Culculoglu v Culculoglu, 2013 WL 4045905 (D.Nev.)) [Canada] [Consent or Acquiescence] [Petition Denied]

[Canada] [Consent or Acquiescence] [Petition Denied]



In Culculoglu v Culculoglu, 2013 WL 4045905 (D.Nev.))the Petition was served on March 27, 2013. A Motion for Temporary Restraining Order was filed by Petitioner on March 29, 2013. The Courtgranted Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on April 4, 2013 , which enjoined Respondent from removing the children from the State of Nevada during the pendency of this action without prior court approval. Respondent filed her answer on April 10, 2013 and an evidentiary hearing was conducted on May 6, 2013.

The Court determined that there was no wrongful removal or retention of the children by Respondent because Petitioner consented to their initial removal fromCanada and acquiesced to their retention in Nevada. Moreover, Petitioner wasunable to establish that the children's habitual residence was Canada and instead, the Court determined that the children's habitual residence became Nevada after September 15, 2012. Consequently, the Court recommended that the Petition be denied.

Burhan was a resident of Canada and a naturalized citizen of the United States. Michelle was a resident and citizen of the United States. The parties lived together in Seattle in early 2007. Their first child, TC, was born in 2008 in Seattle. In October 2008, the parties relocated to Singapore as a result of Burhan's employment with Fairmont Hotels and Resorts. Their second and third children were born in Singapore: KC in 2009 and AC in 2011.The parties were married on April 15, 2010 while visiting Michelle's parents in Henderson, Nevada. In early 2012, while still in Singapore, Burhan was offered a promotion to become the Director of Operations for the Fairmont Hotel in Whistler, British Colombia, Canada. Testimony by both parties revealed that they were having difficulty in their marital relationship at this time. Both Burhan and Michelle testified that they discussed divorce while in Singapore. Michelle credibly testified that, in April of 2012, she began looking for a house in Henderson near her parents in contemplation of divorce. Burhan accepted the new position in Canada and the family departed Singapore around July 4, 2012. They stayed in Henderson, Nevada and visited with Michelle's parents on the way to Canada. During their stay in Henderson, the parties obtained Nevada drivers licenses, registered to vote, and purchased two automobiles. According to Michelle, one automobile was registered solely in Michelle's name in contemplation of divorce and Burhan was present when the vehicle was registered. Michelle testified that they also opened a joint bank account for the purpose of depositing Burhan's support payments from Canada and used Michelle's parents' address in Henderson as the record address. Michelle testified that because of their marital difficulties she did not intend to remain in Canada with Burhan.

On July 21, 2012, the family drove to Canada in Michelle's automobile. Michelle testified that the automobile was not "imported" into Canada upon their arrival at the border because she did not intend to stay in Canada. Therefore, the car remained a Nevada registered vehicle. Burhan obtained a work visa for himself and visas for Michelle and the children to remain in Canada and be eligible for health insurance. Burhan immediately began his work and the family stayed in the hotel where he worked. During their stay, the parties searched for a rental home, enrolled the children in a ski-school, and TC, the oldest child, was placed on a waiting list for pre-school. Michelle testified credibly that the parties continued to discuss the uncertainties of their marriage. It appeared that the parties' relationship continued to vacillate. On August 1, 2012, Michelle told Burhan that she wanted a divorce. She indicated that the children were packed and they were leaving, apparently because she suspected that Burhan had a paramour. However, on August 23, 2012, Michelle texted Burhan that she desired to periodically hire a babysitter so that the couple could have "date nights." In spite of their efforts, the marital relationship further deteriorated. Michelle testified that on September 14, 2012, Burhan told her that he was still in love with his paramour and the marriage was over. On September 15, 2012, Michelle and the children returned to Nevada with one-way tickets purchased by Burhan. Burhan testified that Michelle departed because she was stressed from having lived in the hotel for such a long time and that the house they hoped to rent was not available. He also indicated that he wanted a few weeks away from Michelle to determine whether or not their relationship should continue. Burhan further explained that the one-way tickets were purchased in order to give flexibility to Michelle on the date of return. On September 16, 2012, Burhan sent an email to Michelle in response to her emailed question, "do you miss me," which confirmed that he wanted a divorce. On September 17, 2012, Michelle informed Burhan that she had activated the on-line capabilities for the bank account that the parties had opened during their visit to Henderson in July. She also asked him about the funds to be provided. Burhan agreed that he would add money to the account now that she was in Nevada. On September 19, 2012, the parties exchanged an email regarding a house that Michelle had apparently found in Henderson that cost $610 per month. Burhan asked, "How much down payment," and Michelle responded "It doesn't say."

In an email exchange on September 25, 2012, the parties discussed the characteristics of the schools Michelle found for the children in Henderson. Burhan testified that he expected the school to be temporary so that the children did not sit around with nothing to do in Henderson; Michelletestified it was to be the school the children would attend in the future.Michelle testified that, within a short period of time, Burhan fedexed the children's birth certificates, medical records, and social security cards tofacilitate registration. On September 29, 2012 Michelle agreed that a divorce was the best course of action. Burhan indicated that he was looking "for 2 bedroom place." In an email dated September 30, 2012, Burhan agreed to transport Michelle's things and car to her in addition to again agreeing to file fordivorce. He also indicated that Michelle would have custody of the children until they finished elementary school. After that, Burhan proposed that the children would go to school near him and they would share custody with the children as follows: Michelle would have them for eight months and Burhan for four months consisting of three to four weeks in the winter duringthe school holidays and twelve to thirteen weeks in the summer. Also, Burhanwrote that he would put $1,500 per month in Michelle's bank account. Inresponse, Michelle suggested that she drive her car from Canada and Burhan drive a "U-haul" (rental vehicle) around October 18 or 19.

By late October, the parties' discussions regarding divorce became more certain. Burhan often claimed that Michelle was keeping the children in Nevada without his consent and made threats that he would take the children from Michelle. On November 18, 2012, Burhan drove Michelle's vehicle to Nevada including her and the children's clothing and personal effects. Michelle testified that Burhan wanted to stay at her parents' home during the visit, which she rejected because they were divorcing. She also testified that Burhan was emotional and erratic during the visit and wanted to reunite with her. Burhan testified that Michelle cut his visit short by threatening to call the police and he was unable to spend any substantive time with the children. Burhan bought an airline ticket and returned to Canada on November 20, 2012. On January 15, 2013, consistent with on-going text discussions with Burhan, Michelle filed for divorce in Nevada. On January 29, 2013, Burhan filed an application pursuant to the Convention in British Colombia, Canada for the return of his children. As he arrived at the airport to visit the children in February of 2013, Burhan was served with the divorce complaint. Burhan met with Michelle and her lawyer on February 11, 2013. Thereafter, as the parties had agreed Michelle dismissed her complaint on February 19, 2013 and Burhan instructed his lawyer to dismiss his Convention application. In spite of their attempts, however, the parties were unable to resolve the terms of the divorce and custody.

On March 1, 2013, Burhan advised Michelle that he intended to pick-up the children and remove them from the United States. Burhan arrived, but his effort was unsuccessful, which resulted in the Verified Complaint - Petition at issue in this case. In the Petition, Burhan sought return of the three children to Canada for an appropriate custody determination under Canadian law.

The Court found that there was no date that could be the date of a wrongful removal. n September 15, 2012, Michelle and the children returned to Nevada using one-way tickets purchased by Burhan.The removal of the children on September 15, 2012 was not wrongful because it was with Burhan's consent. The Court found that arrangements for support payments, housing, and schooling in Nevada were evidence of Burhan's intent that Michelle and the children remain in Nevada. They were also consistent with the parties' preliminary discussions, confirmed by email on October 2, 2012, to address custody of the children. The parties reaffirmed that divorce was the best course of action on September 29, 2012. Burhan indicated that he was looking for a two bedroom house in Whistler despite previously looking for a three to four bedroom house. On September 30, 2012, Burhan agreed to transport Michelle's car and her and the children's clothing to Nevada. This two week sequence of events was inconsistent with Burhan's testimony that he expected Michelle and the children to temporarily visit the United States and return to Canada in October 2012. Further, the Court did not find Burhan to be credible with respect to his testimony that the children were to return to Canada no later than October 16, 2012. The Court could not find a time when Michelle wrongfully removed or retained the children in Nevada from September 15, 2013 through March 14, 2013. It is not until this action was filed, on March 15, 2013, that Burhan consistently contended that the removal and retention of the children in Nevada was wrongful.

Michelle asserted both consent and acquiescence as affirmative defenses to Burhan's allegation of wrongful removal or retention of the children in Nevada. Under Article 13, the right to a child's return secured by the Convention is extinguished if "the person ... having the care of the child ... consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention."19 I.L.M. at 1502. Under the Convention's plain, unambiguous language, consent before removal and retention or subsequent acquiescence extinguishes the right of return. In considering consent or acquiescence, "ambiguous statements or actions don't suffice." Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 512 (9th Cir.2010). A statement or action must "unequivocally demonstrate that [the petitioner] consented to the child's indefinite stay in [America]." Conduct after removal can be useful in determining whether consent was present at the time of removal. Gonzalez-Caballero, 251 F3d at 794. The Court found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Burhan consented to the children's removal and retention. He sent Michelle and the children to Nevada on a one-way ticket. Burhan also deposited monthly support funds. He participated in arranging schooling and housing. Finally, Burhan transported Michelle's car and her and the children's personal property to Nevada. Moreover, Burhan specifically gave written consent to the children being in Nevada from the time they left Canada until at least March 14, 2013. The Court did not find Burhan's testimony, after-the-fact, that he did not consent and always believed the children would return to Canada to be credible in the face of this clear, unambiguous, written statement of consent. Accordingly, the Court found that Michelle has met her burden of proving that the removal and retention of the children in Nevada was not wrongful because it was done with Burhan's consent.

The acquiescence defense has been held to require "an act or statement with the requisite formality, such as testimony in a judicial proceeding; a convincing written renunciation of rights; or a consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period of time." Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1070 (6th Cir.1996). By making arrangements for Michelle and the children to remain in Nevada after September 15, 2012, the Court found that Burhan demonstrated a consistent attitude of acquiescence. This attitude continued from the time the children left Canada at least until Burhan filed his Hague application on January 29, 2013. The Court also found that on February 19, 2013, when Burhan formally withdrew his Hague application and agreed in writing to the children remaining in Nevada until at least March 14, 2013, he acquiesced to the children residing in Nevada. This was a clear, written, statement of Burhan's acquiescence that the Court found convincing despite Burhan's testimony that he expected the children to return to Canada to live permanently. Accordingly, the Court found that Michelle has met her burden of proving that the removal and retention of the children in Nevada was not wrongful because it was done with Burhan's acquiescence.

Assuming, arguendo, that Burhan did not consent to the children's permanent removal or acquiesce to their retention, the Court found that the children were not habitual residents of Canada. It was not disputed that the parties intended to abandon their residence in Singapore. Nor was there a question that Burhan intended to remain in Canada-he accepted a promotion to a new position there. It was true that the family lived together in the hotel in Canada, attempted unsuccessfully to find a permanent residence, made arrangements for future activities for the children including ski school and preschool for TC, and Michelle scheduled a doctor's appointment. This was evidence that the parties intended that the children reside in Canada prior to September 15, 2012. It did not appear, however, that Michelle intended to permanently reside in Canada. The marital discord and the contemplation of separation or divorce dated back to the parties time in Singapore. Michelle testified credibly that she was concerned about the future of her marriage even before she departed Singapore. Michelle's efforts to find a house in Henderson prior to departing Singapore reinforced this finding. Burhan's testimony that the couple was only looking for a vacation home in Nevada was not credible given that Michelle's parents lived in Henderson and their income was not conducive to an investment home. Additionally,  the Court found credible Michelle's testimony that the establishment of a bank account in Henderson before the family traveled to Canada was for her to receive support payments in the event of separation. The purchase of two cars, one placed in Michelle's name, served as another indicator of Michelle's uncertainty about remaining in Canada. From their arrival in Canada on July 21, 2012 until September 15, 2012, a period of 56 days, the parties continued to suffer significant marital difficulties. Michelle made no friends in Canada, the family lived in a hotel that was understood to be temporary, and the children did not participate in many activities. This was the evidence that the parties intended the children to reside in Nevada after their 56 day stay in Canada.

Londano v Gonzalez, 2013 WL 1934043, (D. Massachusetts) [Colombia] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Temporary Restraining Order]

In Londano v Gonzalez, 2013 WL 1934043, (D. Massachusetts) Petitioner Francelly Sanchez Londono filed a Verified Emergency Petition for the Return of Child and Warrant of Arrest in Lieu of Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 11601. The petition was accompanied by an Emergency Motion for Relief and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The petition was brought pursuant to the Hague Convention and sought, among other things, to compel respondent Nelson Gonzalez to appear in court to show cause why the child EG should not be returned to Colombia. The petition alleged that EG was brought from Colombia to the United States in May 2011 by her father, Gonzalez, and had been retained here without petitioner’s consent.

Petitioner filed an Emergency Petition for the Return of Child and an Emergency Motion for Relief. The court denied the motion for poor person relief. However, it observed that upon appropriate motion, the Court has the authority to prevent a child’s concealment or removal from the District until such a petition is ruled upon. See 42 U.S.C. § 11604(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. ICARA expressly authorizes a court to "take or cause to be taken measures under federal or state law, as appropriate, ... to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of the petition." 42 U.S.C. § 11604(a).

Given the representations made to the Court by petitioner, and the very serious irreparable harm that was likely to result both to the child and to petitioner in the event the child was wrongly removed from this jurisdiction, a temporary restraining order was justified to preserve the status quo pending a hearing. For the purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b), the Court found that petitioner had made a sufficient showing that, without an injunction, she may sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there was an opportunity for a hearing. The record did not suggest any comparable irreparable harm to respondent that would result from the granting of this temporary injunction. The balance of hardships tiped in favor of petitioner. Based on the present record, the Court was also convinced that it was necessary to issue an injunction without prior notice to respondent. Petitioner’s submissions indicated a risk that, should notice be provided, the child might be concealed or taken from this jurisdiction before an injunction could be served. The Court did not require petitioner to post a bond as a condition of obtaining the injunction at this trial. It directed that a summons be served on the respondent.

Wood v Wood, 2013 WL 1907492, (E.D. Washington) [United Kingdom] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies ][Temporary Restraining Order] [Deposit Passport with Court]

 In Wood v Wood, 2013 WL 1907492, (E.D. Washington) Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Request for Expedited Consideration of Verified Petition for Return of Child to the United Kingdom and Issuance of Show Cause Order (ECF No. 3). He sought the return of his minor child, LPBW, to the child’s home country of the United Kingdom. He alleged that LPBW has been wrongfully retained in the United States by his mother, Respondent Melissa Renee Wood ("Respondent"), and was currently residing with Respondent in Moxee, Washington. Petitioner requested an order (1) temporarily restraining Respondent from removing LPBW from this Court’s jurisdiction; (2) requiring Respondent to deposit LPBW’s passport and other travel documents with the Court; and (3) directing Respondent to appear for a show cause hearing. Fearing that Respondent would attempt to remove the child from the Eastern District of Washington if given advance notice of these proceedings, Petitioner filed the motion ex parte.

The District Court observed that 42 U.S.C. § 11604(a) extends the Courts authority to issuing an ex parte temporary restraining order where the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) are satisfied. Morgan v. Morgan, 289 F.Supp.2d 1067, 1069 (N.D. Iowa 2003. In taking any preventative measures pursuant to § 1 1604(a), however, a court must ensure that "the applicable requirements of State law are satisfied." 42 U.S.C. § 11604(b).

Petitioner requested an order barring respondent from removing LPBW from this Court’s jurisdiction pending full adjudication of the Petition. Given that Petitioner filed his motion without serving a copy on Respondent, the Court construed this request as a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Under Rule 65(b), a party seeking a TRO must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury if the requested relief is not granted, (3) that a balancing of the hardships weighs in its favor; and (4) that the requested relief will advance the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). When these elements are satisfied, a court may temporarily enjoin the opposing party from engaging in a specific action pending a hearing to determine whether the restrictions should remain in force in the form of a preliminary injunction.

The Court found that the issuance of a TRO was appropriate. Petitioner established a prima facie case of wrongful retention under the Hague Convention by alleging that Respondent was holding LPBW, a child under sixteen years of age whose country of habitual residence is the United Kingdom, in the United States without his permission and in violation of his rights of custody under the Law of England and Wales. Petitioner also established to the Court’s satisfaction that Respondent and LPBW were currently residing within the Eastern District of Washington. Accordingly, Petitioner established a sufficiently high likelihood of success on the merits. Petitioner also established a sufficiently high likelihood of irreparable injury if the requested relief was not granted. According to the Petition, Respondent had taken LPBW "on the road" through at least four different states in an effort to conceal the child’s whereabouts from Petitioner. In light of these allegations, there was reason to believe that Respondent may remove LPBW from this Court’s jurisdiction upon learning of these proceedings if not expressly prohibited from doing so. If that occurred, Petitioner would likely experience great difficulty in locating the child and pursuing the child’s safe return to the United Kingdom. The Court found that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent this and other potential injuries from occurring. For these same reasons, the Court found that issuance of the Order without notice to Respondent was appropriate under Rule 65(b)(2). Prohibiting Respondent from removing LPBW from the Eastern District of Washington until she could be heard on the matter was a minimally burdensome condition. Indeed, given that Respondent and LPBW appeared to have settled in Moxee (at least for the time being), there was no reason to believe that either Respondent or the child will be burdened at all. Conversely, Petitioner faced a substantial hardship if the requested relief was not granted. As noted above, Petitioner’s ability to obtain effective relief under the Hague Convention would be seriously jeopardized if Respondent were to remove the child from this Court’s jurisdiction. Finally, the Court found that an order barring Respondent from removing LPBW from the jurisdiction would advance the public interest. In implementing the Convention through ICARA, the United States Congress found, inter alia, that "the international abduction ... of children is harmful to their well-being" and that persons who engage in such conduct "should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention." 42 U.S.C. § 11601(a)(1), (2). Granting the requested relief would, at least temporarily, prevent Respondent from further profiting from her alleged wrongful retention of LPBW in the United States. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Petitioner was entitled to an order temporarily restraining Respondent from removing LPBW from the Court’s jurisdiction; it prohibited her from directly or indirectly removing the minor child, LPBW, born in 2007, from the Eastern District of Washington; directed that Petitioner shall not be required to give security under Rule 65(c); directed Respondent to appear before the court to show cause why she should not be prohibited from removing the LPBW from the Court’s jurisdiction until the proceeding was concluded; directed Respondent to produce LPBW’s passport and any other identification and/or travel documents at the hearing and to deposit them with the Court for safekeeping until the proceeding was concluded; and directed Petitioner to arrange for the Order, along with a copy of the Verified Petition and all attached documents, to be personally served upon Respondent at the earliest possible time, and file proof of service prior to the hearing.

Culculoglu v Culculoglu, 2013 WL 1413231 (D.Nev.) [Canada] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Temporary Restraining Order] [Delivery of Passport to Court]

In Culculoglu v Culculoglu, 2013 WL 1413231 (D.Nev.) Petitioner alleged that he resided in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada where, until September 2012, he lived with Respondent and their three children. On March 15, 2013, Petitioner filed his Verified Complaint asserting a cause of action for Wrongful Retention under The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. In the Petition, Petitioner sought return of the children to Canada to allow the courts of the children's "habitual residence" to determine any custody issues. Petitioner filed a motion seeking an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order to ensure that the minor children, remained in Nevada until the Court can resolve the merits of this matter.

The Court observed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, and requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition," as well as written certification from the movant's attorney stating "any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required."Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b).Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to preliminary injunctions. Like a preliminary injunction, the Court may issue a temporary restraining order if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) ."Injunctive relief [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Id. at 22.

The district court concluded that Plaintiff established each of the prongs of the TRO analysisThe first prong requires Petitioner to establish that the children were removed or retained away from the country of their habitual residence. See Hague Convention, art. 3(a). The second prong of Petitioner's Wrongful Retention claim requires that Petitioner prove that Respondent's retention of the children in the United States was in breach of the custody rights of the Petitioner, as provided by Canadian law. Hague Convention, art. 3(a). Finally, Petitioner must establish that, at the time the children were removed or retained, Petitioner was actually exercising his rights of custody. Hague Convention, art. 3(b). Petitioner's Verified Complaint adequately demonstrates that he was exercising his rights of custody at the time Respondent brought the children to the United States and that Petitioner would have continued to exercise his rights of custody but for Respondent's allegedly wrongful retention of the children in the United States. Given the risk that Respondent could further conceal the location of the children, the Court found that Petitioner would likely be irreparably harmed in the absence of the requested relief to maintain the status quo.

The Court concluded that the risk of Respondent secreting away the children before the resolution of the Petition, outweighed any injury to the Respondent or the children that may result from ordering them to stay in the District. First, the Order merely maintained the status quo by ordering that Respondent and the children remain in the District during the pendency of this action. Second, the Verified Complaint stated that Respondent's parents reside in the District.  Thus, this Order would not impose a hardship on Respondent.

Accordingly, the balance of equities tipped in favor of Petitioner and supported the issuance of the requested temporary restraining order. "The public interest analysis for the issuance of [injunctive relief] requires [district courts] to consider whether there exists some critical public interest that would be injured by the grant of preliminary relief." ICARA expressly authorizes a court to "take or cause to be taken measures under Federal or State law, as appropriate, ... to prevent the child[ren]'s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of the petition." 42 U.S.C. § 11604(a). Accordingly, in this case, the Court found no such public interest that would be injured by the issuance of such injunctive relief.

The Court also directed Respondent to deliver to the United States Marshal, for safekeeping, any passports for TC, KC, and AC that are were Respondent's possession, custody, or control, and shall further notify the United States Marshal if Respondent knows of any person having possession of such a passport. The Court directed that the summons and other papers be served upon the Respondent.

Arulpragasam v. Bronfman, 2013 WL 2249256 (E.D.N.Y.) [England] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Use of Pseudonyms in Civil Litigation]

 In Arulpragasam v. Bronfman, 2013 WL 2249256 (E.D.N.Y.) Petitioner Mathangi Arulpragasam filed a petition under the Hague Convention seeking an order directing Respondent Benjamin Bronfman to refrain from retaining their son in New York and allowing Petitioner and son to return to England.

Petitioner requested that the following information be redacted from all court filings: 1. "[A]ll identifying information about the [c]hild (to protect his privacy and safety), including his name, the school he is now attending" and certain other personal information regarding the child; 2. "[I]dentifying information about [P]etitioner (to protect her safety and effectuate the [c]hild's privacy concerns)," to include Petitioner's home address and other personal information; and 3. "[T]he names of the parties (to effectuate the foregoing), including revision of the caption to be 'Anonymous v. Anonymous.' "

The Court granted the first two requests and denied the third request. It observed that this was not a child custody case, and was not governed by New York law, but by a treaty which Petitioner did not assert provided for the sealing of this proceeding. Petitioner argued that the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir.1995), supported the redaction of the personal information requested. The Court agreed with Petitioner that some of the information that Petitioner sought to redact from the filings should be redacted. Pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties are required to redact certain personal information from all documents filed with the Court, including the name of the child. As to the other personal information Petitioner sought to redact, the Court found that such information should be redacted from all filings.

The Court denied Petitioner's third request which sought to conceal the identity of the parties in this case and to identify them as Anonymous v. Anonymous. Petitioner's only argument in support of this request was that "removing the parties' names from the caption will lessen the likelihood of interest being directed toward" the case. The Court held that the public's interest in Petitioner is not a legal basis for sealing this proceeding, nor is it a legal basis for anonymity. In Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, the Second Circuit discussed the standard governing the use of pseudonyms in civil litigation. 537 F.3d 185, 189-90 (2d Cir.2008). The court stated that "the interests of both the public and the opposing party should be considered when determining whether to grant an application to proceed under a pseudonym. Accordingly, we ... hold that when determining whether a plaintiff may be allowed to maintain an action under a pseudonym, the plaintiff's interest in anonymity must be balanced against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant." Id. at 189.The Second Circuit held that the balancing of interests entails the consideration of several factors citing. It noted that this list is non-exhaustive and district courts should take into account other factors relevant to the particular case under consideration Although Respondent did not oppose Petitioner's requests, Petitioner did not convince the Court that the balance of these factors weighed in her favor.

Walker v Walker, 2013 WL 1110876 (N.D.Ill.) [Australia] [Habitual Residence] [Age & Maturity] [Petition Granted]

In Walker v Walker, 2013 WL 1110876 (N.D.Ill.) in early May 2011, Iain Walker, a citizen of Australia, filed suit against his then wife Norene Walker, a United States citizen, seeking to compel her to return their three children to Australia. In September 2011, another judge of the court conducted a bench trial on the petition, and, on October 20, 2011, he ruled in Norene's favor. The court of appeals in Walker v. Walker, 701 F.3d 1110, 1114 (7th Cir.2012), overturned as insufficiently supported the district judge's determinations that the United States was the children's habitual residence at the relevant time; that Iain had abandoned the children and was not exercising his rights of custody at the relevant time; and that Iain had consented to the children remaining in the United States. The court remanded the case for further proceedings setting forth in its opinion the crucial issues which were not fully developed in the previous proceedings, and directed that the district court resolve at least the following questions: 1. What was Iain and Norene's mutual intent regarding the trip to the United States in June 2010? Was this intended as an extended vacation or as a permanent move? 2. What has been the precise nature of Iain's participation in the Illinois divorce proceedings, and to what extent, if at all, does this participation indicate that Iain either consented to or acquiesced in the children's retention in the United States? 3. To the extent the children have "attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of their views," [ Hague Convention] Art. 13, what is the children's attitude to being returned to Australia? In conducting this inquiry, we caution that the district court must be attentive to the possibility that the children's views may be the product of "undue influence" of the parent who currently has custody. 51 Fed.Reg. 10510.

The district court observed that the first step, was to determine the children's habitual residence at the relevant time. As the Seventh Circuit stated in its decision in this case, to prevail, Iain was "required to show that Australia was the children's habitual residence at the time of their retention in the United States." Walker, 701 F.3d at 1119. It found that the time of the children's retention in the United States by Norene was, at the latest, late January 2011. Norene testified that this was when she first formed the intention to remain in the United States and not return the children to Australia. It was undisputed that the Walkers resided in Australia from 1998 through June 2010. In a case of alleged wrongful retention, a court determines a child's habitual residence "by asking whether a prior place of residence was effectively abandoned and a new residence established by the shared actions and intention of the parents coupled with the passage of time." Walker, 701 F.3d at 1119." Because the parents often dispute their intentions, the court should look at actions as well as declarations in determining whether the parents shared an intent to abandon a prior habitual residence." Iain had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Walkers did not have a shared intention to abandon their residence in Australia and establish a new residence in the United States. This proposition was amply established by the testimony of both parties as well as their earlier statements and actions and the circumstantial evidence. Iain and Norene were married in Chicago, where Norene's parents lived, in 1993. They lived in Seattle, Washington until 1998, and their first child was born there in 1997. They moved to Perth, a city in Western Australia, in 1998, when their first child was about one year old. Iain and Norene's two younger children were born in Australia in 1999 and 2001. Norene testified that she and Iain initially intended to live in Australia for five years and then relocate to the United States. She testified that she agreed to marry Iain only on that condition. They actually lived together in Australia, however, for twelve years, until 2010. As the Seventh Circuit stated in its ruling, and as the evidenced presented to this Court showed, [o]ver this period, they and their children appeared to be well-settled: they owned a home, furniture, and a dog named Chubba; the children attended school, had friends, and participated in activities; and Iain worked as a software test engineer while Norene cared for the children. Iain, Norene, and their children traveled to the United States in June 2010. The Seventh Circuit stated, and the Court found based on the evidence presented, that "[w]hen they left Australia, both Iain and Norene expected that Norene and the children would remain in the United States for six months to one year." Norene contended, however, that this trip was intended "as an extended prelude to a permanent move to the United States." Norene testified that  she married Iain on the condition that after five years, they would relocate in the United States. She contended that the June 2010 trip represented the fulfillment of that condition, or at least the initial steps toward its fulfillment. Iain contended, by contrast, that they intended for Norene and the children to live with Norene's parents in Chicago while the family demolished their house in Perth and built a new one, at which point Norene and the children would return to Australia and resume living there indefinitely.

It was undisputed that their home in Perth was demolished and that construction of two new homes on the property was to begin thereafter. Iain said that the family planned to live in one; Norene said they planned to sell both. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Iain and Norene did not have a "shared intention" to abandon residence in Australia and establish residence in the United States at any time relevant to this case. The Court found credible Iain's testimony that he did not intend to relocate himself or the family permanently to the United States and that the purpose of the extended stay in this country was to allow demolition and reconstruction of the family's home in Perth. The Court also found credible Iain's testimony that he did not participate along with Norene in what she described as initial efforts to look for a home in the United States. The Court did not doubt that Norene may have wanted to eventually establish residence in the United States. The Court found that Iain and Norene's mutual intent regarding the June 2010 trip to the United States was that it was not a permanent move or even a prelude to a permanent move. Rather, it was a temporary stay. At most the trip was an extended leave of absence from Australia with the intent to return to their permanent residence that country. There was no shared intention to abandon Australia as their residence and establish residence in the United States. The children's habitual residence was Australia as of the time of the alleged wrongful retention.

The Court found that Norene's retention of the children was in breach of Iain's custody rights under Australian law. It was not seriously disputed that Iain had, at the relevant time, the right of joint custody of the children under Australian law. The Court considered Norene to have forfeited this argument due to the utter absence of any reasonable effort by her counsel to support it; leaving it to the Court to wade through a complex and detailed 700-plus page statute did not cut it. The Court found that Iain had met his burden of providing that Norene's retention of the three children, which took place at the latest in late January 2011, breached his rights of custody under the law of Australia, which is where the children were habitually resident immediately before the retention. The Court also found that Iain was actually exercising his rights of custody up through and at the time of Norene's retention of the children.

The district judge who conducted the first trial concluded that Iain had abandoned the children after returning to Australia in July 2010 and at the latest in January 2011. This conclusion appeared to have been based largely on evidence that the Seventh Circuit concluded should have been excluded for this purpose. One way or another, however, the Court disagreed with the previous judge. The admissible evidence was all to the contrary. There was no abandonment of the children by Iain, and he was actually exercising his custody rights at the relevant time. The Court concluded that Iain established the necessary elements of a claim of wrongful retention under article 3 of the Hague Convention.

Norene contended that Iain had consented to, or subsequently acquiesced in, the retention of the children by Norene in the United States. She failed to prove either by a preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence was not close. Iain took prompt steps to seek relief via the Hague Convention.He has consistently and diligently pursued his petition for relief under the Convention and ICARA ever since that time, through the present day. In arguing acquiescence, Norene relied on Iain's participation in the Illinois divorce proceedings, and perhaps on his later non-participation in those proceedings. Iain participated in the Illinois divorce proceedings via counsel until approximately the end of January 2012. Nothing about his participation in the case suggested acquiescence in the children's retention in the United States. There was nothing about Iain's actions that suggested that this represented acquiescence in the children's retention in the United States. Even while ceasing participation in the Illinois divorce case, Iain continued to pursue vigorously in the court and on appeal his challenge to Norene's retention of the children.

The third question posed by the court of appeals involves the application of the child objection provision of the Hague Convention. Article 13 of the Hague Convention states that a judicial authority "may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views."Hague Conv. art. 13. During the initial trial before the previous judge, each of the three children was questioned in the presence of counsel but not the parties, informally, while sitting around a table. The Court followed the same practice at the trial just conducted. The three children were a fifteen year old girl who would turn sixteen on March 18 of that year, a thirteen year old boy who would turn fourteen in August, and an eleven year old girl who would turn twelve in June.. The older daughter had a sheet of handwritten notes that she consulted from time to time. All of the children were doing well in school, better than they were doing during the period shortly after they first came to the United States. All of them were involved in activities here. They expressed the view that there were better opportunities here than in Australia. The children all reported that they like living here and with their mother. They also all reported that they had frequent contact with their father by telephone and Skype. The oldest daughter still had contact with some of her friends from Australia, and all of them remembered living there and that they liked it when they were there. The middle child stated that he was a bit angry with his father and disappointed that his father had "ordered a retrial," which he said he had learned from his mother. (The Court attempted to explain to him that the "retrial" had been ordered by judges, not by his father.) All three of the children expressed their desire to remain in the United States, with their mother. The Court found that the two older children had reached an age and maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of their views. The Court assumed for purposes of discussion that the younger daughter likewise has reached a sufficient age and maturity for the article 13 provision to apply.

It observed that a court must take care not to give significant weight to a child's views if the child has been unduly influenced by the respondent parent. See, e.g., Walker v. Kitt, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 5237262, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 24, 2012) There was evidence of that here. First, as indicated earlier, the middle child's apparent anger with his father arose rom his mother having told him that his father "ordered a retrial." Second, each of the children made reference to better "opportunities" for education and otherwise, using very similar terminology. The Court might have regarded this as independently derived had it come only from the Walkers' oldest daughter, a high school sophomore, or perhaps from their son, an eighth grader. After the two older children spoke, however, the youngest child, after some initial introductory questions, began her statement about the relevant topics by talking about better education and a lot more opportunities here than in Australia. Given the three children's remarkably similar statements in this regard, the Court was constrained to conclude that their statements were subject of some degree of influence, and it was reasonable to infer that this was from their mother. Even were that not the case, although the Court found the children quite likeable and respects their views, the circumstances did not warrant giving their views controlling weight. As of the date of the trial, they had been in the United States for just three months short of three years. They had become acclimated to living here, and they had become settled in. It was both understandable and predictable that they did not now wish to relocate. It wsa likewise understandable and predictable that they had a far closer connection with their mother, with whom they have lived for this extended period, than with their father. But all of this was, at least in significant part, a direct result of their wrongful retention here by Norene. As the Third Circuit noted in Yang,"[a] lengthy wrongful retention could enable the child to become comfortable in his or her new surroundings, which may create a desire to remain in his or her new home." Yang, 499 F.3d at 280. In such a case, "application of the exception ... would reward [a respondent] for violating [a petitioner's] custody rights, and defeat the purposes of the Convention."

The Court entered judgment in favor of the petitioner and directed the respondent to immediately return the parties' three children to petitioner in Australia.

Bernal v. Gonzalez,--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 7113186 (W.D.Tex.) [Mexico] [Habitual Residence][Rights of Custody] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Article 16 & 17] [Petition Granted]

In Bernal v. Gonzalez,--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 7113186 (W.D.Tex.) Petitioner Amelia Aguilar Bernal filed a Verified Petition for Return of Children. Petitioner Bernal and Respondent Gonzalez were citizens of the Republic of Mexico; were married in Elk Point, South Dakota, on January 31, 2003; and were the parents of four children: A .B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female). The children were all born in the United States of America and were United States citizens. A.B. (male) was born in 1996 in California and was currently sixteen years old. C.G.B. and C.D.B. were ten year old twins, born in Iowa in 2002. A.B. (female) was five years old, also born in Iowa, in 2007. In 2008, Petitioner and Respondent moved to Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico, from the United States, with their four children. There, Respondent purchased land and built a house. A.B. (male), C .G.B., and C.D.B. attended school in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico. A.B. (female) was at home with Petitioner or family members. Petitioner took care of the children while Respondent worked in the United States. Petitioner and Respondent had marital problems and separated in 2010.

On December 16, 2010, Petitioner and Respondent entered into an agreement regarding the care of their four children at the Desarrollo Integral de La Familia (1) Respondent would pay $1500.00 Mexican pesos per week for support of A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female); and (2) Respondent would have weekend visitation rights. The agreement restricted Respondent's visitation to locations within Sinaloa, Mexico. Respondent and Petitioner signed the agreement and each placed inked thumb prints on the document. After signing the agreement, Respondent returned to the United States to work. At some point in March of 2011, Respondent returned to Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico, with the intent to retrieve his four children and move them to the United States. On or about March 25, 2011, Respondent picked up A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) from Petitioner for a weekend of visitation as per their written agreement. On or about March 25, 2011, Respondent took A.B. (male), C.G .B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) to the United States. Petitioner never consented to the initial removal of her four children to the United States and never subsequently acquiesced to the removal of the children. Petitioner diligently pursued the location and return of her children. On or about March 28, 2011, Petitioner reported Respondent's taking of the children to the Ministerio Publico in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico.

On July 12, 2011, Petitioner signed an Application for Return of Children. Upon leaving Mexico, Petitioner first took A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) for a brief stay in San Diego, California. From California, they moved to Nebraska. From information provided to her by her aunt, Petitioner learned A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) were in Nebraska soon after their arrival there.. Petitioner requested that Respondent return the children to Mexico and he refused. Respondent moved A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) from Nebraska to Crane, Texas. Respondent filed for divorce in a Texas court on May 2, 2012. A default judgment was entered by the Texas court on July 26, 2012. Respondent was awarded sole managing custody.

Petitioner filed suit in the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, for Return of Children on August 27, 2012. The court found that the Republic of Mexico was the country of habitual residence for A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) prior to their removal on or about March 25, 2011. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that C.G.B., C.D.B., and A .B. (female) were wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence. Petitioner had rights of custody under the laws of the State in which the children were habitual residents immediately before removal and was exercising those rights before removal. Respondent's removal of C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) breached Petitioner's rights of custody.

The court observed that the the Fifth Circuit adopted its framework for making country of habitual residence determinations. Larbie v. Larbie, 690 F.3d 295, 310 (5th Cir.2012). The inquiry balances the interests of the child with the intentions of the parents. Larbie, 690 F.3d at 310. A court's "inquiry into a child's habitual residence is not formulaic; rather it is a fact-intensive determination that necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case." When determining a child's country of habitual residence, analysis focuses on the "parents' shared intent or settled purpose regarding their child's residence." Here the facts indicated that both parents shared the intent that Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico, was their children's residence prior to removal. Petitioner clearly established that in 2008, Petitioner and Respondent, together, moved their children, A.B. (male), C.G.B., C.D .B., and A.B. (female), from the United States to Sinaloa, Mexico. Once there, Respondent purchased land and built a home. Further, the children were enrolled in and attended the local Mexican public schools. Moreover, Respondent left the children in Mexico with Petitioner for months at a time while he worked in the United States. Habitual residence is determined by looking at the parents' intent or settled purpose prior to removal. See Larbie, 690 F.3d at 310. The parents' mutual decision to move their children to Mexico from the United States and establish roots in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico, provided strong evidence of shared parental intent to make Mexico their children's country of habitual residence. Further evidence of shared parental intent and settled purpose was provided by the parents' signed written agreement, outlining Respondent's voluntary agreement to a visitation arrangement in Mexico.

Rights of custody was to be determined by the application of the laws of the Republic of Mexico. Petitioner Bernal asserted that the parties voluntarily executed a legally enforceable custody agreement under Article 17 of the Sinaloa Civil Code. To assist in proving that the document was a legally enforceable custody agreement under the laws of the Republic of Mexico, Petitioner submitted into evidence an affidavit by Mexican attorney Mariano Nunez Arreloa which explained relevant Mexican laws. When interpreting issues of foreign law, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 allows a liberal approach to evidentiary rules, thus making Mariano Nunez Arreola's affidavit acceptable proof of Mexican laws. The State of Sinaloa, Mexico, in accordance with the Sinaloa Civil Code adhered to the legal doctrine of patria potestad. See Sina. Civ.Code, tit. 8, ch. 1, art. 412 et seq.; "Pursuant to that doctrine both parents have joint custody

rights." The Court found that the agreement between Petitioner and Respondent was valid under the laws of the State of Sinaloa, Mexico. Furthermore, the agreement gave Petitioner specific rights of custody as defined by the Convention. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent took C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) in breach of Petitioner's rights of custody under the laws of the children's habitual residence-the Republic of Mexico ,and that such rights were exercised at the time of removal.



In support of his "grave risk" affirmative defense, Respondent argued that the narrow exception to return of the children to Mexico applies because the ongoing cartel violence in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico, posed a grave risk; and Petitioner was less fit than Respondent to care for their children. The court found that Respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was a grave risk that return of C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) would expose the children to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the children in an intolerable situation. Respondent argued that the following provided evidence that return would expose the children to physical or psychological harm or place the children in an intolerable situation: (1) the ongoing cartel violence in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico; Respondent testified to observing what appeared to be dead bodies in the river near their home in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico. (2) an occurrence in which A.B. (male) was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at gunpoint by alleged cartel members; A.B. (male) testified that he was in a vehicle with his uncle, grandmother, and cousin. The vehicle was stopped by armed men and a gun was pointed at his uncle. A.B. (male) further testified that the armed men were not police and were looking for people in a similar vehicle. The armed men allowed them to leave.

The Court held that ongoing violence in the Republic of Mexico was a serious concern; however, the general cartel violence in Mexico, and specifically the testimonial evidence, did not constitute the clear and convincing evidence necessary to trigger the grave risk of harm exception. Moreover, courts have refused to extend the grave risk of harm exception to cases in which return of a child was to a country facing similarly violent sociopolitical disruptions as those currently confronting the citizens of the Republic of Mexico. Respondent demonstrated that the ongoing violence in Mexico posed serious risk: however, Respondent failed to show that the risk to the children was grave. Respondent failed to show that the conditions in Guasaves, Sinaloa, Mexico, equated to a "zone of war, famine, or disease." Respondent's grave risk of harm defense based on the cartel violence in Mexico was denied.

Respondent presented evidence that Petitioner possibly over-consumed alcohol; possibly entertained late night visits by men seeking money; failed to provide a clean house for the children; did not have employment; failed to provide the children with properly fitting clothing and shoes with money supplied by Respondent; and failed to rid the children of lice infestation. At trial, much was made over an incident in which A.B. (female) was stung by a scorpion at approximately 10:00 p.m., while staying at her grandparents' home. The child was rushed to the local hospital for treatment. Petitioner could not be immediately located, however, Petitioner testified that once she learned of the scorpion incident she went to the hospital and found that A.B. (female) had already been released. Although the evidence presented did not paint Petitioner in a pleasant light, Respondent failed to present any evidence of serious neglect or abuse to satisfy the grave risk of harm exception. The grave risk of harm defense was not intended to be used by a respondent as a vehicle to litigate the child's best interests.

When a petition for return of child is commenced in a court after one year from the date of removal, the respondent can assert an affirmative defense and prevent removal back to the country of habitual residence if respondent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the child is now settled into the new environment. 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e)(2)(B); Convention, art. 12. Petitioner filed suit five months after the deadline. However, Respondent never raised the settled into new environment affirmative defense. Convention, art. 12. It was not raised in his answer, supplemental briefing, post-trial briefing, or at trial. Petitioner urged the Court to treat the Article 12 affirmative defense as waived because Respondent never asserted the defense. See Fed.R.Civ .P. 8(c)(1) (requiring parties to plead affirmative defenses)." Nevertheless the court held that Petitioner was never per se ambushed by an Article 12 settled into new environment defense because Respondent never raised the defense at any time over the course of the proceedings. Petitioner was well aware of the potential for an Article 12 affirmative defense based on the delayed filing of Petitioner's Verified Petition for Return of Children. However, the Court was mindful that by exercising its "contingent discretionary power" and examining Respondent's unpleaded Article 12 affirmative defense, Petitioner might be prejudiced by her inability to respond and assert a potentially viable equitable tolling defense, available to petitioners that fail to meet the one-year filing deadline under the Convention.

Through the exercise of the Court's "contingent discretionary power" to examine Respondent's settled into new environment affirmative defense under Article 12 of the Convention, it held that substantial evidence had not been presented to the Court to prove by a preponderance of evidence that C.G.B., C .D.B., and A.B. (female) were now settled into Crane, Texas; thus, there was no exception to return under the Convention. See 42 U.S.C. s 11603(e)(2)(B).

Respondent asserted that a default judgment divorce, entered by a Texas court on July 26, 2012, in which the Court awarded Respondent sole managing custody over the children was a defense to the return of C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) to their country of habitual residence-the Republic of Mexico. The court pointed out that the Convention provides that state court actions "shall not decide ... the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned" to the country of habitual residence in cases of wrongful removal under the Convention. Convention. art. 16. Furthermore, ICARA expressly prohibits a court from deciding the underlying merits of a custody dispute. 42 U.S.C. § 11601(b)(4). Under Article 17, that State cannot refuse to return a child solely on the basis of a court order awarding custody to the alleged wrongdoer made by one of its own courts or by the courts of another country. Significantly, the Court's determination that C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) were wrongfully removed from their country of habitual residence under the Convention preempted the default judgment in state court that awarded sole managing custody. Respondent's award of sole managing custody under the laws of Texas was no defense to the return C.G.B., C.D.B., and A.B. (female) to the Republic of Mexico. The Texas court did not have the authority to decide the custody of the children and assign Respondent sole managing custody while the suit for return of children under the Convention was pending. Convention, art. 16.

Aly v. Aden, 2013 WL 593420 (D. Mn) [Canada] [Habitual Residence] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Attorneys Fees & Costs Clearly Inappropriate] [Petition Granted]

[Canada] [Habitual Residence] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Attorneys Fees & Costs Clearly Inappropriate] [Petition Granted]


In Aly v. Aden, 2013 WL 593420 (D. Mn) petitioner Mohamed Aly Saad Aly filed a petition against respondent Amal Aden alleging that Aden wrongfully removed their child from Canada to the United States. Petitioner Aly was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt. Aly had been a permanent resident of Ontario, Canada since 2007, where he was pursuing a PhD in engineering at the University of Waterloo. Aly applied for Canadian citizenship, and his application was being processed. Aly supported himself financially with a stipend he received from serving as a research/teaching assistant at the University of Waterloo, a temporary position that would end when Aly completed his PhD. Respondent Aden was a United States citizen who was born in Somalia and immigrated to Minnesota in 1999. Aden received a Bachelor's Degree in nursing in 2007 and worked part-time at the Hennepin County Medical Center.

Aly and Aden were religiously married in an Islamic ceremony in April 2010. On June 7, 2011, the couple was civilly married in Canada. In May 2010, Aden moved from Minnesota to Ontario and began living with Aly in his apartment. Aden purchased a townhome in Minnesota in 2007, which she continued to rent to a tenant after moving to Canada. Her immigration status in Canada was one of a visiting American. Upon moving to Canada, Aden retained her Minnesota driver's license, and when it expired obtained a New York driver's license. In November 2010, Aly added Aden to the lease agreement for his apartment. In November 2010, Aden became pregnant with P.H.A.S.A. In December 2010, Aden began working as a nurse at Millard Fillmore Gates Hospital in Buffalo, New York. In January 2011, Aden alleged that she told Aly she wanted to separate. On February 27, 2011, Aly and Aden were involved in a violent incident. An argument began when Aly became upset that Aden did not make him lunch, and instead suggested that he prepare his own lunch. Aden alleged that the argument escalated verbally, and she began to pack her bags, planning to end the relationship with Aly and move out of the apartment. At this point, Aden alleged that Aly threw her onto the bed, punched her in the head several times, and lay on top of her. When Aden got off the bed, she alleged that Aly grabbed her by the shoulders to prevent her leaving the room and kneed her forcibly in the stomach.. Aly testified that as the verbal argument over the preparation of lunch escalated, Aden threatened him with a kitchen knife and also threatened to kill herself or stab her belly. Aly further alleged that he, not Aden, sought refuge in the bathroom. The Court found neither Aly's nor Aden's version of the events of February 27, 2011 to be entirely credible.

Aden testified that in July 2011 she and Aly were involved in another physical altercation, which arose out of a woman claiming to have married Aly in March 2011 contacting Aden. Aden packed her belongings, intending to leave, and Aly allegedly hit her in the head several times. Aden also alleged that Aly deleted instant messages in which he admitted that he hit her in the head in July 2011. Aly and Aden's daughter, P.H.A.S.A., was born on August 27, 2011, in Canada. Because Aden did not have health insurance in Canada, she was ultimately billed $13,000 for her delivery at the Canadian hospital. P.H.A.S.A. was a Canadian and an American citizen. And also had a United States passport and social security card. Aden returned to her nursing job at Millard in October 2011 and began working weekends. On weekends Aly would care for P.H.A.S.A. Aly and P.H .A.S.A. would accompany Aden to the Canadian border near Buffalo and stay at a bed and breakfast while Aden worked. Aden alleged that she "fear[ed] for [P.H.A.S.A.]'s safety" and "was terrified" when she went back to work and left P.H.A.S.A. in Aly's custody. The Court found this testimony to be not credible. Aden consistently left P.H.A.S.A. in the sole care of Aly. These actions were inconsistent with Aden's alleged terror. This was particularly true in light of Aden's history of a willingness and ability to leave Aly. Aden made no allegations that P.H.A.S.A. was harmed physically, psychologically, or emotionally while in the sole custody of Aly. Prior to April 26, 2012, P.H.A.S.A. attended all of her medical appointments in Canada, including specialist appointments for a possible genetic disease. In February 2012, Aden entered into another rental agreement with the tenant for her Minnesota townhome. The agreement granted the tenant a lease through April 30, 2013.



On April 25, 2012, Aly and Aden had an argument during which Aden told Aly she wanted to separate. Aden alleged that while she was holding P.H.A.S.A. Aly slapped Aden in the face. Aden alleged that this was the seventh time Aly had physically assaulted her. Aden testified that Aly then grabbed P.H.A.S.A. from Aden's arms and threw P.H.A.S.A. into the corner of the room .P.H.A.S.A. landed on the floor and began crying hysterically according to Aden's account of the evening. Aly denied all of the allegations of the April 25, 2011 event, and specifically denied that he threw P.H.A.S.A. across the room. The next day, April 26, 2011, Aden took P.H.A.S.A. to a doctor's appointment in Hamilton City, Ontario, that had previously been scheduled. Aden brought the bags she had packed the previous night. The Court again found neither party's testimony regarding the events of April 25 to be entirely credible. It found Aden's testimony credible to the extent that it believed a verbal argument erupted between the parties and that Aly did become physically violent toward Aden. The Court, however, found Aden's testimony that Aly grabbed P.H.A.S.A. from Aden's arms and threw her across the room to be not credible because Aden, a trained nurse, did not seek medical attention for her eight-month-old child after the child was allegedly thrown across the room. Additionally, the Court believed that if the allegations were true Aden would have mentioned the incident at P.H.A.S.A's doctor's appointment the next day, since Aden's conduct on February 27, 2011, showed that she was not afraid to report incidents of domestic abuse. Finally, the Court found the testimony not credible to the extent that an eight-month-old child grabbed forcibly from someone's arms and thrown across a room, landing on the floor, would likely have sustained some injuries visible to a doctor at an appointment that occurred the day after the incident.



After P.H.A.S.A.'s doctor's appointment, Aden drove with the child to Buffalo, New York. Aden withdrew her final paycheck from Millard and began driving to Minnesota. Aden and P.H.A.S.A. arrived in Minnesota on April 27, 2012. Aden sent Aly an instant message informing him that she and P.H.A.S.A. had arrived safely in Minnesota. Aden's townhome tenant made other living arrangements, and Aden and P.H.A.S.A. eventually moved into this home.

Aden alleged that Aly approved of the practice of female genital mutilation Aden also alleged that Aly asked Aden to take P.H.A.S.A. to Aden's mother, who lived in Kenya, to have the child undergo FGM. Aden testified that Aly then stated that if Aden's mother would not do the procedure, Aly would take P.H.A.S.A. to his mother in Egypt to have the procedure done. Aly denied that he approved of FGM or that he would subject P .H.A.S.A. to FGM and instead alleged that Aden's mother and Aden herself had been advocates of subjecting P.H.A.S.A. to the procedure.(Aden presented expert testimony from Elizabeth Boyle about the practice of FGM. Aly presented expert testimony from Mr. Abed Awad, an expert on Islamic law, about the practice of FGM. FGM is associated with physical and psychological harm. FGM can cause, among other things, hemorrhaging, infection, and complications with childbirth, as well as anxiety disorders, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. FGM is not a practice mandated by Islam. And the mainstream Islamic organizations' position is that the practice is unIslamic. FGM is not an accepted or prevalent practice in North America and is illegal in both Canada and the United States. Dr. Jeffrey Edelson holds a PhD in social work, and provided expert testimony regarding the likelihood of future domestic violence based on a perpetrator's history. He opined that "there is a grave risk of physical harm and psychological harm to the infant [P.H.A.S.A.] involved in this case ... [s]hould she be returned" to Canada.

The parties did not dispute that in April 2012 Aly was exercising a right of custody over P.H.A.S.A. Ontario law provides that "the father and the mother of a child are equally entitled to custody of the child." Children's Law Reform Act, R. S.O.1990, c. C.12, s. 20(1). The court pointed out that a child's habitual residence is "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). "[S]ettled purpose need not be to stay in a ... location forever, but the family must have a' sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled. " Silverman, 338 F.3d at 898 (quoting Feder, 63 F.3d at 223).7 In determining whether a particular place satisfies the standard for habitual residence, "[t]he child's perspective should be paramount," and "[p]arental intent is not dispositive." Stern, 639 F.3d at 452. Finally, habitual residence is determined by examining "past experience, not future intentions." Nunez–Escudero v. Tice–Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir.1995). This case involved a different question than the typical Convention case. Rather than determining whether there was a change in habitual residence, the Court had to determine whether eight-month-old P.H.A.S.A. ever established a habitual residence in Canada before being removed to the United States. In cases where the parents lack a settled intent to reside together at the time of the child's birth, the infant may not acquire a habitual residence in the country in which she is born. However, "where a matrimonial home exists, i.e., where both parents share a settled intent to reside, determining the habitual residence of an infant presents no particular problem, it simply calls for application of the analysis under the Convention with which courts have become familiar." Under these circumstances, even very young infants can acquire a habitual residence. The Court found that P.H.A.S.A. was a habitual resident of Canada prior to her removal. Aly and Aden were married in Canada before P.H.A. S.A.'s birth. At the time of their daughter's birth Aly and Aden had lived together in a Canadian apartment for over fifteen months. Both Aly and Aden were obligated on the lease, which extended through May 31, 2012. P.H .A.S.A. was born in Canada, acquired Canadian citizenship, and lived in Canada for eight months before being removed to the United States. Prior to her removal, P.H.A.S.A. had never been to the United States. All of these facts indicated that Aly and Aden shared a settled intent to reside with P.H.A.S.A. in their matrimonial home in Canada.That Aden retained numerous ties with the United States did not alter the Court's conclusion that P.H.A.S.A. was a habitual resident of Canada. Although P .H.A.S.A. was only eight months old when she was removed from Canada, unlike cases involving very young infants, there was evidence suggesting some degree of acclimatization. In eight months, P.H.A.S .A. had never been outside of Canada. P.H.A.S.A. had begun to form important contacts in Canada. P.H.A.S.A. was a Canadian citizen and was the recipient of Canadian child benefits. Moreover, P.H.A.S.A. attended all of her doctor's appointments in Canada, including several visits to specialists related to a possible genetic disorder.



Aden argued that returning P.H.A.S.A. to Canada would put the child at a grave risk of physical and psychological harm because of Aly's history of abuse and desire to subject P.H.A.S.A. to FGM. "[S]erious abuse or neglect" can qualify as a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b)." Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886, 900 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) The grave risk inquiry is narrow in scope, and "there must be evidence of a grave risk of harm to [the] child, not solely to a parent or some other third party." Acosta v. Acosta, Civ. No. 12–342, 2012 WL 2178982, at *7 (D. Minn. June 14, 2012). "[B]ecause the Hague Convention provides only a provisional, short-term remedy in order to permit long-term custody proceedings to take place in the home jurisdiction, the grave-risk inquiry should be concerned only with the degree of harm that could occur in the immediate future." Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1037 (9th Cir.2005).The petitioner cannot rely on generalized evidence but must produce "specific evidence of potential harm." Rydder, 49 F.3d at 373.

With respect to physical and psychological abuse, where the child herself has been subjected directly to serious physical and psychological abuse, the grave risk defense is typically met. See Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 161–62 (2d Cir.2001) (explaining that where "the child faces a real risk of being hurt, physically or psychologically" the grave risk of harm exception is met).Typically, however, "general evidence concerning abuse of the mother is not sufficient to establish the Article 13(b) exception that return will expose the child to a grave risk of harm." . A petitioner must demonstrate a connection between the harm to her in returning to the home country and a risk to the child. See Abbott, 130 S.Ct. at 1997. The Court concluded that Aden has failed to demonstrate that P.H.A.S.A. would face a grave risk of harm if she was returned to Canada. The Court found Aden's allegations that P.H.A.S.A. would face a grave risk of physical or psychological harm at the hands of Aly were either not credible or fail to meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence required by the grave risk exception.

The Court fouond that Aly had not directly abused P.H.A.S.A. as it found Aden's testimony alleging that Aly threw P.H.A.S.A. across the room and kneed Aden in the stomach while she was pregnant to be insufficiently credible to satisfy the heightened standard for establishing the grave risk exception. It found that Aly physically abused Aden on at least four occasions—in the fall of 2010, on February 27, 2011, in July 2011, and on April 25, 2012. However, the Court found Aden's testimony regarding the severity of the February and April violent episodes to be exaggerated. The incidents in the fall of 2010 and July 2011 involved some pushing and slapping. These isolated instances of abuse aimed at the mother did not rise to the level of severity required to meet the grave risk exception, which focuses on a grave risk of harm to the child that would occur prior to the resolution of a custody dispute and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, Aly's abuse was not characterized by prolonged violent outbursts. Aly's outbursts of rage were short-lived, and after becoming physically violent he would immediately become calm and resume normal life activities. Finally, and most importantly, the Court found that these incidents of violence had not directly impacted P.H.A.S.A. This violence was not perpetrated against P.H.A.S.A., and only one incident allegedly occurred in P.H.A.S.A.'s presence. Additionally, the Court found the allegations that Aly would subject P.H.A.S.A. to FGM to be too speculative to demonstrate a grave risk of physical and psychological harm by clear and convincing evidence. Although subjecting P.H.A.S.A. to FGM would clearly constitute a grave harm, the grave risk inquiry focuses on "immediate" risks. At most, the record contained allegations that Aly believed in the practice and has expressed a desire to subject his daughter to the procedure, potentially by taking her to Egypt. None of the female members of Aly's family had undergone the procedure, suggesting that immediate family pressure was not an issue. The record did not reflect that Aly would be able to obtain this procedure in the United State or Canada, which the Court found mitigated any immediate risk to P.H.A.S.A. Aly was not currently in possession of P .H.A.S.A.'s passport. Should Aly's alleged desire to subject P. H.A. S.A. to FGM manifest itself into actual plans to carry out the procedure, the Court believed that the Canadian court was equipped to prevent this occurrence. Further, the Court found that the generalized evidence presented by Aden about Aly's controlling behavior and disrespect toward women was insufficient to establish that P.H.A.S.A. would be subjected to a grave risk of psychological harm if she was returned to Canada for purposes of resolving Aly and Aden's custody dispute. Although Aly's apparent devaluation of women was troubling, the Court did not find that these views would subject P.H.A.S.A. to grave psychological harm in the period of time that custody proceedings are pending in Canada. Moreover, courts in the abducted-from country, Canada, were as ready and able as we are to protect children.

Aly requested that the Court award all legal costs, fees, and travel expenses incurred in securing the return of P.H.A.S.A pursuant to the Article 26 of the Convention, and pursuant to ICARA, which provides that any court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under section 11603 of this title shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses and costs unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate." 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3).

Although Aden was employed on a part-time basis, she demonstrated that due to her monthly income and expenditures, paying Aly's attorneys' fees and costs would present a financial hardship. Additionally, Aden's financial situation was affected by the $13,000 hospital bill for P.H.A. S.A.'s delivery that was still outstanding, an expense that Aden incurred on behalf of both herself and Aly. Moreover, the Court found that at least some of Aden's current financial hardship was due to the control that Aly exerted over her funds while Aden was living in Canada, including Aly naming himself as the recipient of P.H.A. S.A.'s Canadian Child Benefits. That Aly contributed to Aden's straitened financial circumstances made an award of fees to Aly inappropriate. Finally, the Court found that Aly "bears at least some responsibility for the acrimony between the parties." The Court determined that Aly did not provide truthful testimony, and was physically and verbally abusive toward respondent. These factors were appropriately considered in determining whether a fee award would be appropriate. In light of Aden's financial circumstances, an award of fees could compromise Aden's ability to care for P.H.A.S.A. The Court therefore found that an award of attorneys' fees and costs was clearly inappropriate.

Matas-Vidal v. Libbey-Aguilera, 2013 WL 3995300 (D.Utah) [Mexico] [Well-Settled] [Age and Maturity] [Petition Denied]

　

In Matas-Vidal v. Libbey-Aguilera, 2013 WL 3995300 (D.Utah) on June 7, 2013 Juan Pablo Matas-Vidal filed a Petition for Return against Respondent Susan Consuelo Libbey-Aguilera, also known as Brooke Robinson, who was the mother of the children,

At the same time, he filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Cause, Writ of Assistance, and Request for Immediate Return of Minor Children. On June 7, 2013, the court granted the Motion for a TRO and entered an Order which, among other things, prohibited Ms. Libbey-Aguilera from interfering with the children being taken into protective custody.

Petitioner and Respondent were married in Mexico City on June 26, 1999.  Petitioner was a Mexican national, and Respondent had dual citizenship in Mexico and the United States, as her father was a United States citizen and her mother was a Mexican citizen. SM-L was born in Mexico City in May 2001, and RM-L was born in Mexico City in November 2003. At some point when the children were very young, the couple discussed the possibility of moving to the United States, but that
possibility never came to fruition because Petitioner could not find adequate-paying work in the United States. The children were granted United States citizenship in 2005. In October 2006, Ms. Libbey-Aguilera purchased a condominium in San Antonio, Texas and sometimes visited there. For the duration of their marriage, however, Petitioner, Respondent, and their two children always lived in Mexico City. They lived there until the time Ms. Libbey-Aguilera removed the children from Mexico to Utah in December 2010. Petitioner filed for divorce in early October 2007 in Mexico City. On October 16, 2007, the Mexican court issued an Order barring the removal of the children from Mexico. On December 14, 2007, after a mediation on December 11, 2007, the court ordered that Ms. Libbey-Aguilera would be granted the provisional physical custody of the children at their marital domicile. Petitioner would have visits on Saturdays and Sundays every other week from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. at the Supervised Visitation and Socialization Center. It was also ordered that Mr. Matas-Vidal may socialize with his children on holidays, the children's birthdays, and fifty percent of school vacations, with prior notice and mutual agreement of both parties. The December 14, 2007 Order again prohibited Respondent from taking the children out of Mexico. On June 30, 2010, the Mexican court issued an order granting "custodia definitiva " to Respondent argued that the Order granted her "sole custody" and dissolved any restrictions on her travel outside of Mexico. Petitioner, however, provided evidence that the English translation of "custodia definitiva" is not "sole custody," as that term is understood in the United States, and he also provided evidence that, because he still had custody rights, Respondent was still prohibited from leaving Mexico. The June 30, 2010 Order provided that Mr. Matas-Vidal "has the obligation and essential human right to visit and go out with his children... on Saturdays and Sundays ... every other weekend. Visitations shall begin on Saturdays at 10 AM and end on Sundays at 6 PM." These visits were not ordered to take place at the Supervised Visitation and Socialization Center. Mr. Matas-Vidal was to "pick the  children up at they place where they live with their mother and return them to the same place."

On November 25, 2010, a bifurcated decree of divorce was entered. Thus, the divorce had become final, but the issue of child custody and support were still being litigated. During the custody litigation, Petitioner exercised all visitation awarded to him by the Mexican court. He regularly exercised his right of access until the children were removed from Mexico. On January 8, 2011 and January 9, 2011, he went to the Supervised Family Interaction Center but Ms. Libbey-Aguilera and the boys did not show up. He then confirmed that they no longer lived at their marital home and was informed by the boys' school that, as of December 16, 2010, the boys had stopped attending school. In December 2010, Respondent surreptitiously removed the children from Mexico to the United States. She came directly to Orem, Utah and enrolled the children in school on December 21, 2010.

On January 7, 2011, after Respondent had removed the children from Mexico, the Mexican appeals court revoked the June 30, 2010 Order. On February 9, 2011, in the District Court for the Seventh Judicial District in the State of Idaho, Respondent had her name legally changed to Brooke Robinson, claiming that she needed to change her name because she was "divorcing her husband and am seeking to avoid being located by my husband for the reason he has threatened to kill me and my family." Respondent and her two children had been living in Orem, Utah from December 2010 through the present time. Petitioner had been looking for his children since he realized they were gone in January 2011. The Petition was filed on June 7, 2013.

The court found that that the Convention applied to this dispute. SM-L and RM-L were both under 16 years old; they were habitual residents of Mexico; and both Mexico and the United States are contracting states. The children were "wrongfully removed" from Mexico, in violation of a right of custody. The children were born in Mexico City and never lived anywhere other than Mexico until Respondent removed them to the United States in December 2010. The court also concluded that the removal was in breach of Petitioner's custody rights under Mexican law and that Petitioner was exercising those rights at the time of removal. Although Respondent claims that she was awarded "sole custody" and that any restraints on her ability to take the children across the border were dissolved, the court did not agree. The July 9, 2010 Order stated that Respondent was given "custodia definitiva," but that is not the same thing as "sole custody," as discussed below. Moreover, both parties appealed that order in August 2010. Under Mexican law, the challenged order had no effect, so the ne exeat order from October 16, 2007 remained in effect. Because the June 30, 2010 order was being appealed, and because custody was still subject to litigation, the interim ne exeat order from October 16, 2007 continued to apply. Regardless of which Order applied, however, Petitioner had intrinsic ne exeat rights barring the children's removal pursuant to Mexico's Civil Code.

The Court rejected Respondents contention that there was a grave risk that return of the children would expose them to physical and/or psychological harm. While Respondent alleged that she and the children were victims of domestic violence, the court was not persuaded that these allegations were entirely true. Moreover, the records submitted from the Supervised Visitation Center suggested that, at first, the children did not exhibit any fear or reluctance to see their father. Indeed, they appeared to demonstrate a warm, loving, and playful interaction. Over time, however, they seemed to develop more hesitation about seeing him, which he blamed on Ms. Libbey-Aguilera's efforts to alienate the children from him. The reason the children most often gave to the supervisors about their reluctance to visit with their father was that his breath was bad. It seemed unlikely that the children would provide such an answer if they were actually subjected to physical or psychological abuse, and it was puzzling that the children did not appear to have any reluctance to see their father during the
beginning weeks or months of their supervised visits. The court found that even if there were a grave risk she had not demonstrated that Mexican courts would be incapable of providing adequate protection. Thus, the court concluded that Article 13 "grave risk" defense did not apply in this case.

The Respondent raised the Article 12 well settled defense. The default presumption under the Convention is that a child shall be returned to the state from which he originally was wrongfully removed unless both of two conditions are met: (1) one year has elapsed between the date of wrongful removal and the date proceedings commence; and (2) the child is found to be "now settled in its new environment." Loranzo v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41, 51 (2nd Cir.2012). SM-L and RM-L had been in Utah since late December, 2010-for over two and one-half years. The court found that they were both very well settled. And given the boys' ages, 12 and 9 ½, respectively, these thirty-plus months had been meaningful to the boys. They had been consistently enrolled in school since January 2011. They missed very few days during those two school years, and their academic success had been remarkable. Both boys had many friends, caring neighbors, and fellow LDS church members with whom they had  formed close bonds. Their maternal grandmother also frequently cared for them. The children were active in their church, in boy scouts (or cub scouts for RM-L), and they were on a competitive swim team. SM-L is also on a soccer team. Many friends and neighbors have provided glowing letters about Respondent and the boys, and attesting to the boys' happiness and stable environment. Their mother had also been consistently employed since March 2011 and appeared to be financially stable. They boys both spoke fluent English and appeared to have adjusted well to their
living situation. Given the outpouring of support for the boys and Respondent, both in terms of having friends and neighbors attend the two court hearings and in submitting letters to the court, there was no question that these two boys were surrounded by a loving and supportive community and that the boys were thriving in their current environment. They were indeed settled in their new environment.

The Court rejected Petitioner’s argument that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year period for the filing of his Hague petition and that the Article 12 defense is therefore inapplicable. While the court agreed that Respondent concealed the boys, that such concealment delayed Petitioner's ability to file a petition, and that he filed his petition within one year after he finally learned of their location, the court declined to apply equitable tolling to the one-year mandatory return period. The Court agreed with the Second Circuit (Loranzo v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41, 51 (2nd Cir.2012), cert. granted in part, 133 S.Ct. 2851 (June 24, 2013) ) and other district courts that have found that the purpose of the one-year mandatory return period is not to provide a deadline for a petitioner to assert a claim but rather is to put a limit on the uprooting of a settled child. Thus, the court declined to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to the Article 12 "well-settled" defense.

The Court observed that the Hague Convention provides that "[t]he judicial or administrative authority [considering a petition] may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views." Hague Convention, art. 13. In this case, SM-L was twelve-years old and would start seventh grade next month. RM-L would be ten-years old in three months and would soon start fourth grade. The court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and maturity of both children during the court's in camera interview of each of them. They both demonstrated a high level of maturity in answering the court's questions-answering the questions in an articulate, thoughtful, and respectful manner. They were both good students with strong academic records. They both expressed a strong desire to remain in Utah and had particular objections to returning to Mexico. They confirmed that they enjoyed going to school here, were involved in church and several sports activities, and had many friends here. Both boys became visibly distraught when the court discussed the court's task of evaluating whether they should be returned to Mexico. The response of both boys appeared to be purely genuine-not concocted or rehearsed in any way.

Additionally, the boys were adamant about not wanting to have a supervised visit their father while he was in town for the court proceeding. The court found that the boys were of an appropriate age and maturity such that it was appropriate for the court to take into account their desire to not return to Mexico. The court recognizes that the boys had spent the past two years solely with their mother and maternal grandmother, and that this circumstance had undoubtedly had an impact on their desire to stay with their mother in Utah. It was also possible that their mother negatively colored the boys' view of their father. Here, while the children's objections to returning to Mexico could be due to the mother's possible undue influence over them, the court found that this possible undue influence was not the only reason the children desired not to return to Mexico, and thus, the court declined to ignore their wishes. The children appeared to be genuinely happy and thriving in their current situation. The court was convinced that the return of these children to Mexico City would severely traumatize these children. The Petition was denied.

Acosta v Acosta--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 3970239 (C.A.8 (Minn.)) [Peru][Grave Risk of Harm] [Expert opinion] [Petition Denied]

In Acosta v Acosta--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 3970239 (C.A.8 (Minn.)) Ricardo Acosta filed a petition in Minnesota seeking the return of his children to Peru. The district court denied Ricardo's petition, finding that although the children's mother, Anne Acosta , had wrongfully retained the children in the United States, returning the children to Peru would expose them to a grave risk of harm.

On appel Ricardo challenged the district court's credibility determinations but did not otherwise dispute its findings of fact. Ricardo, a Peruvian citizen, married Anne, a United States citizen, in Minnesota in November 2002. After their wedding, the couple made their home in the United States. Anne gave birth to the couple's first child, M.A.A., in February 2003. In the summer of 2006, the Acostas moved to Lima, Peru, where Anne began working at the Roosevelt School. Anne gave birth to the couple's second child, E.T.A., in August 2007. During their marriage, Ricardo verbally abused Anne in the children's presence. He told her that she looked like a "hippopotamus" and called her a "fucking bitch." He also lost his temper and became violent. On one occasion, Ricardo became angry with M.A.A. for talking back and pushed him down onto a bed. On another occasion in 2008 or 2009, Ricardo was driving with Anne and the children when a taxi cut them off. Ricardo forced the taxi to a stop, struck the taxi driver, and shattered the taxi's windshield with a theft-deterrent tool used to lock the family car's steering wheel.

While living in Peru, M.A.A. attended the Roosevelt School. The principal at the Roosevelt School, testified that M.A.A. exhibited significant behavior problems, including telling his teachers that he wanted to kill himself. The principal testified that M.A.A.'s behavior problems were the third most severe she had seen in her nineteen years of teaching. M.A.A. was referred to therapy but ceased attending after only two or three sessions because Ricardo felt that the family could not afford it and believed, based on his own experiences, that therapy was ineffective.

By late 2010, the couple's relationship had deteriorated. They were seeing a  counselor and sleeping in separate rooms. Anne testified that she was afraid of Ricardo  and unhappy in her marriage. In November 2010, the couple agreed that Anne and the  children would go to Minnesota to be with Anne's family over the holidays. Anne's parents urged Ricardo to join the family for the holidays, but he remained in  Peru. Anne and the children left on December 23, 2010, and were scheduled to return
to Peru on February 16, 2011. Anne’s father Stephen noticed that M.A.A. had violent outbursts, wet his bed at night, and said he wished he were dead. Stephen testified that M.A.A. had since enrolled in therapy and that his behavior had improved.

By early February 2011, Anne had told Ricardo that she wanted a divorce and that  she and the children would not be returning to Peru. Anne and her brother, Jeffrey  Campbell (Jeffrey), traveled to Peru on February 11, 2011, to gather her and the  children's belongings from the apartment she and Ricardo had shared. Anne and Jeffrey asked two of Anne's coworkers-Elizabeth Norton LeBoo and Jacob Johansen to accompany them. Anne, Jeffrey, LeBoo, and Johansen arrived at the apartment on
February 13, 2011. Anne called Ricardo from the apartment and told him that she was packing her things. Ricardo reacted badly, telling Anne and Jeffrey that he loved his family and that he was going to kill himself. Ricardo thereafter arrived at the apartment building in a rage, crashing his car into a pole and smashing a window of the taxi waiting for Anne and the others. To prevent Ricardo from entering the apartment, Jeffrey and Johansen tried to hold the apartment door shut. Ricardo kicked it to pieces and forced his way inside. After entering the apartment, Ricardo began throwing items at Anne. Thereafter, he grabbed a knife from the kitchen and chased the men while Anne and LeBoo retreated to a back room. Ricardo chased Johansen outside, where he cut Johansen's leg with the knife. Ricardo returned to the apartment, where he brandished the knife towards Jeffrey, who had backed into a corner. Jeffrey testified that he had begged for his life, believing Ricardo was going to kill him. Jeffrey described Ricardo's appearance as looking like "an enraged doppelganger."
Returning his focus to Anne, Ricardo forced his way into the room where she and LeBoo had hidden. Ricardo then first battered LeBoo and then Anne, notwithstanding the arrival of the police, who stood passively by until finally taking action to restrain Ricardo. Following the melee, Anne and her companions took an ambulance to a hospital, where she and Johansen received stitches for the injuries they had suffered at Ricardo's hands. The district court found that in the midst of the melee Ricardo had placed a cell phone call to Susan, in which "[i]n a profanity-laced tirade, he threatened to kill Susan Campbell, Stephen Campbell, Jeffrey Campbell, Anne, and Anne's sister."That evening, Ricardo called Harrington and said that he was going to come to the Roosevelt School and kill Anne with a knife. The following day, Ricardo or someone acting at his direction attempted to gain access to LeBoo's residence.

Anne returned to the United States on February 15, 2011. In the weeks following the altercation at the apartment, Ricardo called Stephen and Susan numerous times,  leaving threatening voicemails, in one of which he stated, "I'll kill your kids because  she's taking my babies away. And, I promise you, your daughter is going to be killed because she is taking my kids away."In a live conversation with Susan, Ricardo threatened to kill M.A.A., E.T.A., and himself.

Shortly after returning from Peru, Anne met with officers from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, following which a warrant was issued for Ricardo's arrest. In early March 2011, Ricardo initiated a custody action for the children in Peru. In May 2011, Ricardo traveled to Miami, Florida, where he was arrested on the  Minnesota warrant. Ricardo was then extradited to Minnesota, where he pleaded guilty  to making terroristic threats. Ricardo returned to Peru to serve his probation. Ricardo was allowed to visit with his children via video conference, which he did on only one occasion.

Ricardo filed this action in February 2012. Stephen and Susan moved to dismiss Ricardo's claim against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). During the evidentiary hearing on these matters, the district court heard testimony  from several witnesses, including Ricardo, Anne, Stephen, Jeffrey, Susan, LeBoo, and Harrington. The district court also heard testimony from Dr. Jeffrey Edleson, a professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota and who was the founding director of the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse. Over Ricardo's objection, Dr. Edleson testified that several factors indicated that returning the children to Peru would expose them to a high risk of harm. Specifically, Dr. Edleson cited: 1) Ricardo's history of violence; 2) the escalating severity of Ricardo's violent acts, including his assault of Anne in the presence of others on February 13, 2011; 3) Ricardo's threats to kill Anne and her family, including E.T.A. and M.A.A.; 4) Ricardo's threat to commit suicide; and 5) Ricardo's estrangement from Anne. Dr. Edleson also testified that M.A.A.'s behavioral problems were consistent with exposure to domestic violence and that he believed M .A.A. to be exhibiting signs of depression.

At the close of evidence the district court granted Stephen and Susan's motion to dismiss, found that the children had been wrongfully retained in the United States, and ruled that Anne had failed to prove her Article 20 affirmative defense by clear and convincing evidence. In its subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of law, however, the district court found that the children would face a grave risk of physical and psychological harm if they were returned to Peru, and it thus denied Ricardo's petition.

　

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It observed that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. It provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. 

It rejected Ricardo’s argument that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Dr. Edleson's testimony because the testimony was uncorroborated and generic in nature and because it relied on facts in controversy. Generally such a challenge goes to the credibility of the expert testimony, rather than its admissibility. Only if the expert's opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury must such testimony be excluded." The court found that the factual basis for Dr. Edleson's testimony was sufficient. In preparation for his court appearance, Dr. Edleson interviewed Anne and M.A.A. and reviewed a myriad of documents and evidence, including the following: treatment summaries from M.A.A.'s therapist, summaries of Ricardo's supervised visitation with the children, notes from school teachers about the children's behavior, various court filings, and the threatening voice messages Ricardo left for Susan. As to Ricardo's concern that Dr. Edleson's opinions reflected only Anne's side of the story, Dr. Edleson clearly stated the factual basis for his opinions and was subjected to cross-examination on this issue. Ricardo failed to identify any specific facts that he believed were uncorroborated, and the factual basis for Dr. Edleson's opinions found ample support in the testimony of Anne, Jeffrey, Susan, Stephen, Harrington, and LeBoo. Dr. Edleson's testimony was not generic; he applied his expertise to the specific facts of this case when he opined that several factors indicated that returning the children to Peru would subject them to a high risk of harm. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony.

The Eighth Circuit observed that a grave risk of harm may exist in cases involving "serious abuse or neglect." Vasquez v. Colores, 648 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir.2011). Ricardo argueds that the facts of this case do not support a finding of a grave risk of harm and that the district court abused its discretion by failing to order "undertakings."

The district court found that Ricardo's violent temper and inability to cope with the prospect of losing custody of the children would expose the children to a grave risk of  harm were they returned to Peru. It found that "it is highly probable that Ricardo will  react with violence, threats, or other verbal abuse towards the children, Anne, or  others." Ricardo contended that this finding was erroneous because the majority of his violent conduct was in response to Anne's abduction of the children. Although it did not condone Anne's decision to retain the children in Minnesota without Ricardo's consent,

her conduct in doing so did not preclude it from considering Ricardo's violent response at the apartment. Ricardo's rage continued unabated for at least a week after  the altercation, during which he made multiple threats to kill Anne and her family. Ricardo's violent behavior when cut off by a taxi demonstrated his inability to control his temper in circumstances much less provocative than those that existed during the incident at the apartment. Although there was little evidence that Ricardo physically abused the children, the lack of such evidence did not necessarily render Article 13b inapplicable. See Baran v. Beaty, 526 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir.2008). The proper focus under Article 13b is whether returning the children to Peru would expose them to a grave risk of harm. The evidence presented to the district court supported its finding that Ricardo's inability to control his temper outbursts presents a significant danger that he would act irrationally towards himself and his children. Ricardo's assault of the taxi driver in his children's presence, his verbal abuse of Anne in their presence, and his shoving of M.A.A. demonstrate that Ricardo was either unwilling or unable to shield the children from his rage. His telephonically expressed threats to kill the children and then himself were further evidence of his extremely unstable nature. A written description of those telephone calls did not begin to convey the chilling intensity of Ricardo's rage that the recorded calls themselves communicated. Given Ricardo's violent temper and his disregard for protecting the children from its consequences, "it would be irresponsible to think the risk to the children less than grave."

The Court rejected Ricardo’s argument that finding a grave risk of harm based on the above-described facts would allow courts to refuse to return a child whenever there is any indication of domestic violence, no matter how slight. "The gravity of a risk involves not only the probability of harm, but also the magnitude of the harm if the probability materializes." The probability that Ricardo will lose his temper and harm the children should they be returned to Peru for a custody determination was high, for as the district court found, "The evidence shows that Ricardo does not have the emotional fortitude to acknowledge custody of his children may ultimately be with Anne." Ricardo's testimony and voice messages indicated that he wanted the children returned to his care. A Peruvian court's order to the contrary likely could cause Ricardo to become violent and harm the children. Dr. Edleson's testimony that there was a high risk that Ricardo would abuse the children in the future, including the possibility of homicide, further supported this determination. These facts distinguish this case from those in which courts have declined to find a grave risk of harm.

The Court rejected Ricardo’s argument that the district court abused this discretion when it declined to return the children to Peru because "undertakings," or conditions on the children's return, would ameliorate any risk of harm. When a grave risk of harm to a child exists as a result of a violent parent, courts have been reluctant to rely on undertakings to protect the child. As the petitioner proffering the undertaking, Ricardo bears the burden of proof. Ricardo did not make a specific proposal for appropriate undertakings before the district court. Ricardo's attack on Anne and LeBoo in the presence of the police indicated that any undertaking ordered by a foreign court might well not deter him from engaging in violence towards the children or others if confronted with a temper-igniting situation Given these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to return the children to Peru.