Filipczak v Filipczak, 2013 WL 692694 (2d Cir 2013) [Poland] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Well Settled]

In Filipczak v Filipczak, 2013 WL 692694 (2d Cir 2013)(not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) Respondent Yashmun Filipczak, the Mother, appealed from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York finding that Poland was the country of habitual residence for the Mother's two minor children and ordering the children's return to Poland. Petitioner Wojciech Filipczak, the Father, brought the case against her under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”). At trial, the Mother did not contest that she had wrongfully removed the children from Poland, but argued that she qualified for two exceptions to the Hague Convention's repatriation requirement: (i) that the children would face “grave risk” to their well being in Poland, Hague Convention, art. 13(b), and (ii) that the children were “well settled” in the United States, Hague Convention art. 12. In a decision and order dated December 23, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the Mother's contentions and ordered that the children be returned to Poland.


The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. While the Mother was represented by counsel in the District Court, she appears pro se on appeal. Thus, it construed her submissions to the Court liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. See Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir.1994).
The Mother raised several arguments on appeal, all of which were without merit. First, she claimed that her removal of the children from Poland was not wrongful because she was forced to leave Poland due to the expiration of her visa. The Mother, however, failed to raise this argument before the trial court. Because the Mother gave no justification for her failure to make this argument below, the Court would not consider it for the first time on appeal. Bogle–Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498, 504 (2d Cir.2006) (“[I]t is a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”). She also alleged a number of defects in the evidence presented to the District Court, including failure to authenticate e-mails between her mother and the Father, bias on the part of the guardian ad litem, and failure to conduct cross-examination of several witnesses. These arguments were also presented for the first time on appeal, without any explanation as to why they were not raised below, and the Court refused to consider them for the same reasons.

Finally, the Mother argued that the children had stronger ties to the United States than they did to Poland, and therefore should be permitted to remain. It held that this misconstrues Article 12. The standard under that provision does not call for determining in which location the child is relatively better settled, but rather for determining whether the child has become so settled in a new environment that repatriation would be against the child's best interest. Blondin, 238 F.3d at 164. The Mother made no such showing.

Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 388053 (C.A.1 (Puerto Rico)) [Puerto Rico] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies - Bond] [Rights of Custody]

In Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 388053 (C.A.1 (Puerto Rico)) Lisandro Patrick appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissing his petition for the return of his child under the Hague Convention and the district court's order that he post a bond to proceed with the case. In March 2012, Rivera absconded to Puerto Rico with her children. When Patrick discovered that Rivera had taken her children to Puerto Rico and did not intend to return to the United Kingdom, he filed a petition for the return of L.N.R. in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico under the Hague Convention. The petition alleged that Rivera wrongfully removed L.N.R. from her habitual residence, the United Kingdom. Patrick did not petition for the return of Rivera's other child because he was not the child's biological father. On the eve of trial, October 11, Rivera moved to dismiss Patrick's petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rivera argued in part that removal of a child is "wrongful" under the Hague Convention only if "it is in breach of [a person's] rights of custody," Hague Convention art. 3, and that Patrick had no rights of custody under the Convention because he was not registered as L.N.R.'s father in her birth certificate. The magistrate judge granted Rivera's motion to dismiss on the ground that Patrick never presented his affidavit of paternity to Puerto Rico's Vital Statistics Registry. Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez, 2012 WL 5462677 (D.P.R. Nov. 8, 2012).

 The Court of Appeals observed that Patrick had to allege facts sufficient to show that he has "rights of custody... under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention." Hague Convention art. 3. Patrick alleged in his petition that L.N.R.'s habitual residence was the United Kingdom. For purposes of this appeal, Rivera did not dispute this allegation. Therefore, Patrick's rights of custody were determined with respect to United Kingdom law. "Where a child's father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child." Children Act, (1989) § 2(1). On its face, this provision would appear not to apply to Patrick and Rivera, who married after L.N.R.'s birth, but "[r]eferences in this Act to a child whose father and mother were ... married to each other at the time of his birth must be read with section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (which extends their meaning)."Id. § 2(3). That section states that "references to a person whose father and mother were married to each other at the time of his birth include ... references to any person to whom subsection (3) below applies." Family Law Reform Act, (1987) § 1(2). Subsection (3) applies to "any person who ... is a legitimated person within the meaning of section 10 of [the Legitimacy Act 1976]."Id. § 1(3). That section defines "legitimated person" to include "a person legitimated or recognised as legitimated ... under section 2 or 3 above," Legitimacy Act, (1976) s 10(1), and Section 3 of the Legitimacy Act 1976 provides that where the parents of an illegitimate person marry one another and the father of the illegitimate person is not at the time of the marriage domiciled in England and Wales but is domiciled in a country by the law of which the illegitimate person became legitimated by virtue of such subsequent marriage, that person, if living, shall in England and Wales be recognised as having been so legitimated from the date of the marriage. ( The National Archives of the United Kingdom made these statutes available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/) Based on these statutes, it concluded (as did the district court) that L.N.R.'s removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention if L.N.R. became legitimated under Puerto Rico law by virtue of Patrick's marriage to Rivera. With his petition, Patrick filed a letter from the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit (a unit of Ministry of Justice's Official Solicitor) stating that "[t]he parents are married to each other and therefore both have parental responsibility for [L.N.R.], pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Children Act of 1989.

 The Court of Appeals noted that tor more than a century, Puerto Rico law has provided that a child born under the same circumstances as L.N.R. is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of her parents. When Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in 1898, the Spanish Civil Code provided that "natural children," defined as children born out of wedlock to parents who could have married each other at the time of conception, may be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents. Puerto Rico's Civil Codes of 1902 and 1911 contained similar laws. Puerto Rico's current law was the same, except that it no longer requires that a child's parents be eligible to marry each other at the time of the child's conception. Despite the clear language of the statute, the district court held that Patrick's marriage to Rivera did not legitimate L.N.R. under Puerto Rico law because Patrick did not present his affidavit of paternity to the Vital Statistics Registry of Puerto Rico. The court stated that a child born out of wedlock "will not be automatically considered as begotten by" a man and woman who later marry, unless they register the child as theirs.” Patrick, 2012 WL 5462677, at *6 (citing Ramos v. Rosario, 67 P.R.R. 641 (1947)). Neither opinion on which the district court relied adequately supported its decision. The 1911 Civil Code was superseded by laws that expand the range of ways in which a parent can acknowledge a child and the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has held that under current law, "[t]he father, or in his default, his heirs, may acknowledge in any way their children, expressly or impliedly, regardless of the dates or circumstances of their births and for all legal purposes." Because Patrick needed only to acknowledge L.N.R. "in any way," his affidavit acknowledging L.N.R. as his daughter sufficed to establish that he was her father. Because Patrick was L.N.R.'s father, his marriage to Rivera legitimated L.N.R. Patrick alleged in his petition that he was the father of L.N.R ., Rivera admitted this allegation in her answer, and no one else challenged Patrick's paternity. It held that Patrick's marriage to Rivera legitimated L.N.R. under Puerto Rico law. As a result, Patrick had "parental responsibility" for L.N.R. under United Kingdom law, which meant that he had "rights of custody" under the Hague Convention. The district court erred when it dismissed Patrick's petition on the grounds that he did not have rights of custody.

 The district court ordered Patrick to pay a $10,000 bond, stating that "[t]his bond will serve not only as a non-resident bond, but shall also respond to any damages that Respondent may incur should Petitioner not prevail on the merits." Patrick moved to vacate the bond requirement, arguing that the Hague Convention explicitly prohibits a court from requiring such a bond: "No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required to guarantee the payment of costs and expenses in the judicial or administrative proceedings falling within the scope of this Convention." Hague Convention art. 22. The district court continued to assert the authority to impose a bond but reduced the amount of the bond to $500. In a minute order dated June 28, 2012, the district court relied on three opinions that refer to instances in which a court  imposed a bond in a Hague Convention case: Whiting v. Krassner, 391 F.3d 540 (3d Cir.2004); Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir.2001); and Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir.1998).

 The Court of Appeals held that the Hague Convention deprived the district court of authority to impose a bond on Patrick. It saw no distinction between a bond imposed to "respond to damages that Respondent may incur should Petitioner not prevail on the merits" and the bond that the Convention prohibits. The opinions on which the district court relied refer only in passing to a district court's imposition of a bond, without saying whether ordering the bond was within the court's power. Whiting, 391 F.3d at 545; Bekier, 248 F.3d at 1053 & n. 2; Lops, 140 F.3d at 948, 964. These opinions offered no reason to ignore the text of the Convention. It reversed the dismissal of Patrick's petition, vacated the order requiring that Patrick post a bond, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to conduct a trial as soon as possible.
 

Broca v. Giron, 2012 WL 7660123 (E.D.N.Y.) [Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Age and Maturity]

 In Broca v. Giron, 2012 WL 7660123 (E.D.N.Y.) on November 30, 2011, petitioner Jose Leonides Varillas Broca ("petitioner") filed a petition under the Hague Convention alleging that his wife, respondent Mirna Mariana Gil Geron ("respondent"), wrongfully removed their three children from Mexico, and asking the Court for an order that the children be repatriated to Mexico. Petitioner was a Mexican citizen, and lived in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico. Respondent was also a Mexican citizen, and currently lived in Brooklyn, New York. The three children were all citizens of Mexico, but had been in the United States since July of 2010. Although initially petitioner brought this action regarding all three children, the oldest child had since turned sixteen and was therefore no longer subject to the Hague Convention.

 On July 16, 2012, the Honorable Sterling Johnson referred the matter to a Magistrate to hold an evidentiary hearing and issue a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate concluded that: (1) petitioner established a prima facie case for repatriation of his two children under the Hague Convention; (2) the children were not well settled in New York to an extent precluding repatriation under the Hague Convention; (3) respondent had not established that the grave risk of harm exception to repatriation applies; and (4) the mature child defense did not apply to prevent repatriation in this case. He recommended that this Court grant petitioner's petition for
 repatriation of his two children to Mexico, the country of their habitual residence.

 Petitioner and respondent were married in April of 1995 and began living together in Cardenar after their religious wedding ceremony on June 3, 1995. They  had three children together, J.V. ("oldest child"), M.V. ("middle child"), and J.V. ("youngest child"), and the youngest two children were subjects of this action..The middle child was born on December 3, 1997, and was currently fourteen years old. The youngest child was born on October 16, 2002, and was currently nine years old. All three children were born in Mexico and were Mexican citizens. The middle child and youngest child attended school in Cardenas, and the middle child received very high marks. Petitioner and respondent lived together in their family home until February 2010. One night that month, petitioner and respondent had a fight. Tr. at 83:22-85:3; 123:21-125:14. According to respondent, petitioner had locked her out of the house, and that she entered the house through a window and got into bed. She says that petitioner accused her of cheating and told her she had to be examined by a doctor, and when she refused, he "began jerking [her] around." Petitioner confirms that he told respondent that she had to be examined by a doctor to see if she had sexual relations with someone else, but denies yelling at her.According to the middle child, her parents' fighting woke her up that night. After the fight, respondent took the middle child and youngest child and went to her mother's house. Respondent stayed with the two younger children at her mother's home until July of that year. Between February of 2010 and July of 2010, petitioner saw the children on
 weekends and tried to stay involved in their lives. Respondent testified that during this time, she would sometimes run into petitioner on the street in their small town, that he would become violent and jerk her around on the street, and that he once forcibly tried to pull her onto his motorbike. In late July of 2010, she took the children out of Mexico, without telling petitioner or asking his permission. They traveled to Brooklyn to live with respondent's other sister, Gabriela, in New York City.

 Petitioner denied having abused respondent or the children He did admit to having had at least one fight with respondent that turned physically violent. Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that petitioner abused her for nearly the entire duration of their marriage. She stated that when she was pregnant with the youngest child in 2002, petitioner kicked her and she fell down. She claimed that in the years 2008 and 2009, petitioner hit her often and was getting very violent. Respondent went to Mexico City to stay with her father four or five times during this period of time because she felt safe in her father's home. Respondent also claimed that petitioner was controlling and verbally abusive to her. Respondent's mother testified that she had seen bruises on respondent during her marriage to petitioner. According to the middle child, in Mexico, "[my parents] were fighting all the time and they like punched each other or hit and they yell at each other." She saw her father hit her mother, and "[l]ike he kick her or he like grab her by the hand and like throw her away." Respondent and the middle child both recounted an incident, occurring when the middle child was six or seven, wherein petitioner hit the middle child on the bottom with a broom. The middle child testified to another incident when petitioner hit her on the bottom with a belt. In her deposition, entered into evidence, respondent described a third incident with the middle child, wherein petitioner dragged her by the arm into the house. Respondent was not aware of any where petitioner abused the youngest child.

 Dr. Evan Stark, who the court permitted to testify as an expert in domestic violence, testified at the hearing about the impact of domestic violence on women and on children who witness their mother's abuse. Dr. Stark concluded to a high degree of certainty that there was domestic violence in respondent's life, and that petitioner was coercive and controlling of respondent. He also testified about the general harms to children who observe a parent being abused, explaining that there are direct effects (including direct physical exposure and being involved in the violence) and indirect effects (including psychological disturbance). He explained that in order to conclude that the children in this case had suffered any psychological harm, he would need to perform a psychological assessment of the children. Dr. Stark, however, did not perform a psychological assessment of either child. Dr. Stark opined that the children face extreme risk if they were to be returned to Mexico to live with petitioner. When asked whether they would face risks if they lived in Mexico City with their mother, Dr.
 Stark opined that "the risk [the children would face] would be largely a function of the willingness of the authorities to limit access of [petitioner] and it would be largely a function of the risk that [respondent] would face." Dr. Stark's prescription for what can be done to reduce the harm the children have already suffered from witnessing domestic violence is that: [the children should be sent] a strong message that tells them that no one has a right to do what was done to them or to expose them to what they were exposed to and that their mother's decision to put her own safety and their safety before their network of contacts and relationships with loved ones and family members is a decision that we respect and endorse. He characterized respondent's removal of the children from Mexico as "the single-most healthy act that could have been taken."

 Respondent did not appear to make any arguments respecting petitioner's prima facie case and appeared to urge this Court to focus on the affirmative defenses respondent raises. The children lived their entire lives in their family home in Mexico, and had been living in the United States for only two years since their
 removal. These facts alone were sufficient to establish that the children's habitual residence under the Hague Convention was Mexico. Petitioner established that removal of the children was in breach of his custody rights. He submitted evidence of Mexican law showing that he and respondent had joint custodial rights by virtue of being the children's parents, and that those custodial rights can only be terminated by judicial action. Petitioner also established that he was exercising his custody rights at the time of removal. At the time respondent removed the children from Mexico, the children had been living with respondent and her mother for approximately five months. During this time, the children spent weekends with petitioner, and he remained involved in their schooling. The Magistrate concluded that petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence the Mexico was the habitual residence of the children, that petitioner had rights of custody, and that respondent removed the children from Mexico in breach of petitioner's custody rights. Therefore, petitioner raised a prima facie case of wrongful removal under the Hague Convention.

 Respondent argued that petitioner has physically and psychologically abused her and the children, and that the children should remain in New York where they are attending school, receiving superior health care and education to that which they received in Mexico, and happily living in a circle of extended family. Under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, "a court may decline to repatriate a child if the party opposing repatriation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that repatriation would create a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child." Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 157. The harms a child may experience if repatriated can be considered on a spectrum. Id. at 162.At one end are "those situations where repatriation might cause inconvenience or hardship, eliminate certain educational or economic opportunities, or not comport with the child's preferences."Id. These situations do not constitute grave risk of harm under the Hague Convention. At the other end of the spectrum are "those situations in which a child faces a real risk of being hurt, physically or psychologically, as a result of repatriation." These situations do constitute grave risk of harm under the Hague Convention. If a court concludes that a child faces grave risk of harm, before it can decline to order repatriation, the court must determine whether there are any ameliorative measures that could be taken to reduce this risk and enable a child to return safely to his home country. Id. In fact, the Second Circuit has instructed that a finding of grave risk of harm, without consideration of ameliorative measures, is not sufficient to deny repatriation. The grave risk analysis must be based upon the "specific facts presented in th[e] case."Id. at 163 n. 12.A court may consider as non-dispositive factors whether the children are settled into their new environment, and whether the children have views on repatriation, taking into account the children's age and degree of maturity. Reyes Olguin v. Cruz Santana (Olguin II), No. 03-CV-6288, 2005 WL 67094, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2005).

 The Magistrate observed that in cases where respondents have established this defense, courts "have focused on evidence of a sustained pattern of physical abuse and/or a propensity for violent abuse." Laguna v. Avila, No. 07-CV-5136, 2008 WL 1986253, *8 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2008) (collecting cases). Evidence of sporadic or isolated incidents of abuse, or incidents aimed at persons other than the child at issue is typically not sufficient to establish grave risk of harm. In this case, there was no sustained pattern of physical violence against the children. The middle child testified to two incidents of physical abuse from her father, when he hit her on the bottom with a broom and a belt. According to respondent, the middle child was six or seven when the broom incident occurred, and petitioner said that he was trying to discipline the child. There was no evidence presented that petitioner had ever physically abused the youngest child. This evidence certainly does not show a sustained pattern of physical abuse of the children. The evidence did establish that petitioner abused respondent. Respondent testified to physical abuse that began early on in their relationship. The middle child verified that her parents were "fighting all the time and they like punched each other or hit and they yell at each other" and that she saw her father kick and grab her mother. Although some courts have found that a child witnessing extreme abuse may suffer psychological harms sufficient to invoke the grave risk of harm defense, the evidence did not support such a finding here. When asked whether she had any fears about returning to Mexico, the middle child responded that she was afraid people would talk about her. If she returned to Mexico, she would not want to live with her father anymore because she doesn't "want anything to happen again." Although she did not elaborate, I infer that she does not want her parents to fight. DDr. Stark's testimony merely confirmed that the relationship between petitioner and respondent was abusive, and that, generally speaking, children are negatively impacted by witnessing one parent abuse the other. Dr. Stark interviewed respondent for four hours, but spent very little time with the two children. He agreed that in order to conclude that the children had suffered serious psychological harms, a psychological assessment would need to be done on the children. Nevertheless, without conducting such an assessment, he gave his opinion of the harm caused to the children, and the risks they faced upon return to Mexico. He characterized the harms suffered by the children as "serious," from having been "exposed and repeatedly exposed to [petitioner's] abuse of [respondent]." Dr. Stark's opinions were easily distinguished from expert testimony that has been found to support denial of repatriation based on grave risk of harm. First, Dr. Stark's testimony about the general risks of harm to children witnessing a parent's abuse did not establish that these harms actually occurred in this case. See Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 163 n. 12 (explaining that the grave risk of harm exception requires a close examination of the particular facts relating to the child at issue). Indeed, Dr. Stark testified that, although he did not perform a psychological assessment of the children, "[he] didn't observe and [respondent] did not report to [him] that the children had suffered any extreme psychological harms." Second, unlike cases where courts have denied repatriation based on children observing a parent's abuse, Dr. Stark did not conclude that the children would suffer trauma solely as a function of their return to Mexico. See Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 166 (affirming district court's application of the grave risk of harm defense where the district court concluded that the mere return of a child to her home country would trigger post-traumatic stress disorder); Elyashiv v. Elyashiv, 353 F.Supp.2d 394, 408 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (children witnessed physical abuse of a parent, and mere return to their home country would trigger post-traumatic stress disorder). The evidence does not establish that the children have suffered extreme harm, or would suffer a grave risk of harm if repatriated. Respondent bases her argument on several cases where courts in other Circuits found grave risk of harm based on a child's observation of one parent's abuse of the other parent. In these cases, however, the evidence established that the conduct of the violent parent was extreme. In this case, the admissible evidence shows that petitioner was physically and emotionally abusive to respondent on a number of occasions, and that the physical abuse involved, at most, kicking and hitting. There is no evidence that petitioner was uncontrollably violent or threatened anyone's life.

 Even if the Court were to conclude that the children faced a grave risk of  harm from return to the custody of their father, this Court would need to consider the options for repatriation that might reduce that risk. Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 163 n. 11. Here, the record indicated that there were arrangements available to the family that could ameliorate that risk. When asked about the risks the children would face if they were to return to Mexico with their mother while living in Mexico City, Dr. Stark opined that "the risk would be a function of the willingness of the authorities to limit [petitioner's] access to his wife." Respondent did not argue that these ameliorative options are foreclosed by nature of Mexican law, or that she has already exhausted the possible ways she could live away from petitioner, but remain in Mexico with the children. She argues merely that, based on Dr. Stark's opinion, "she will not be safe if she returns to Mexico," Respondent's own testimony, however, indicated that she felt safe in Mexico City with her father. The evidence indicated that it was possible for respondent and the children to live safely in Mexico City, and presumably for respondent to negotiate visitation with petitioner or seek a judicial decree of divorce and/or a change in custodial arrangement from the Mexican courts. Respondent testified that "in [Mexico] no one pays attention to women who are abused. On other occasions when [abuse] has happened, I had wanted to bring charges. But unfortunately sexism is very rampant in Mexico." She also testified that after the incident in February of 2010, she and petitioner went to court and were told that they should "work things out for the sake of [the] children." There was no evidence that respondent has sought any other help from authorities or social resources, nor that she has attempted to initiate divorce proceedings.Therefore, because the evidence did not support a finding of grave risk of harm to the children and there wereoptions for the safe return of the children to Mexico, the Court could not deny repatriation based on the grave risk of harm exception under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

 Respondent argues that petitioner instituted these proceedings more than one year after the children were removed from Mexico, and that the children are well settled in the United States.. The evidence establishes that petitioner instituted these proceedings more than one year after respondent removed the children from Mexico. The children had been in the country for two years but moved four times. The family never had its own residence. Respondent worked several waitressing jobs since she came to New York, and did not pay taxes on her wages. She was here illegally, as were the children. The middle child spent the first twelve years of her life in Mexico, and had only been in the United States for the last two years. Although the youngest child has spent a larger portion of his life here because he was only nine years old, he was struggling with English and not doing well in school. These factors, taken together, indicated that the children were not well settled within the meaning of the Hague Convention.

 Respondent argued that the middle child objected to her return to Mexico, and that she was of sufficient maturity that this Court should take her objection into account. The middle child, who testified with an impressive command of the English language even though she knew no English when she came here two years ago,
 impressed the Court as intelligent and well-spoken. It found her testimony compelling and very credible, and believed that she gave honest answers about why she wanted to stay in the United States. Her reasons for objecting to her return, however, did not provide a basis for the Court to deny repatriation. She testified about the problems in her family when asked specifically about them, but when asked what she did not like about Mexico, she responded that she did not like the people because she lived in a small town and the people were talking about her all the time. When asked what she likes about life away from Mexico, she said that she liked Texas "because it's pretty," and that she likes New York because of the tall buildings, her friends, and her family. When asked why she did not want to return to Mexico she responded, "Because I made friends here and I'm more comfortable here."Id. at 183:14-15.She elaborated that she is more comfortable here because her family is here. When asked if she had any worries or fears if she were to go back to Mexico, she responded, "[t]hat I don't-when I grow up I don't be a lawyer." When asked if she was afraid of anything in Mexico, she responded, "[j]ust that people are going to talk about me. The middle child also testified that she wants to stay in the United States because she will get a better education and have a chance to be a lawyer. These reasons expressed "a
 well-adjustment to life in the United States and a simple preference for the luxuries of living in New York," which is not sufficient to establish the mature

Souratgar v Fair, 2012 WL 6700214 (S.D. N.Y., 2012) [Singapore] [Grave Risk of Harm]

In Souratgar v Fair, 2012 WL 6700214 (S.D. N.Y., 2012) the district court granted the Petition of Abdollah Naghash Souratgar, an Iranian citizen, for the return of his son, Shayan, to Singapore. Shayan. The child was born in Singapore and had Malaysian citizenship. Shayan’s mother, respondent Lee Jen Fair, a Malaysian citizen, left Singapore with Shayan on May 20, 2012 without petitioner’s knowledge or consent and in violation of a Singapore court order prohibiting either parent from taking the child out of Singapore and traveled to the United States. On October 18, 2012, shortly after the father learned that the child and respondent were living in Dutchess County, New York, he filed a petition with this Court. After hearing the testimony from the petitioner and his investigators, the Court granted an ex parte application for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to take "all necessary and lawful steps" to "remove Shayan" from his mother’s custody and deliver him "into the custody of [p]etitioner." Petitioner was ordered to surrender his passport and post a $10,000 bond. On November 7, 2012, both parties appeared with counsel, and the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. The Court appointed a guardian ad litem for Shayan. After a hearing the Court granted the petition.

Since 2000, petitioner was an employment-pass holder in Singapore, where he worked. He first traveled to Singapore in 1985 and set up his company there in 1989. The head office of the business he owns was located in Singapore and had twelve employees. He also owned a business in Iran. Respondent had permanent resident status in Singapore.

In 2007, the couple married, and on January 16, 2008, they registered their marriage in Singapore. Shayan was born on January 29, 2009. The child had Malaysian citizenship and had resided in Singapore from birth until the respondent removed the child to the United States. There was considerable strife in the marriage, and on April 29, 2011, while the couple still resided together, respondent filed an application for sole custody, care, and control of the child in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. On May 16, 2011, she obtained an ex parte order from the Subordinate Courts of the Republic of Singapore prohibiting petitioner from removing the child from the jurisdiction of Singapore without respondent’s consent or the court’s approval. Respondent left the marital home with the child on May 25, 2011 and moved into her sister’s Singapore apartment. Shortly thereafter, petitioner was served with a copy of the May 16, 2011 order. Petitioner filed a cross-application for sole custody on June 28, 2011. At a mediation session held on July 14, 2011, the Subordinate Court issued an order prohibiting both parties from removing the child from Singapore. The Order also granted petitioner supervised visitation every Saturday between 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Centre for Family Harmony, the costs of which were to be borne equally.

 

The district court observed that persons of the Muslim faith are a small minority in Singapore. By statute, divorce actions between individuals of the Muslim faith must be brought in the Singapore Sharia Courts. Administration of Muslim Law Act, Part III, § 35(2) ("AMLA"). Sometime around the end of 2011, respondent brought an action for divorce in the Singapore Sharia Courts. Respondent attended a mandatory counseling session within the Sharia Court. Petitioner testified that he did not participate in the action. Petitioner’s Singapore counsel testified that the divorce action did not proceed. The Singapore Subordinate Court continued to function on issues relating to temporary custody of the child and visitation and on February 16, 2012, after a mediation session presided over by a judge of the Singapore Subordinate Court, the court ordered that "[t]he child shall continue to be in the care of the mother pending the determination of custody, care, and control of the child by the Syariah Courts" and that "[t]he father shall have access to the child two times a week at the Centre for Family Harmony pending the outcome of the hearing of the Syariah Courts."⁴ The order stated in boldfaced capital letters that it was entered "BY CONSENT."

 

On May 20, 2012, the respondent left Singapore in breach of the July 14, 2011 order. Petitioner obtained a court order requiring the respondent to deliver the child to the Duty Judge of the Subordinate Courts Family and Juvenile Division within seven days and surrender the child’s personal documents. This order specified that "[t]he child be placed in the interim sole care and control of" the petitioner "pending the determination of the action or until further Orders." The same order further directed that respondent be restrained from removing the child from the jurisdiction without the consent of petitioner or the court. Respondent, who was no longer in the country and likely did not receive notice of the June 5, 2012 order, did not comply and was held in contempt on June 25, 2012.

 

The district court found that petitioner established each and every element of a prima facie case under the Hague Convention. The district court observed that Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention provides that the signatory state "is not bound to order the return of the child" 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." Hague Convention, art. 13(b). Although the respondent bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the exception applies, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e) (2)(A), subsidiary facts may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. It noted that the Second Circuit considered the "grave risk" exception at length in Blondin II and Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.2001) ("Blondin IV" ). The court explained that mere showings of "inconvenience or hardship" do not amount to a "grave risk" of harm. Rather a "grave risk" of harm exists where "the child faces a real risk of being hurt, physically or psychologically, as a result of repatriation." The court cited withapproval the Sixth Circuit’s observation that a "grave risk" to the child presents itself in two situations: (1) where returning the child means sending him to ‘a zone of war, famine or disease’; or (2) ‘in cases of serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional dependence, when the court in the country of habitual residence, for whatever reason, may be incapable or unwilling to give the child adequate protection.’ (quoting Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1069) In the years since the Second Circuit’s consideration of the Blondin case, several federal courts have found "a child’s observation of spousal abuse is relevant to the grave-risk inquiry." E.g., Elyashiv v. Elyashiv, 353 F.Supp.2d 394, 408 (E.D.N.Y.2005). "Children are at increased risk of physical and psychological injury themselves when they are in contact with a spousal abuser." (citing Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 176 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1058(E.D.Wash.2001). Accordingly, evidence of "[p]rior spousal abuse, though not directed at the child, can support the grave risk of harm defense." Rial v. Rijo, 10 Civ. 1578(RJH), 2010 WL 1643995, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2010) (citing Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir.2000)). Still, the court need not "refuse to send a child back to [his] home country in any case involving allegations of abuse, on the theory that a return to the home country poses a grave risk of psychological harm." Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 163 n. 12. Rather, that determination must be based on the "specific facts presented in [the] case."  When making a grave risk determination, the court must also consider whether the child can be protected from the risk of harm "while still honoring the important treaty commitment to allow custodial determinations to be made—if at all possible—by the court of the child’s home country." Blondin II, 189 F.3d at 248. In its deliberation of whether there is a grave risk of harm, the Court takes into account "any ameliorative measures (by the parents and by the authorities of the state having jurisdiction over the question of custody) that can reduce whatever risk might otherwise be associated with a child’s repatriation." "In cases of serious abuse, before a [district] court may deny repatriation on the ground that a grave risk of harm exists under Article 13(b), it must examine the full range of options that might make possible the safe return of a child to the home country." Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 163 n. 11. For instance, in Blondin v. Dubois, 19 F.Supp.2d 123, 129 (S.D.N.Y.1998) ( "Blondin I" ), the district court concluded that there would be a grave risk of harm should the children in that case be returned to France, the country of their habitual residence. The Second Circuit, in Blondin II, remanded the case to the district court for "further consideration of the range of remedies that might allow both the return of the children to their home country and their protection from harm, pending a custody award in due course ...." 189 F.3d at 249. On remand, the district court engaged in further analysis but reached the same conclusion, in part because "any return" of the children would " ‘almost certainly’ trigger a recurrence of their traumatic stress disorder." Blondin v. Dubois, 78 F.Supp.2d 283, 295 (S.D.N.Y.2000) ("Blondin III" ). On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that there was a grave risk of harm to the children because repatriation to the country of habitual residence created a real risk of triggering further psychological trauma, regardless of any potential mitigating arrangements. Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 161. In applying the standard set out in the Blondin cases, district courts inthis Circuit have denied petitions to return the child where there has been evidence supporting a finding of a real risk of psychological or physical harm to the child. Elyashiv, 353 F.Supp.2d at 408–09 (evidence petitioner physically abused respondent and the children and expert testimony that the children would suffer PTSD symptoms upon their return to Israel, regardless of contact with petitioner); Reyes Olguin v. Cruz Santana, No. 03 Civ. 6299, 2005 WL 67094, at *2–*4, *11–*12 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2005) (evidence petitioner frequently beat respondent in front of the children, children told psychiatrist that petitioner hit them, and expert testimony that return of the children would exacerbate the PTSD of one child). This Court held in M.M. v. F.R., No. 11 Civ. 2355(PKC) (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2011), that respondent had established that repatriating the child would expose him to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, because, among other things, the petitioner had sexually abused the child’s half-sister. But, credible evidence of some level of abuse by the petitioner does not necessarily equate to establishment of the grave risk to the child in repatriation. See, e.g., Rial, 2010 WL 1643995, at *2–*3 (evidence of verbal and physical abuse toward respondent, at times in front of child); Laguna v. Avila, No. 07 Civ. 5136, 2008 WL 1986253, at *8–*9 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2008) (evidence of violence toward respondent, but no evidence that petitioner physically abused the child). The focus of the inquiry is not on the relationship between the two parents or the desirability of one parent having custody. Rather, the focus should be on whether returning the child to the country from which he was removed will present a real risk of harm to the child, because, for example, it will trigger trauma to the child or the country of habitual residence lacks the means to afford reasonable protection to the child from physical or psychological harm at the hands of a parent or third-party.

 

The district court found that both parties had deep love for Shayan and cared greatly about his well being. Respondent testified that she never saw petitioner physically abuse the child. Moreover, she never reported to the police any incident where petitioner abused the child. She never claimed in the Singapore courts that petitioner abused the child. Petitioner and respondent both alleged instances of domestic abuse and inappropriate conduct aimed at one another. The Court found that Respondent had exaggerated her claims, and did not establish her grave risk of harm defense. For example, Respondent testified that petitioner forced her to engage in certain sexual acts, including anal and oral intercourse, which often occurred in the marital bedroom where the child slept. The Court did not credit respondent’s testimony because respondent’s SMS text messages to petitioner contradicted her account and indicated that she was a willing participant.

A Dr. B.J. Cling, retained by respondent, testified as an expert on domestic violence matters. Dr. Cling opined that respondent suffered from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Dr. Cling testified about a specific type of domestic violence termed "coercive control" or "intimate terrorism," which "has as its main focus the domination and control of the victim." This type of violence is severe, frequent, and very harmful to children. Moreover, when the victim and perpetrator separate, the characteristics of "coercive control" often escalate. The Court found that the evidence did not support this conclusion and that the Respondent failed to prove her grave risk of harm defense.

The district court also rejected respondents Article 20 defense. It permits the requested State to refuse the return of the child when it "would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms." Hague Convention, art. 20.¹³ The Article 20 defense must be restrictively interpreted and applied on the rare occasion that return of a child would utterly shock the conscience of the court or offend all notions of due process." The parties did not cite and the Court could not find any published federal case law in which the Article 20 exception was found to have been established. See Uzoh v. Uzoh, No. 11 Civ. 9124, 2012 WL 1565345, at *7 (N.D.Ill. May 2, 2012) (noting the same).

Respondent argued that returning the child was not permitted by the fundamental principles of the United States because the custody determination in Singapore will be made in a Sharia Court. AMLA grants the Sharia Courts in Singapore considerable discretion in considering evidence from non-Muslims. See AMLA § 42(3). Respondents expert, Ms. Hassan, testified that a woman’s testimony is worth less than a man’s in the Sharia Courts. Moreover, she testified that Sharia Law applies presumptions favoring fathers and disfavoring non-Muslim parents in custody determinations. These rules, respondent urged, ought shock the conscience and offend notions of due process. The Court concluded, that it need not reach the issue of whether the procedural and substantive rules in Sharia Courts "shock the conscience" or "offend all notions of due process" because the Court found that respondent failed to prove that it was more likely than not that the Sharia Court would make a final custody determination in this case.

 

Respondent also argued that there were insufficient protections against domestic violence in Singapore, and thus, Article 20 bared the child’s repatriation. The Court found that Singapore had reasonable procedures to ensure the safety of the child during the pendency of the custody proceedings including supervised visitation.

  The Court concluded that it would be an improvident exercise of discretion to stay the Order pending appeal because there was a significant risk that Respondent would flee with the child and avoid detection. The treaty between the United States and Singapore contemplates the "prompt" return of the child to the country of habitual residence. See Hague Convention, art. 1. The Court granted a brief stay of return to permit a stay application to be made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and otherwise denied a stay pending appeal.

Taylor v Taylor, 2012 WL 6631395 (C.A.11 (Fla.)) [United Kingdom][Grave Risk of Harm]

In Taylor v Taylor, 2012 WL 6631395 (C.A.11 (Fla.)) (Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter) Mr. Iverson Taylor, a British citizen, petitioned for relief under the Hague Convention alleging that his wife, Ms. Keysha Taylor, an American citizen, wrongfully retained their daughter, A.T., in Florida since February 2009. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found Mr. Taylor untrustworthy and that his testimony was not credible in a number of areas. Given Mr. Taylor's long history of deception and fraudulent activity, the Eleventh Circuit held that is finding was not clearly erroneous.

The Taylors were married in the United States in 2003. After Mr. Taylor was deported to the United Kingdom for failing to disclose his three theft convictions when he entered the United States, Ms. Taylor joined him. They lived in the United Kingdom together from 2005 until 2009. A.T. was born there in 2007. Mr. Taylor had constant money problems, and he frequently lied to his wife and others to swindle money from them. During their marriage, he was arrested for fraud, but those charges were ultimately dismissed. Ms. Taylor found evidence in Mr. Taylor's emails that he was engaging in fraudulent activities. She also began receiving harassing phone calls from Mr. Taylor's creditors at their home. In November 2008, she received a call from a man who told her that if Mr. Taylor did not pay what he owed, "he would be dead and so would [she]." There were several more calls from that caller during November and December of 2008. Ms. Taylor, an attorney licensed to practice in Florida, was able to support her family for a short time in the United Kingdom by working at a law firm. After A.T. was born, she supported the family with her maternity leave funds and then with funds paid to her based on a separation agreement with her employer. After this money ran out, however, she was unable to find another job in the United Kingdom. Mr. Taylor did not provide a reliable income, and the family was evicted from their home in the United Kingdom in December 2008. They were able to move into another apartment when, as Ms. Taylor testified, Mr. Taylor "came up with a large amount of cash."She did not know the source of that cash but believed it was from illegal activities. Soon after that, they had difficulty paying the rent again. Mr. Taylor was living in a temporary location and planed to move if A.T. was returned to him. He remained unemployed and claimed he supported himself with "outstanding debts and collections on old accounts."

Because of the financial difficulties, the fighting in their marriage, and the frightening
phone calls, Ms. Taylor told Mr. Taylor she wanted to leave the United Kingdom and
take A.T. with her. He refused to give her A.T.'s passport. He also told her that he
"knew people" in the United Kingdom who could "take care" of her. It was only after she signed an agreement promising to bring A.T. back the next month that he gave her the passport. Ms. Taylor returned with A.T. to her parents' house in Florida.

When Ms. Taylor told Mr. Taylor that she would not be returning A .T. to the United
Kingdom, he began to threaten her and her parents. He told Ms. Taylor's mother over
the phone, "I am not gonna stop until I destroy your daughter. She's never gonna work in the United States again."In another call, he told Ms. Taylor that he knew people in Florida who could "take care" of her and he could "have somebody come to [her] house, and when [her] father opens the door, shoot him in the face."He also sent Ms. Taylor an email saying, "You are going to want my mercy soon and you won't get it ... God help you if anything happens to my child." After Ms. Taylor returned to the United States, she filed for bankruptcy. She got a job and was making $85,000 a year. Because of the remaining debts from her marriage, she testified that she still "live[s] paycheck to paycheck." She was unsure if she would be able to get a job in the United Kingdom if she and A.T. moved back, both because of the poor market and because her residency status was uncertain. .

The district court concluded that Ms. Taylor had wrongfully taken A.T. from her
habitual residence in the United Kingdom. She did not dispute that finding. She asserted that returning A.T. would expose her to a "grave risk" as described in Article 13(b). The district court agreed that it would and did not order A.T. returned to the United Kingdom.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It stated that whether there is a "grave risk" to the child as defined in Article 13(b) of the Convention is a mixed question of law and fact, which it reviews de novo. Baran, 526 F.3d at 1345. It reviews the district court's factual findings only for clear error and give substantial deference to the credibility determinations made by the district court. Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 710, 724 n. 21 (11th Cir.2004).

The Eleventh Circuit observed that the district court provided two primary justifications for its finding that sending A.T. back to the United Kingdom would subject her to a "grave risk" of harm. First, the court reasoned that the anonymous death threats Ms. Taylor received were indicative of future violence: if one person threatened Ms. Taylor, there are likely others who "would not hesitate to threaten to kill, kidnap, or do physical harm to A.T. in order to get Mr. Taylor to pay what he owes." The court made an explicit finding that Mr. Taylor's testimony concerning his current source of income (collection of "outstanding debts") was not credible and concluded that he had been and continued to be engaged in fraudulent activities. Second, the court focused on the threats Mr. Taylor has made against Ms. Taylor: telling her he knew people in the United Kingdom and in the United States who could "take care" of her; threatening to send someone to shoot her father; threatening to ruin her professionally; promising her that she would want his mercy soon and would not get it. The court did not credit Mr. Taylor's assertion that he never threatened Ms. Taylor or her parents and found that "Mr. Taylor threatened to use others to physically harm (and maybe even kill) Ms. Taylor."

The Court pointed out that, as the district court recognized, this case was unique because the risk to A.T. stemmed not only from threats made by her father but also from threats made by an unknown third party. The district court's credibility determinations about the nature of the threats and Mr. Taylor's continued participation in fraudulent activities were not clearly erroneous. The court found that those fraudulent activities had already created-and likely would continue to create-a substantial risk of serious harm to Mr. Taylor's family. Based on the unique facts of this case and the district court's specific credibility determinations, the district court did not err by determining that Ms. Taylor had established a grave risk of harm to A.T. if she is returned to live with Mr. Taylor in the United Kingdom.

Fernandez-Trejo v. Alvarez-Hernandez, 2012 WL 6106418 (M.D.Fla.)

In Fernandez-Trejo v. Alvarez-Hernandez, 2012 WL 6106418 (M.D.Fla.) the district court granted the Petition for the return of the parties seven-year old daughter ("L.F.A.") to Mexico, where Petitioner he and the Respondent were living at the time L.F.A. was born and where she was raised until she was taken to the United States without his consent.

Respondent admitted in her answer that L.F.A. was born in 2005 in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, and wasy seven years of age. Petitioner testified at great length during the hearing about the family's residence in the Punta Esmeralda neighborhood in Juarez, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, at which the Respondent and L.F.A. resided until her departure to the United States in 2011 to, as Respondent put it, give L.F.A. "a better life." There was no credible testimony from either the Petitioner or Respondent that Petitioner consented to L.F .A's departure to the United States. Instead, Respondent proffered a partially translated, unsigned settlement offer that, according to Respondent's own testimony, was never executed by the parties. Accordingly, the Court found that Mexico was the "habitual residence" of L.F.A. and there was no "settled intention" to leave that behind for permanent residence in the United States. See Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir.2004).

  
The Court pointed out that the existence of rights of custody are determined by the law of the country in which the child habitually resides at the time of removal." Hanley, 485 F.3d at 645. Citing to an English translation of Mexican law, Petitioner urged the Court to find that Petitioner had joint custody of L.F.A. at the time of the alleged wrongful removal to the United States. Petitioner cited to Articles 414 and 415 of the Civil Code of the Mexican State of Nuevo Leon: Article 414. Parental authority/responsibility (patria poteslas) is exerted jointly by both parents. Article 414 bis.In all cases where the mother does not live with the father of her children, she will have the right of preference to keep the children under seven years of age under her care, unless she practices prostitution, pimping or habitual drinking, suffers from a contagious disease or her antisocial behavior represents a serious danger for the health and morality of the children. Article 415 bis.Even if they do not have custody of the minors, those exerting parental authority/responsibility (patria potestas), have a right to coexist (spend time) with their descendants who will be asked for their opinion on the matter once they reach the age of twelve. The exertion of this right depends on it not representing a risk for the minor and for the fulfillment of child -support obligations. Personal relationships between the minor and his or her ancestors shall not be impeded without just cause. Whoever has custody, has the obligation to respect, promote and allow the coexistence of the child with the non-custodial ancestor exerting parental authority/responsibility (patria potestas). "Patria potestas," a legal concept derived from Roman law, provides for the joint exercise of parental authority. Moreno v. Martin, 2008 WL 4716958, at *9 (S.D.Fla. Oct.23, 2008). The right to exercise parental authority is distinguished from the right of custody because the mother of children under the age of seven years "h[as] the right of preference to keep the child [ ] ... under her care," despite the clear right to coexist with both parents. The right to coexist, if it means anything however, must mean that Respondent was not permitted under Mexican law to unilaterally decide to move L.F.A. to the United States, thus depriving Petitioner the ability to interact and coexist with L.F.A. in any meaningful way. See generally Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir.2000) (recognizing affidavits from Mexican lawyers stating that both parents must consent to the removal of a child under Mexican law).

There being no evidence that Petitioner's parental rights had been terminated under Mexican law, or voluntarily relinquished by Petitioner, the Court found that Petitioner met his burden of establishing that L.F.A.'s removal to the United States breached his custodial rights.

The Court found that Petitioner was actually exercising his custody rights at the time of removal. Petitioner and Respondent were not living together in marital bliss. Although the Court did not find sufficient evidence to support any of the competing
allegations of abuse, there was enough evidence to support a finding that Petitioner remained active in the life of L.F .A. Petitioner testified that he moved out of the family home to spare L.F.A. from the incessant fighting. He provided credible testimony that Petitioner and Respondent reached an informal, unwritten custody agreement by which he would have physical custody of L.F.A. every Wednesday and on weekends. Both Respondent and Petitioner testified that child support funds were transferred to a bank account to which Respondent had access. There was ample evidence that Petitioner was involved in her life. That is all that is required. See, e.g., Moreno, 2008 WL 4716958, at *9; Bocquet v. Ouzid, 225 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1346-47 (S.D.Fla.2002).

Respondent raised two affirmative defenses. Respondent's first affirmative defense was that the petition was served greater than one year from the date of removal from Mexico and L.F.A. had become settled in her new environment. There was no dispute that L.F.A. had been in the United States for greater than one year (i.e., she moved here in August 2011).The Eleventh Circuit has held that the one year limitations period in the Hague Convention can be equitably tolled "where the parent removing the child secreted the child from the parent seeking return." Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir.2004); see, e.g., Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1362-63 (M.D.Fla.2002) (tolling the limitations period because the respondent absconded with children without notifying the petitioner). It was clear that Respondent took L.F.A. to the United States without the consent of Petitioner. There was no testimony that Respondent reached out to Petitioner to notify him of L.F.A.'s whereabouts. Instead, Respondent presented evidence of public filings, i.e., state court divorce proceedings and a driver's license application, to support her argument that Petitioner was remiss in his pursuit to locate her. Respondent filed for divorce in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida in a case styled, Daymi Alverez-Hernandez v. Hector Jesus Fernandez-Trejo. Petitioner filed a Notice of Hague Convention Proceedings Related to the Wrongful Removal of Minor Child, L.F.A. in that court. The Court rejected any argument that it was incumbent upon Petitioner to sift through the records of the DMV to locate the Respondent's driving records or any one of the twenty circuit courts in Florida to locate a divorce filing. Petitioner testified that he was only able to locate Respondent and L.F.A. with the help of the Mexican and United States Central Authorities. The Court found that the limitations period was appropriately tolled in this case and Respondent was unable to meet her burden of proving this defense.

Moreover, there was not sufficient evidence to find that L.F.A. was "well settled" in the United States as that term is used in the Hague Convention. Whether a child is "well settled" requires "substantial evidence of significant connections to the new environment." In re Ahumada Cabrera, 323 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1313 (S.D.Fla.2004). Courts consider the child's age, stability of the new residence, school attendance, stability of the mother's employment, and the presence of friends or relatives in the new environment to establish significant connections. The testimony adduced at the hearing showed that L.F.A. was brought to Miami, Florida, and then Largo, Florida, living in a total of three (3) residences in the roughly fifteen (15) months since coming to the United States. L.F.A. spoke some English, attended elementary school in Largo. Florida, and stayed at home with a babysitter in the evening while Respondent went to work. Based on all the factors, and considering an ex parte interview with L.F.A., the Court found that L.F.A. was not well settled in the United States. Mendez Lynch, 220 F.Supp.2d at 1363-64 (finding children not well settled in the United States when they lived in seven locations in only a couple years, even though they were attending school and making friends). Accordingly, Respondent failed to meet her burden of proving her first affirmative defense.

Respondent's second affirmative defense was that L.F.A.'s return to Mexico would
"expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation." The Court observed that Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that returning to Mexico would place L.F.A. in an "intolerable situation ." 42 U.S.C.11603(c)(2)(A). An "intolerable situation" under Article 13b of the Hague Convention encompasses, for example, sexual abuse by a parent or other familial relative, Grijalva v. Escayola, 2006 WL 3827539, at *6 (M.D.Fla.Dec.28, 2006) (citing Hague Convention, 51 Fed.Reg. 10494-01, 10510 (March 26, 1986)), or when returning the child would place her in a "zone of war, famine or disease[.]" Friedrich v. Freidrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1069 (6th Cir.1996). The proper focus of the inquiry is the effect on L.F.A. if she is returned to Mexico. See Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 377 (8th Cir.1995).

As support for this defense, Respondent testified generally that there existed drug trafficking activity and gang violence in the proximal location of their residence in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Respondent testified that on at least one occasion a stray bullet struck the residence. Other than oblique references to the quality of life in Nuevo Leon, Mexico immediately surrounding the Petitioner's residence, there was no testimony that L.F.A. or Petitioner or Respondent was personally threatened or in immediate danger. The living conditions of the surrounding area, even if as they were as deplorable as Respondent contended did not satisfy the "intolerable conditions" defense by clear and convincing evidence. See Avendano v. Smith, 806 F.Supp.2d 1149, 1177 (D.N.M.2011) ("Although Mexico is more dangerous than the United States at this time, intolerable situation was not meant to encompass return to a home where living conditions are less palatable."). Moreover, removing L.F.A. from her mother will not, standing alone, satisfy this burden. See Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 373 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the Court found that Respondent failed to prove her second affirmative defense.

Rovirosa v. Paetau, 2012 WL 6087481 (S.D.Tex.) [Mexico] [Patria Postestas]

In Rovirosa v. Paetau, 2012 WL 6087481 (S.D.Tex.) Petitioner, Leandro Ampudia Rovirosa ("Ampudia"), brought an action seeking the return of his son, L.A.V., and daughter, M.A.V., to Mexico from the United States. Ampudia and Vieth were the natural parents of L.A.V. and M.A.V. and were both citizens of Mexico. Vieth had permanent resident alien status in the United States since 1980. L.A.V. was born in August 2005 in Mexico City and had permanent resident alien status in the United States based on Vieth's U.S. immigration status. L.A.V. had a U.S. social security number and a Texas identification card. . M.A.V. was born in June 2007 in Mexico City and had permanent resident alien status in the United States based on Vieth's U.S. immigration status. M.A.V. ha a U.S. social security number and a Texas identification card. Both L.A.V. and M.A.V. possessed only Mexican passports. Ampudia and Vieth lived with their children in a rented home on Contreras Street in Mexico City beginning in 2009. The children attended the Alexander Bain Institute in 2009, 2010, and a portion of 2011. They were driven to this school by a chauffeur employed by Ampudia's employer.

From May 10, 2010, to June 11, 2010, Ampudia received voluntary inpatient treatment for a gambling addiction. Ampudia testified that he no longer gambled as a result of this treatment. After Ampudia's release from the rehabilitation facility, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, and they began to discuss a separation.. On December 18, 2010, Vieth and the children went to Acapulco to visit her family for the Christmas holidays. Vieth, assisted by her friend, Celia Tello, packed up clothing and toys at the Contreras Street residence in preparation for her move to Houston to live with a friend. Vieth and her children drove with Tello and Tello's family to Acapulco with the clothing and toys. Vieth and the children flew from Acapulco to Houston, Texas, on December 26, 2010, and lived with Blomfield and his family until January 14, 2011. Between late December 2010 and early January 2011, Ampudia moved into an apartment approximately twenty minutes away from the Contreras Street residence. Ampudia testified that he believed Vieth was taking the children to the United States to visit her mother in Chicago, but learned that they went to Houston instead. Ampudia was aware that Vieth and his children had stayed with Blomfield when in Houston after the Christmas holidays. Vieth and the children returned to Mexico City on January 14, 2011. Vieth testified that although she considered Blomfield's home in Houston to be her and the children's permanent residence by that time, she returned to Mexico City to straighten out her and Ampudia's finances. According to Vieth, the rent on the Contreras Street residence was months in arrears and the utilities were also past due. She attributed the fault of the non-payments to Ampudia.

In February 2010, Vieth moved into Tello's residence, where Vieth and her children shared a bedroom vacated by Tello's two-year-old daughter. Tello averred that Vieth and the children lived with her through May 2011, when Vieth returned to Houston. Ampudia testified that Vieth and the children continued to reside at the Contreras Street address until June 1, 2011. On May 3, 2011, Vieth filed a petition in the 27th Family Court, Mexico City, D.F., to terminate Ampudia's parental rights on the ground that he had abandoned the children due to non-support. In the petition, she claimed that she had borrowed in excess of $633,000 pesos to support the children after he failed to do so. She also claimed in the petition that he had borrowed in excess of $7,000,000 pesos from her and owed $10,000,000 pesos in gambling debts. She sought $176,828 pesos in monthly support. The Mexican petition claimed expenses for the children's activities in Mexico City during the first quarter of 2011. The petition also avered that Vieth paid rent, maintenance fees and water expenses at the Contreras Street residence through May 2011 by using funds she borrowed. Emma Rovirosa testified that she paid these expenses for the same period of time on behalf of her son, Ampudia.

Ampudia's legal expert, David Lopez testified that, in his opinion, Ampudia, as the natural father of the children, had a right of custody, known as patria potestad, under Mexican law. Ampudia and Vieth lived together as a couple and acted as parents to the children. Cohabitation with a child is a parental right under Mexican law and, even after Ampudia ceased to cohabit with the children, he exercised parental rights by paying for their schooling, visiting the children at school or sporting events and having lunch with them. Lopez testified that the fact that Vieth filed a lawsuit to terminate Ampudia's parental rights was an admission by Vieth that Ampudia had rights to be terminated. And Ampudia's filing a response to Vieth's lawsuit was an assertion of his objection to the termination of his parental rights. Lopez acknowledged that patria potestad may be lost by a failure to pay child support for more than ninety days, but that determination had not been made by the Mexican court and, until that court determined that Ampudia abandoned the children, Ampudia had the presumption of having custodial rights. Lopez opined that Ampudia has rights of custody for purposes of the Hague Convention.

Ampudia testified that, until June 2011, he visited the children once a week, took them to lunch or for ice cream, and attended their school and sporting events.L.A.V. and M.A.V. attended the Alexander Bain Institute from January 2011 to May 2011. On May 23, 2011, Vieth committed in writing to pay the past-due tuition at the Alexander Bain Institute for the months of January 2011 to May 2011 by July 4, 2011. The sum was deducted from Ampudia's salary. On May 20, 2011, M.A.V. and L.A.V. were seen by their pediatrician in Mexico City. Vieth testified that another reason for her return to Mexico City with the children in January 2011 was to renew the passport of M.A.V., which would expire in April 2011. Ampudia's signature was required by law to renew the passport, and, according to Vieth, he delayed complying with her requests to renew the passport for months. On May 31, 2011, Ampudia and Vieth went to the passport office and signed documents renewing M.A.V.'s passport. Ampudia, Vieth and the children had lunch at Ampudia's apartment that same day. Vieth testified that she told Ampudia on May 31, 2011, that she had filed the lawsuit to terminate his parental rights. Vieth conceded that she did not tell Ampudia that she and the children were flying to Houston the following day. On May 31, 2011, Ampudia applied for a passport for himself, replacing one that had been lost. Vieth produced this lost passport, along with his U.S. visa, in discovery in this action, leading Ampudia to conclude that Vieth had retained his passport and visa to prevent him from traveling to the United States in pursuit of her and the children. Vieth denied taking Ampudia's passport but had no credible explanation for its discovery in her possession.

On June 1, 2011, Vieth purchased airline tickets for herself and the children to travel from Mexico City to Houston, Texas, later that same day. The children ha continuously resided in Houston, Texas, since June 1, 2011. Ampudia was served with Vieth's lawsuit to terminate his parental rights on June 10, 2011. He filed his answer and countersuit for visitation rights on June 29, 2011. That case was being actively litigated in Mexico City. Ampudia testified that he was unaware of where his children were after June 1, 2011. Ampudia concluded that Vieth and the children were in the United States because the automatic voice mail message on Vieth's phone was in English. Ampudia asserted that Vieth never answered his calls or voice mails, and the first time he learned that Vieth and the children were in Houston, Texas, was when Blomfield phoned him on August 18, 2011. Blomfield averred that while he was certain that Ampudia knew that Blomfield lived in Houston, he could not say that Ampudia knew exactly where he lived. Contradicting Ampudia's testimony in part, Vieth testified that Ampudia, along with his father and brother, spoke to M.A.V. on her birthday in June 2011 via Vieth's cell phone.. M.A.V. and L.A.V. attended summer camps in Houston, Texas, during the summer of 2011. M.A.V. and L.A.V. attended The School at St. George Place, a public elementary school in Houston, for the 2011-2012 academic year. Ampudia's parents traveled to Houston, Texas, several times to visit the children.

Their first visit was in September 2011. Because Vieth had Ampudia's U.S. visa in her
possession when she traveled to Houston in June 2011, Ampudia could not travel to the United States until he obtained a replacement visa, which he was not able to do until January 2012. In April 2012, Ampudia traveled to Houston to see the children.

The children were presently enrolled in The School at St. George Place for the
2012-2013 academic year. Since October 2012, Vieth worked in Mexico several
days a week. In her absence, the children were cared for by Blomfield, his wife, and a
family member of Vieth.

In support of her claim of abandonment, Vieth testified that eight months passed before Ampudia paid any child support, that he failed to help with the children, failed to take them to school and did not feed or clothe them. The district court held that this was a claim reserved for the Mexican court. Vieth testified that she was a public figure in Mexico because of her employment as an actress. She believed that her children might be kidnapped because of Ampudia's gambling debts. Vieth also feared that the children may be harmed in an earthquake or fire. She acknowledged that her fears of kidnapping did not prevent her from returning from Houston with the children in January 2011. Vieth also conceded that she made several personal appearances at public events with the children but felt safe because of the security provided by the sponsors of the events.

The district court found that Ampudia had established by a prima facie case preponderance of the evidence that, under the laws of Mexico, he had rights of custody over L.A.V. and M.A.V. and that he was exercising his rights of custody over L.A.V. and M.A.V. at the time of the children's removal from Mexico by Vieth; that Mexico was L.A.V.'s and M.A.V.'s habitual residence before their removal from Mexico by Vieth; and that Vieth wrongfully removed L.A.V. and M.A.V. from their habitual residence in Mexico in violation of Ampudia's rights of custody over the children.

Given that Ampudia established by a preponderance of the evidence each of the elements required by the Hague Convention to show that Vieth wrongfully removed L.A.V. and M.A.V. from Mexico, and given that Vieth has failed to meet her burden that any of the exceptions apply to the facts of this case, the court ordered the return of L.A.V. and M.A.V. to Mexico, their habitual residence prior to their wrongful removal by Vieth.