Irish National Police stopped Ms. Redmond and JMR from departing Ireland on April 8, 2008. Mr. and Ms. Redmond were represented by counsel throughout the Irish proceedings. On April 17, 2008, Ms. Redmond attended the hearing and moved to set aside the April 8 Order. Her motion was denied and she appealed. On April 22, 2008, the appellate court ruled in her favor, setting aside the April 8 Order. The Order noted that Ms. Redmond had agreed to return to Ireland for a future hearing. On April 23, 2008, Ms. Redmond left with JMR for Illinois. On June 25, 2008, the Irish district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Redmond's application for guardianship and custody because JMR had been removed to the United States. Mr. Redmond appealed and a hearing was set for July 29, 2008. On July 23, 2008, Mr. Redmond obtained an ex parte Order requiring Ms. Redmond to appear with JMR at the July 29 hearing. At the hearing, neither Ms. Redmond nor JMR appeared. The Irish appellate court found that it had jurisdiction to consider Mr. Redmond's application for guardianship and custody. Ms. Redmond subsequently appealed to the Irish High Court. The High Court heard the matter on November 18, 2008, and issued judgment on November 26, 2008, ruling against Ms. Redmond. Ms. Redmond conceded in January 2009 that the Irish courts had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Redmond's custody application.
In January 2009, Ms. Redmond filed her own application in the Irish courts for an Order allowing JMR to permanently relocate with her to the United States. On February 10, 2011, the Irish court, after a hearing, denied Ms. Redmond's application to relocate JMR to the United States and granted Mr. Redmond guardianship and joint custody of JMR. The Order directed Ms. Redmond not to make any application to any court outside the State in respect of JMR; not to remove JMR to a third country"; and "to live within a reasonable distance of Ballymurphy bearing in mind the Court's order that JMR
should attend Ballymurphy National School. The court also directed the parties to "share access to JMR on a 50/50 basis.
In response to the February 10 Order, Ms. Redmond requested leave of court to return to the United States for a short period in order to settle her affairs. The Irish court granted her request on the condition that she promise to: (1) return to Ireland with JMR no later than March 30, 2011; (2) not to apply to another court for custody; (3) terminate her employment in Illinois; (4) move to County Carlow, Ireland, and live within a reasonable distance of Ballymurphy National School; (5) have JMR attend Ballymurphy National School; (6) share custody with Mr. Redmond on an every-other-day basis; and (7) purchase a plane ticket for JMR's return trip to Ireland within seven days of her return to the United States. Ms. Redmond conceded that she made each of these promises under oath, and that she never intended to keep any of them. Ms. Redmond ailed to comply with all of the above sworn promises. Ms. Redmond admitted this at the June 8, 2012 evidentiary hearing.
On February 15, 2011, Ms. Redmond returned with JMR to Illinois. On March 23, 2011, she retained Illinois counsel and filed a petition for award of sole custody in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Ms. Redmond did not return with JMR to Ireland on March 30, 2011. On May 10, 2011, the Irish court issued an Order requiring Ms. Redmond to produce JMR on June 30, 2011. The Irish court further declared that the retention of JMR in the United States after March 30, 2011 was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. When Ms. Redmond failed to personally appear on June 30, the Irish court issued an Order directing that Ms. Redmond be attached and brought before the court to answer for her failure to comply with the promises that she made in February 2011. On July 27, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County denied Ms. Redmond's petition for custody, finding that the Irish courts had jurisdiction over the underlying custody issues. At the June 8, 2012 evidentiary hearing, Ms. Redmond testified to learning, that morning, of an outstanding warrant for her arrest in Ireland based on her failure to comply with the custody order.
The District Court observed that the Hague Convention does not define the term habitual residence," but rather regards it as a question of fact. Koch v. Koch. 450 F.3d 703, 712 (7th Cir.2006). The determination of 'habitual residence' is to be based on the everyday meaning of these words rather than on the legal meaning that a particular jurisdiction attaches to them. Avila, 538 F.3d at 583. The first step in determining a child's habitual residence is to discern when the alleged wrongful removal or retention took place, for 'the text of the Convention directs courts to only one point in time in determining habitual residence: the point in time 'immediately before the removal or retention.'" Barzilay v. Barzilay, 600 F.3d 912, 918 (8th Cir.2010). The Court found that the date of the alleged wrongful retention was March 30, 2011, the date upon which JMR's retention in Illinois first violated Irish law. The Court had to decide whether JMR was a habitual resident of Ireland immediately prior to March 30, 2011 and did not consider the events in JMR's life after March 30, 2011. In determining habitual residence, the Court first examines the shared intent of the parents. Koch, 450 F.3d at 715; see also Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 133 (2d. Cir.2005) In nearly all of the cases that arise under the Convention ... the parents have come to disagree as to the place of the child's habitual residence. It then becomes the court's task to determine the intentions of the parents as of the last time that their intentions were shared.". This examination is especially relevant in cases involving young children such as JMR. See Koch, 450 F.3d at 713 ("In the case of young children, the court found it most prudent to focus on the intent of the parents rather than the intent of the child in determining the child's habitual residence.").
The Court noted that Mr. and Ms. Redmond, unmarried, had an intimate relationship for over ten years and maintained a home in Ireland. Ms. Redmond was born in the United States, but at the time of her pregnancy with JMR, had lived in Ireland for a decade. While JMR was also born in the United States, Mr. and Ms. Redmond immediately returned with him to Ireland when he was only eleven-days-old. The parties lived together with JMR in Ireland until November 2007. The quick return with JMR to their home in Ireland after his birth evidences the parents' shared intent that JMR reside in Ireland. Therefore, at least initially, JMR's habitual residence was in Ireland. Since November 2007, the parties have not maintained a shared intent as to the location of JMR's habitual residence. The question before the Court, therefore, was whether JMR's habitual residence has changed from Ireland to Illinois. There are no bright line rules as to when habitual residence changes. Rather, a flexible application of the law to the unique facts of every case has created a continuum. On one end are cases where "the court finds that the family as a unit has manifested a settled purpose to change habitual residence, despite the fact that one parent may have had qualms about the move." Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir.2001). On the other end "are cases where the child's initial translocation from an established habitual residence was clearly intended to be of a specific, delimited period." "In these cases, courts have generally refused to find that the changed intentions of one parent led to an alteration in the child's habitual residence." The present dispute fell much closer to the latter end.
Ms. Redmond's actions revealed that she was fully aware that JMR's status in Illinois has always been contingent on the Irish custody proceedings. Both Mr. and Ms. Redmond vigorously litigated their cases before the Irish courts. Ms. Redmond was represented throughout the Irish custody proceedings and fully participated in them, frequently traveling with JMR to Ireland for court dates. Ms. Redmond was well aware that Mr. Redmond was seeking guardianship and custody rights of JMR in Ireland. In January 2009, Ms. Redmond filed her own application in the Irish courts for an Order allowing JMR to relocate with her to the United States. Although she may have hoped to move permanently to Illinois, Ms. Redmond also recognized that Ireland would have the ultimate say. For his part, Mr. Redmond never wavered that Ireland is JMR's habitual residence, as he filed for custody and guardianship shortly after Ms. Redmond first left. These circumstances weighed against a finding that JMR's habitual residence changed from Ireland to Illinois. JMR's status in Illinois-as evidenced by the conduct of both parties-has always been "contingent" or "temporary," and has never been "settled." Ms. Redmond acknowledged so much when she met with the Irish community welfare officer on March 12, 2008, when she petitioned the Irish courts to allow JMR to relocate with her to the United States in January 2009, and when she promised the Irish court in February 2011 that she would return with JMR to Ireland by March 30, 2011.
The next question was whether acclimatization should suffice to establish a change in JMR's habitual residence. Courts will often consider a child's habitual residence to be "the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has a 'degree of settled purpose' from the child's perspective." Feder v. Evans-Feder. 63 F.3d 217, 224 (3d. Cir.1995). Under this framework, if JMR had become "acclimatized to the new environment to such a degree," then he can become "a habitual resident of the new country despite the parents' shared intentions." Koch. 450 F.3d at 714. Ms. Redmond contended that JMR's life in Illinois from November 2007 through March 30, 2011, changed his habitual residence from Ireland to Illinois. Ms. Redmond testified that JMR had a pediatrician and dentist in Illinois and that she placed him in KinderCare from the age of two-and-a-half through three-and-a-half. She further testified that JMR went with her (or her parents) to St. Michael's church, had play dates with his friends, and frequently interacted with his large extended family in Illinois. Ms. Redmond noted that JMR spent approximately ten-and-a-half weeks in Ireland between November 2007 and February 2011, but that these returns were (with the exception of the first) all for court dates.
While these facts, coupled with the passage of nearly three-and-a-half years of very early childhood, suggested that JMR was happy and well-adjusted to his life in Illinois, such a finding was not dispositive of habitual residence in this case. The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that despite the superficial appeal of focusing primarily on the child's contacts in the new country, in the absence of settled parental intent, courts should be slow to infer from such contacts that an earlier habitual residence has been abandoned." Ms. Redmond unilaterally removed JMR from his original habitual residence in Ireland. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Redmond initiated custody proceedings to get JMR back. Indeed, what makes this case unique is Mr. Redmond's vigorous (and thus far successful) pursuit of his custody rights for nearly the entire duration of JMR's life in Illinois. As properly recognized by the Irish courts as well as the Circuit Court of Cook County, this is an Irish custody dispute, the merits of which have been, and should continue to be, adjudicated in Ireland. Ms. Redmond's flight to Illinois-which was only permitted in the first place because she promised under oath to return to Ireland-is
precisely the conduct that the Convention is designed to prevent.
The Court found that JMR's habitual residence was and still is in Ireland.
The Irish courts granted Mr. Redmond joint custody rights on February 10, 2011. While Ms. Redmond was granted leave to settle her affairs in the United States, she was ordered to return to Ireland with JMR by March 30, 2011, in order to share custody of JMR with Mr. Redmond "on a 50/50 basis." While ostensibly settling her affairs, she filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Ms. Redmond never returned to Ireland with JMR, and thereby breached Mr. Redmond's custody rights under Irish law.
Once a petitioner has established that he or she has custody rights under the laws of the country of habitual residence, courts 'liberally' find the exercise of those custody rights." Mr. Redmond exercised or attempted to exercise his custody rights since March 25, 2008, the date he initiated the Irish custody case. Mr. Redmond continued to actively pursue those rights through the instant petition under the Convention. Through his past and continued legal efforts, Mr. Redmond has established that he would have exercised his custody rights but for JMR's retention in Illinois. Mr. Redmond established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that as of March 30, 2011, JMR was wrongfully retained in Illinois, in violation of the Convention.
Mr. Redmond's petition for the return of JMR to Ireland was granted.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Acosta v Acosta, 2012 WL 2178982 (D.Minn.) [Peru] [Grave Risk of Harm]
In Acosta v Acosta, 2012 WL 2178982 (D.Minn.) Ricardo Acosta ("Ricardo") petitioned for the return of his two minor children M.A.A. and E.T.A. to Peru. Ricardo appeared telephonically from Peru. Ricardo was a citizen and resident of Peru. Anne Acosta the Respondent was citizen of the United States. She resided in Minnesota. Stephen and Susan Campbell were Anne's parents, and the grandparents of M.A.A. and E.T.A. Ricardo and Anne were the parents of two children: M.A.A., born February 6, 2003, and E.T.A., born August 23, 2007. On November 26, 2002, Ricardo and Anne were married in Ramsey County, Minnesota. From November 2002 to July 2006, Anne and Ricardo lived together in the United States in the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. M.A.A. was born in the United States on February 6, 2003. In July 2006, Anne, Ricardo, and M.A.A. moved to Lima, Peru. On August 23, 2007, E.T.A. was born in Lima, Peru, and resided there with her family. While in Peru, Anne worked as a teacher at el Colegio de Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the "Roosevelt School"). Ricardo was briefly employed there as well, but more recently worked at the Lima airport.
Anne testified that Ricardo was verbally abusive towards her throughout their marriage. She testified that on at least one occasion Ricardo called her a "hippo" in the presence of M.A.A. and a "bitch" in the presence of E.T.A. Anne also testified that, prior to February 2011, Ricardo experienced several outbursts of violence which involved or were witnessed by his children. Specifically, she testified that Ricardo pushed M.A.A. down onto a bed for insubordination. She further testified that in about 2008 or 2009, Ricardo was driving the family car when he was cut off by a taxi. She testified that Ricardo: used the family car to force the taxi to a stop alongside the road's median, exited the car and assaulted the taxi driver, and broke the taxi's windshield with a theft-deterrent tool used to lock the family car's steering wheel, all observed by M.A.A. and E.T .A., who were passengers in the family car.
In November 2010, Anne told Ricardo she was going to Minnesota for the holidays with M.A.A. and E.T.A. In prior years, Ricardo, Anne, and the children had all visited the United States together for the Christmas-New Year's holiday season. Stephen Campbell offered to purchase Ricardo an air ticket to visit the United States again that year, but Ricardo refused despite Stephen Campbell's urging. Anne had purchased airline tickets paid for by her father for her and the children to leave Peru for the United States on December 23, 2010 and return on February 16, 2011. After Anne, M.A.A., and E.T.A. left for Minnesota, Ricardo could not reach them by telephone over the holiday period. Anne, Susan Campbell, and Stephen Campbell would not return Ricardo's calls, would offer excuses why the children could not talk, or would not answer the phone.
Sometime in early February 2011, Anne informed Ricardo that she would seek a divorce and that M.A.A. and E.T.A. would not return to Peru on February 16, 2011 as planned. Anne made plans to return to Peru from February 11, 2011 to February 16, 2011 to retrieve her and her children's possessions. On February 11, 2011, Anne, accompanied by her brother Jeffrey Campbell, arrived in Lima. Concerned for their safety, Anne and Jeffrey Campbell asked several people to go with them to the apartment she previously shared with Ricardo. Elizabeth Norton LeBoo, Anne's colleague at the Roosevelt School, and Jacob Johansen, an acquaintance of Anne from a prior master's degree program that was also employed by the Roosevelt School, volunteered to assist. On February 13, 2011, accompanied by Jeffrey Campbell, Leboo, and Johansen, Anne returned to the Acosta apartment. While at the apartment, Anne telephoned Ricardo to tell him she was removing clothing and toys. They each testified Ricardo returned to the apartment, crashing his car into a pole outside. Ricardo then broke a window on the taxi they had taken to the apartment and which was awaiting their return. Jeffrey Campbell and Johansen held the door of the apartment shut as Ricardo tried to enter the apartment. Ricardo kicked the door to pieces and forced his way into the home. Ricardo began throwing items at Anne. Ricardo then grabbed a knife and chased the men while the women hid in a backroom. Ricardo chased Johansen outside where Ricardo cut Johansen's leg with the knife. Ricardo returned to the apartment and eventually forced his way into the backroom where he first battered LeBoo and then Anne. Police arrived and, after passively watching the events for some time, restrained Ricardo.
Ricardo's version of the events was entirely different. He testified that it was Anne and her friends that broke doors in his house and "provoked" him. Ricardo testified that Anne attacked him and then Jeffrey Campbell pushed him down and kicked him. Ricardo testified that he did not hurt or attack Anne or LeBoo. He also testified that they took $15,000.00 from the apartment. The court found that Ricardo's version of the events of February 13, 2011 was not credible. His story was inconsistent and evolved as questioning proceeded. The Court found that the testimony of LeBoo was highly credible and the testimony of Jeffrey Campbell was also highly credible. He testified that after Ricardo arrived at the apartment, Ricardo grabbed a knife from the kitchen counter and chased Johansen outside the apartment. Jeffrey Campbell then went to look for Anne and LeBoo. While looking for Anne and LeBoo, Jeffrey Campbell was corned in a hallway by Ricardo, holding out a knife. Jeffrey Campbell testified that Ricardo looked like "an enraged doppelganger" of his former self. Cornered in the
hallway, with Ricardo waving a large kitchen knife, Jeffrey Campbell begged Ricardo to spare his life. Ultimately, Ricardo did. As a result of the incident, Anne sustained injuries, including cuts to her hand requiring stitches and bruises. In the midst of the melee at the apartment, Ricardo called Susan Campbell's cell phone. In a profanity-laced tirade, he threatened to kill Susan Campbell, Stephen Campbell, Jeffrey Campbell, Anne, and Anne's sister.
After leaving the apartment, Ricardo went to the police station while Anne, Jeffrey Campbell, Johansen, and LeBoo went to the hospital and U.S. Embassy before arriving at the police station. At the police station, Ricardo was accompanied by several of his relatives. LeBoo and Jeffrey Campbell testified that the police did not appear to take their version of the events seriously. Jeffrey Campbell testified that the Lima police would not allow Anne and her supporters to leave the station because of concerns about their identification cards. Jeffrey Campbell testified they were eventually released
when he offered cash to an officer as advised by his Peruvian attorney. Afterwards, a police report was issued that stated Ricardo had seen Anne and "her lover" embracing.
After the incident, Ricardo called Rachel Metcalf Harrington, the principal at the Roosevelt School, and threatened to come to the Roosevelt School and kill Anne with a knife. Harrington, testifying telephonically from Peru, stated Ricardo had appeared in television interviews near school property where he has blamed school officials for his problems with obtaining custody of his children. Harrington and the school staff assess the threat posed by Ricardo as serious and have implemented an emergency protocol should he violate the ban on his presence on school property.
In the weeks after Anne's return from Peru, Ricardo made numerous calls to Stephen Campbell and Susan Campbell. He left threatening voicemails. In one voicemail he states, "I'll kill your kids, because she's [Anne is] taking my babies away. And, I promise you, your daughter is going to be killed because she is taking my kids away." He also spoke over the phone to both Stephen Campbell and Susan Campbell. In one live conversation with Susan Campbell, Ricardo threatened to kill M.A.A., E.T.A., and then himself.
On February 16, 2011, Anne met with officers from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, and a warrant was issued for Ricardo's arrest on February 18, 2011. On March 2, 2011, Ricardo initiated an action for custody of M.A.A. and E.T.A. before a Peruvian court in Lima. On March 10, 2011, Anne filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, in which she sought custody of M.A.A. and E.T.A., in Minnesota state court in Ramsey County. On November 3, 2011, that Petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In May 2011, Ricardo traveled to Miami, Florida. Upon arrival, Ricardo was arrested. Id. He was eventually extradited to Minnesota. On September 1, 2011, Ricardo pled guilty in Ramsey County, Minnesota to making terroristic threats in violation of Minn .Stat. s 609.713. After his guilty plea, Ricardo returned to Peru to serve his probation. Visitation with M.A.A. and E.T.A. was arranged by use of the video-conferencing software Skype. The Skype visitation, however, stopped after one visit. Ricardo testified that he stopped the visitation because he preferred to explain what was occurring between him and Anne to his children in person.
While living in Peru, M.A.A. was enrolled in school at the Roosevelt School. Teachers at the Roosevelt School noted M.A.A. had behavioral problems. Harrington testified that M .A.A. told teachers he wanted to kill himself and he was referred to therapy. M.A.A. stopped therapy after two or three sessions because Ricardo felt the family could not afford it and because Ricardo felt, based on his own experiences, that therapy was ineffective. Harrington testified that in her nineteen years of experience as an educator, the severity of M.A.A.'s behavior problems stood out as one of the three most exceptional cases out of the thousands of students she has observed. Stephen Campbell testified that after M.A.A. arrived in the United States in December 2010, Stephen Campbell noticed M.A.A. would have violent outbursts, wet his bed at night, and said he wished he were dead. Stephen Campbell further testified that M.A.A. was now in therapy and his demeanor has improved and bed-wetting abated.
Dr. Jeffrey Edleson testified as an expert witness on behalf of Respondents. Dr. Edleson held a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Social Work, and was a tenured professor at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Social Work. He testified that Ricardo's history of violence in the presence of others, escalation of violence, threats of suicide, and estrangement from his children were factors indicating a high risk of harm to M.A.A. and E.T.A were they to return to Peru. Dr. Edleson further testified that M.A.A.'s antisocial behavior was consistent with
exposure to domestic violence. RTX052-009 (noting a child's exposure to domestic violence correlates with antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, and temperament problems). Dr. Edleson testified he believed M.A.A. to be exhibiting signs of depression.
At the close of the evidentiary hearing the court determined that the children were wrongfully retained in the United States, as contemplated by the Hague Convention, and that no other affirmative defenses applied. The sole issue before the Court was whether the affirmative defense in Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention applied. The Court observed that under Article 13(b), the Court is not bound to order the return of either M.A.A. or E.T.A. if "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." . A "grave risk" of physical or psychological harm requires an assessment of whether the child will face "immediate and substantial risk of an intolerable situation" if returned to his or her country of habitual residence. Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d at 377.To prevail on an Article 13(b) defense, there must be evidence of a grave risk of harm to each child, not solely to a parent or some other third party. Hague Convention art. 13(b); see also Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d at 378 ("[Respondent] must present clear and convincing evidence that the return of the child to [his country of habitual residence] would subject him to a grave risk of harm...."); Charalambous v. Charalambous, 627 F.3d 462, 468 (1st Cir.2010) ("The relevant inquiry is not whether there would be a grave risk of harm to [the child's mother] if she returned to [the country of habitual residence]; rather, the grave risk inquiry goes to the children.") However, where spousal abuse evinces a propensity towards violence and is accompanied by other risk factors specific to the child, a grave risk of harm to a child may be found. Baran v. Beaty, 526 F .3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir.2008) (upholding finding of grave risk to child where Petitioner physically and verbally abused Respondent in addition to threatening to harm child, berating Respondent for hours in presence of child on one occasion, and handling child irresponsibly while drunk); Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir.2005) (reversing trial court's finding of no grave risk where evidence showed Petitioner had a propensity for violence based on history of spousal abuse and Petitioner beat and insulted Respondent in presence of children); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204, 220 (1st Cir.2000) (finding grave risk where Petitioner had a history of disobeying court orders, had an "uncontrollably violent temper," had battered his other children, fought people younger than he, and based on the recognition of social science literature and law that spousal abuse is linked to physical and psychological injury to children). In determining whether a grave risk of harm to a child exists, courts may consider the environment to which the child would be returning. Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d at 377. In so doing, a court may consider both the resources in the country for dealing with domestic violence and the people awaiting the child. There is no requirement under the Hague Convention that a child actually have been previously harmed physically or psychologically; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether returning the child to the country of his habitual residence would present a grave risk of such harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. Baran, 526 F.3d at 1346.
The district court found that grave risk of harm was proven by clear and convincing evidence and denied his petition. Ricardo had an explosive temper and propensity to maintain a state of violent rage. The breaking of a taxi windshield and assault incident in 2008 or 2009 and the February 13, 2011 apartment melee demonstrated that Ricardo, once enraged, will engage in acts of violence that are severe and not limited to his spouse. The severity of Ricardo's temper was underlined by his beating and threats to Anne but even more remarkably by his use of a weapon on Johansen, a man he had never previously met and did not believe to be his wife's lover; his beating of his wife's colleague LeBoo; and his highly specific threats towards Anne, her family members, and his own children. Ricardo's violent outbursts were not only severe, but they were of a lasting duration. After leaving the police station on February 13, 2011, he or someone acting at his direction attempted to gain access to LeBoo's residence. He also called the Roosevelt School and made highly specific threats. For weeks after the February 13, 2011 incident, he continued to make threatening phone calls to Stephen and Susan Campbell.. The circumstances to which M.A.A. and E.T.A. would return in Peru posed a grave risk of physical harm to them. What appeared to incite Ricardo's violence was the prospect of losing custody of his children. The evidence showed Ricardo did not have the emotional fortitude to acknowledge custody of his children may ultimately be with Anne. Dr. Edelson identified five high risk factors for future severe child abuse, including homicide. All were present in this case including threats by Ricardo to kill himself and his children. The Court was concerned about the police response were Anne, M.A.A., or E.T.A. to be in future physical danger from Ricardo. In light of the local police officers' slow response on February 13, 2011, the requirement to be paid cash prior to allowing the release of Anne and her friends from the police station where they had gone to report a crime, the filing of a false police report, and Ricardo's apparent influence over certain officers, the risk of harm to Anne, M.A.A., E.T.A. was exacerbated. The court found that a grave risk of physical harm to M.A.A. and E.T.A. existed should they be returned to Peru, and a grave risk of psychological harm was also present for M.A.A. and E.T.A. M.A.A. exhibited some behavior indicative of psychological harm.
Anne testified that Ricardo was verbally abusive towards her throughout their marriage. She testified that on at least one occasion Ricardo called her a "hippo" in the presence of M.A.A. and a "bitch" in the presence of E.T.A. Anne also testified that, prior to February 2011, Ricardo experienced several outbursts of violence which involved or were witnessed by his children. Specifically, she testified that Ricardo pushed M.A.A. down onto a bed for insubordination. She further testified that in about 2008 or 2009, Ricardo was driving the family car when he was cut off by a taxi. She testified that Ricardo: used the family car to force the taxi to a stop alongside the road's median, exited the car and assaulted the taxi driver, and broke the taxi's windshield with a theft-deterrent tool used to lock the family car's steering wheel, all observed by M.A.A. and E.T .A., who were passengers in the family car.
In November 2010, Anne told Ricardo she was going to Minnesota for the holidays with M.A.A. and E.T.A. In prior years, Ricardo, Anne, and the children had all visited the United States together for the Christmas-New Year's holiday season. Stephen Campbell offered to purchase Ricardo an air ticket to visit the United States again that year, but Ricardo refused despite Stephen Campbell's urging. Anne had purchased airline tickets paid for by her father for her and the children to leave Peru for the United States on December 23, 2010 and return on February 16, 2011. After Anne, M.A.A., and E.T.A. left for Minnesota, Ricardo could not reach them by telephone over the holiday period. Anne, Susan Campbell, and Stephen Campbell would not return Ricardo's calls, would offer excuses why the children could not talk, or would not answer the phone.
Sometime in early February 2011, Anne informed Ricardo that she would seek a divorce and that M.A.A. and E.T.A. would not return to Peru on February 16, 2011 as planned. Anne made plans to return to Peru from February 11, 2011 to February 16, 2011 to retrieve her and her children's possessions. On February 11, 2011, Anne, accompanied by her brother Jeffrey Campbell, arrived in Lima. Concerned for their safety, Anne and Jeffrey Campbell asked several people to go with them to the apartment she previously shared with Ricardo. Elizabeth Norton LeBoo, Anne's colleague at the Roosevelt School, and Jacob Johansen, an acquaintance of Anne from a prior master's degree program that was also employed by the Roosevelt School, volunteered to assist. On February 13, 2011, accompanied by Jeffrey Campbell, Leboo, and Johansen, Anne returned to the Acosta apartment. While at the apartment, Anne telephoned Ricardo to tell him she was removing clothing and toys. They each testified Ricardo returned to the apartment, crashing his car into a pole outside. Ricardo then broke a window on the taxi they had taken to the apartment and which was awaiting their return. Jeffrey Campbell and Johansen held the door of the apartment shut as Ricardo tried to enter the apartment. Ricardo kicked the door to pieces and forced his way into the home. Ricardo began throwing items at Anne. Ricardo then grabbed a knife and chased the men while the women hid in a backroom. Ricardo chased Johansen outside where Ricardo cut Johansen's leg with the knife. Ricardo returned to the apartment and eventually forced his way into the backroom where he first battered LeBoo and then Anne. Police arrived and, after passively watching the events for some time, restrained Ricardo.
Ricardo's version of the events was entirely different. He testified that it was Anne and her friends that broke doors in his house and "provoked" him. Ricardo testified that Anne attacked him and then Jeffrey Campbell pushed him down and kicked him. Ricardo testified that he did not hurt or attack Anne or LeBoo. He also testified that they took $15,000.00 from the apartment. The court found that Ricardo's version of the events of February 13, 2011 was not credible. His story was inconsistent and evolved as questioning proceeded. The Court found that the testimony of LeBoo was highly credible and the testimony of Jeffrey Campbell was also highly credible. He testified that after Ricardo arrived at the apartment, Ricardo grabbed a knife from the kitchen counter and chased Johansen outside the apartment. Jeffrey Campbell then went to look for Anne and LeBoo. While looking for Anne and LeBoo, Jeffrey Campbell was corned in a hallway by Ricardo, holding out a knife. Jeffrey Campbell testified that Ricardo looked like "an enraged doppelganger" of his former self. Cornered in the
hallway, with Ricardo waving a large kitchen knife, Jeffrey Campbell begged Ricardo to spare his life. Ultimately, Ricardo did. As a result of the incident, Anne sustained injuries, including cuts to her hand requiring stitches and bruises. In the midst of the melee at the apartment, Ricardo called Susan Campbell's cell phone. In a profanity-laced tirade, he threatened to kill Susan Campbell, Stephen Campbell, Jeffrey Campbell, Anne, and Anne's sister.
After leaving the apartment, Ricardo went to the police station while Anne, Jeffrey Campbell, Johansen, and LeBoo went to the hospital and U.S. Embassy before arriving at the police station. At the police station, Ricardo was accompanied by several of his relatives. LeBoo and Jeffrey Campbell testified that the police did not appear to take their version of the events seriously. Jeffrey Campbell testified that the Lima police would not allow Anne and her supporters to leave the station because of concerns about their identification cards. Jeffrey Campbell testified they were eventually released
when he offered cash to an officer as advised by his Peruvian attorney. Afterwards, a police report was issued that stated Ricardo had seen Anne and "her lover" embracing.
After the incident, Ricardo called Rachel Metcalf Harrington, the principal at the Roosevelt School, and threatened to come to the Roosevelt School and kill Anne with a knife. Harrington, testifying telephonically from Peru, stated Ricardo had appeared in television interviews near school property where he has blamed school officials for his problems with obtaining custody of his children. Harrington and the school staff assess the threat posed by Ricardo as serious and have implemented an emergency protocol should he violate the ban on his presence on school property.
In the weeks after Anne's return from Peru, Ricardo made numerous calls to Stephen Campbell and Susan Campbell. He left threatening voicemails. In one voicemail he states, "I'll kill your kids, because she's [Anne is] taking my babies away. And, I promise you, your daughter is going to be killed because she is taking my kids away." He also spoke over the phone to both Stephen Campbell and Susan Campbell. In one live conversation with Susan Campbell, Ricardo threatened to kill M.A.A., E.T.A., and then himself.
On February 16, 2011, Anne met with officers from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, and a warrant was issued for Ricardo's arrest on February 18, 2011. On March 2, 2011, Ricardo initiated an action for custody of M.A.A. and E.T.A. before a Peruvian court in Lima. On March 10, 2011, Anne filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, in which she sought custody of M.A.A. and E.T.A., in Minnesota state court in Ramsey County. On November 3, 2011, that Petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In May 2011, Ricardo traveled to Miami, Florida. Upon arrival, Ricardo was arrested. Id. He was eventually extradited to Minnesota. On September 1, 2011, Ricardo pled guilty in Ramsey County, Minnesota to making terroristic threats in violation of Minn .Stat. s 609.713. After his guilty plea, Ricardo returned to Peru to serve his probation. Visitation with M.A.A. and E.T.A. was arranged by use of the video-conferencing software Skype. The Skype visitation, however, stopped after one visit. Ricardo testified that he stopped the visitation because he preferred to explain what was occurring between him and Anne to his children in person.
While living in Peru, M.A.A. was enrolled in school at the Roosevelt School. Teachers at the Roosevelt School noted M.A.A. had behavioral problems. Harrington testified that M .A.A. told teachers he wanted to kill himself and he was referred to therapy. M.A.A. stopped therapy after two or three sessions because Ricardo felt the family could not afford it and because Ricardo felt, based on his own experiences, that therapy was ineffective. Harrington testified that in her nineteen years of experience as an educator, the severity of M.A.A.'s behavior problems stood out as one of the three most exceptional cases out of the thousands of students she has observed. Stephen Campbell testified that after M.A.A. arrived in the United States in December 2010, Stephen Campbell noticed M.A.A. would have violent outbursts, wet his bed at night, and said he wished he were dead. Stephen Campbell further testified that M.A.A. was now in therapy and his demeanor has improved and bed-wetting abated.
Dr. Jeffrey Edleson testified as an expert witness on behalf of Respondents. Dr. Edleson held a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Social Work, and was a tenured professor at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Social Work. He testified that Ricardo's history of violence in the presence of others, escalation of violence, threats of suicide, and estrangement from his children were factors indicating a high risk of harm to M.A.A. and E.T.A were they to return to Peru. Dr. Edleson further testified that M.A.A.'s antisocial behavior was consistent with
exposure to domestic violence. RTX052-009 (noting a child's exposure to domestic violence correlates with antisocial behavior, anxiety, depression, and temperament problems). Dr. Edleson testified he believed M.A.A. to be exhibiting signs of depression.
At the close of the evidentiary hearing the court determined that the children were wrongfully retained in the United States, as contemplated by the Hague Convention, and that no other affirmative defenses applied. The sole issue before the Court was whether the affirmative defense in Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention applied. The Court observed that under Article 13(b), the Court is not bound to order the return of either M.A.A. or E.T.A. if "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." . A "grave risk" of physical or psychological harm requires an assessment of whether the child will face "immediate and substantial risk of an intolerable situation" if returned to his or her country of habitual residence. Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d at 377.To prevail on an Article 13(b) defense, there must be evidence of a grave risk of harm to each child, not solely to a parent or some other third party. Hague Convention art. 13(b); see also Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d at 378 ("[Respondent] must present clear and convincing evidence that the return of the child to [his country of habitual residence] would subject him to a grave risk of harm...."); Charalambous v. Charalambous, 627 F.3d 462, 468 (1st Cir.2010) ("The relevant inquiry is not whether there would be a grave risk of harm to [the child's mother] if she returned to [the country of habitual residence]; rather, the grave risk inquiry goes to the children.") However, where spousal abuse evinces a propensity towards violence and is accompanied by other risk factors specific to the child, a grave risk of harm to a child may be found. Baran v. Beaty, 526 F .3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir.2008) (upholding finding of grave risk to child where Petitioner physically and verbally abused Respondent in addition to threatening to harm child, berating Respondent for hours in presence of child on one occasion, and handling child irresponsibly while drunk); Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir.2005) (reversing trial court's finding of no grave risk where evidence showed Petitioner had a propensity for violence based on history of spousal abuse and Petitioner beat and insulted Respondent in presence of children); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204, 220 (1st Cir.2000) (finding grave risk where Petitioner had a history of disobeying court orders, had an "uncontrollably violent temper," had battered his other children, fought people younger than he, and based on the recognition of social science literature and law that spousal abuse is linked to physical and psychological injury to children). In determining whether a grave risk of harm to a child exists, courts may consider the environment to which the child would be returning. Nunez-Escudero, 58 F.3d at 377. In so doing, a court may consider both the resources in the country for dealing with domestic violence and the people awaiting the child. There is no requirement under the Hague Convention that a child actually have been previously harmed physically or psychologically; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether returning the child to the country of his habitual residence would present a grave risk of such harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. Baran, 526 F.3d at 1346.
The district court found that grave risk of harm was proven by clear and convincing evidence and denied his petition. Ricardo had an explosive temper and propensity to maintain a state of violent rage. The breaking of a taxi windshield and assault incident in 2008 or 2009 and the February 13, 2011 apartment melee demonstrated that Ricardo, once enraged, will engage in acts of violence that are severe and not limited to his spouse. The severity of Ricardo's temper was underlined by his beating and threats to Anne but even more remarkably by his use of a weapon on Johansen, a man he had never previously met and did not believe to be his wife's lover; his beating of his wife's colleague LeBoo; and his highly specific threats towards Anne, her family members, and his own children. Ricardo's violent outbursts were not only severe, but they were of a lasting duration. After leaving the police station on February 13, 2011, he or someone acting at his direction attempted to gain access to LeBoo's residence. He also called the Roosevelt School and made highly specific threats. For weeks after the February 13, 2011 incident, he continued to make threatening phone calls to Stephen and Susan Campbell.. The circumstances to which M.A.A. and E.T.A. would return in Peru posed a grave risk of physical harm to them. What appeared to incite Ricardo's violence was the prospect of losing custody of his children. The evidence showed Ricardo did not have the emotional fortitude to acknowledge custody of his children may ultimately be with Anne. Dr. Edelson identified five high risk factors for future severe child abuse, including homicide. All were present in this case including threats by Ricardo to kill himself and his children. The Court was concerned about the police response were Anne, M.A.A., or E.T.A. to be in future physical danger from Ricardo. In light of the local police officers' slow response on February 13, 2011, the requirement to be paid cash prior to allowing the release of Anne and her friends from the police station where they had gone to report a crime, the filing of a false police report, and Ricardo's apparent influence over certain officers, the risk of harm to Anne, M.A.A., E.T.A. was exacerbated. The court found that a grave risk of physical harm to M.A.A. and E.T.A. existed should they be returned to Peru, and a grave risk of psychological harm was also present for M.A.A. and E.T.A. M.A.A. exhibited some behavior indicative of psychological harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)