Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Vieira v DeSouza, 2021 WL 2980729 (D. Mass, 2021) [Brazil] [Habitual Residence] [Petition granted][Grave risk of harm not established]

 

Vieira v DeSouza,  2021 WL 2980729 (D. Mass, 2021)

[Brazil] [Habitual Residence] [Petition granted][Grave risk of harm not established]

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Ho v Ho, 2021 WL 2915161 (N.D. Illinois,2021) [New Zealand][Habitual residence][Rights of Custody][Petition granted] [Grave Risk of Harm not established]

 

Ho v  Ho, 2021 WL 2915161 (N.D. Illinois,2021)  

[New Zealand][Habitual residence][Rights of Custody][Petition granted] [Grave Risk of Harm not established]

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Hart v Anderson, 2021 WL 2826774 ( D. Maryland, 2021) [France] Necessary Expenses] [Denied] [Clearly inappropriate] [Award would impair respondent’s ability to care for child][Unclean hands]

 Hart v Anderson, 2021 WL 2826774 ( D. Maryland, 2021)

[France] Necessary Expenses] [Denied] [Clearly inappropriate] [Award would impair  respondent’s ability to care for  child][Unclean hands]

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Sain v Sain, 2021 WL 2784324 (M.D. Florida, 2021) [United Kingdom] [Habitual residence][Petition denied]

 Sain v Sain, 2021 WL 2784324 (M.D. Florida, 2021)

[United Kingdom] [Habitual residence][Petition denied]

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Berenguela- Alvarado v Castanos, 2020 WL 10055693 ( S.D. Florida, 2020). [Chile][On remand from Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. vacating District Court Order Denying Petition for Return and remanding for further proceedings to reassess Respondent’s consent defense under the proper legal framework articulated by the Eleventh Circuit] [Petition granted] .

 Berenguela- Alvarado v Castanos, 2020 WL 10055693 ( S.D. Florida, 2020).

[Chile][On remand from Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. vacating District Court Order Denying Petition for Return and remanding for further proceedings to reassess Respondent’s consent defense under the proper legal framework articulated by the Eleventh Circuit] [Petition granted] .

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Nowlan v Nowlan, 2021 WL 2379815 ( W.D. Virginia, 2021) [Canada] [Habitual residence ] [Petition granted] [Grave risk of harm].

 Nowlan v Nowlan, 2021 WL 2379815 ( W.D. Virginia, 2021)

[Canada] [Habitual residence ] [Petition granted] [Grave risk of harm].

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Kenny v. Davis, 2021 WL 2275983 (D. Alaska, 2021) [Republic of Ireland] [Habitual Residence] [ Petition Denied]

 

Kenny v. Davis, 2021 WL 2275983 (D. Alaska, 2021)

[Republic of Ireland] [Habitual Residence] [ Petition Denied]

 

Alvarez Romero v Gajardo Bahamonde, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2021 WL 2104855 ( Eleventh Circuit, 2021)[Chile] [Petition denied][Mature Child][Well-Settled][Grave Risk of Harm]

 In Alvarez Romero v Gajardo Bahamonde, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2021 WL 2104855 ( Eleventh Circuit, 2021) Rodrigo Andres Alvarez Romero appealed the district court’s denial of his petition for return of his minor children to Chile. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.  

ABB and PDCB were Alvarez Romero and Maria Eugenia Gajardo Bahamonde’s minor daughters. ABB was born in 2006 and PDCB was born in 2013. Alvarez Romero and Gajardo Bahamonde were citizens of Chile and had never been married. Their children were born in Chile. Gajardo Bahamonde, ABB, and Mauricio Loyola (Gajardo Bahamonde’s son from a prior relationship) testified that Alvarez Romero frequently abused Gajardo Bahamonde emotionally and physically, including beating her so severely she had a miscarriage. Because ABB and PDCB witnessed the abuse, the Chilean Family Court ordered them to undergo mental health treatment. In the treatment program, both children were diagnosed with “mild psycho-affective damage” due to the abuse they saw their father inflict on their mother. This abuse included an incident when Alvarez Romero broke her nose and another when he knocked her unconscious while the children were lying beside her in bed. Loyola testified that Alvarez Romero was often verbally and physically abusive to Gajardo Bahamonde in front of the children. He said that Alvarez Romero would hit his mother, call her “a whore,” and say she was worth less than him because “he was an engineer and she was nothing.” Loyola witnessed one occasion when Alvarez Romero beat Gajardo Bahamonde so severely that he broke her ribs. Loyola recounted at least one incident where ABB witnessed Alvarez Romero severely beat their mother. And both daughters often heard their father verbally abuse their mother. Alvarez Romero would beat Loyola as well, including by hitting him with a belt. ABB witnessed several other incidents, including one when Alvarez Romero almost ran into ABB while trying to hit her mother. ABB also described Alvarez Romero’s disturbing behavior toward ABB and PDCB. For example, he forced ABB to stay up for hours past her bedtime as punishment for doing poorly on a school assignment; he locked PDCB in the car while shopping when she wouldn’t stop crying that she wanted her mother; and he took the children with him to buy drugs (which he used in their presence) and drove with the children while under the influence.  Alvarez Romero denied all allegations of abuse. The district court found Alvarez Romero’s claims that he never abused the mother of his children and that she falsified the allegations of abuse not to be credible.

 

Following the separation, Gajardo Bahamonde lived with the children in abject poverty. In December 2017, Alvarez Romero told Gajardo Bahamonde he wanted to take the children to visit his mother in the United States, during which time they would also have the opportunity to visit Disney World. Gajardo Bahamonde consented to the trip, based on her belief that the children would be under the care of their grandmother. She signed a travel authorization form allowing the children to travel to the United States from December 2017 to March 2018.  

Gajardo Bahamonde testified that in January 2018, Alvarez Romero told her he would not be returning the children to Chile and that if she ever wanted to see them again, she would have to come join them in the United States. Alvarez Romero denied ever saying this. But that month, he got a full-time job in the United States, bought a car, and enrolled ABB in school and PDCB in daycare. After she learned that Alvarez Romero enrolled the daughters in school and daycare in the United States, Gajardo Bahamonde left her job in Chile and sold possessions in order to pay for a ticket to travel to Alvarez Romero’s mother’s home in Florida in February 2018 to be with the children. Two months later, Gajardo Bahamonde moved out and took PDCB with her because, she said, Alvarez Romero began sexually harassing her and verbally and physically abusing her in front of the children. ABB testified that she saw Alvarez Romero abuse Gajardo Bahamonde while she was living with them in Florida. Gajardo Bahamonde also described an incident when Alvarez Romero pushed her while she was at work, prompting a co-worker to call the police. Gajardo Bahamonde’s testimony about that incident is supported by a police report. Gajardo Bahamonde filed for a domestic violence protection order in Florida after that incident.  Initially, ABB stayed with her grandmother and father. But after her grandmother went back to Chile, ABB’s living situation worsened. ABB testified that she started missing a lot of school, there was almost no furniture in the home they stayed in, she was alone in the home for most of the day, and was left without food or a phone. Her mother came and took ABB to live with her after ABB called upset that she was stuck alone in the house with no food while Alvarez Romero was at work. The Florida court scheduled two hearings about Gajardo Bahamonde’s petition for a protective order. Alvarez Romero did not appear and instead returned to Chile. After Alvarez Romero failed to appear at the first hearing and returned to Chile, Gajardo Bahamonde moved to Georgia. The petition was dismissed for failure to appear. Gajardo Bahamonde did not further pursue the protective order after Alvarez Romero left the United States because she knew he could not return. When Alvarez Romero returned to Chile, he took the children’s passports with him. Initially, he remained in contact with ABB. They spoke about planning a trip for the children to return to Chile. Gajardo Bahamonde repeatedly asked Alvarez Romero to return the passports but he never did. Gajardo Bahamonde and the children moved to Georgia in November 2018. Since then, the children had lived in one home and attended the appropriate schools. In June 2020, Alvarez Romero filed an ICARA petition, claiming that, as of November 2018, Gajardo Bahamonde wrongfully retained the couple’s two minor children, ABB and PDCB, in the United States, at the time 14 and 7 years old, respectively.

 *4 Because Gajardo Bahamonde sought to rely on the mature child exception as to ABB, the district court interviewed ABB in chambers. The district court first spoke to ABB alone and provided a summary to the parties. Next, the district court asked ABB questions the parties submitted in advance. The parties could not directly cross-examine ABB, but they listened to the district court interview her over the phone and were permitted to submit follow-up questions. Neither party submitted any follow-up questions.

 During that hearing, ABB objected to returning to Chile. At the time of the hearing, ABB was 14 years old. She was doing well at school and the record does not indicate that she had any kind of difficulties adjusting to life in the United States. She stated that she wanted to stay in the United States because her life in Chile was unstable. In Chile, she lived in poverty, frequently moved, and was constantly in fear that Alvarez Romero would find them and hurt her mother. Without prompting, ABB described a number of instances where she saw her father beat her mother, including some incidents her mother did not know ABB witnessed. For example, she described an incident when her father threw boiling water on her mother while she was cooking, at which point ABB called the police. ABB, her mother, her sister, and her half-brother then had to live in a hotel to stay safe from her father. She recalled watching her father purchase and consume drugs in her presence. She also recalled several interactions with the police in Chile when they responded to Alvarez Romero’s violent outbursts. ABB also testified that she witnessed her father hit her half-brother, giving him a black eye.

 The Eleventh Circuit rejected Alvarez Romero argument that ABB could only testify about her objections to returning to Chile because “the Hague Convention does not authorize the Court to interview a child or any other witness in chambers, without the opportunity for cross-examination, on substantive issues in the case.” Instead, he said  a court may only interview a child to determine whether the mature child exception applies. The court held that contrary to Alvarez Romero’s contentions, courts regularly rely on the child’s testimony in Hague Convention cases for issues besides the mature child exception

 The Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument that the district court improperly applied the mature child exception to ABB. Courts have relied primarily on three considerations in determining when this exception applies: (1) whether the child is sufficiently mature; (2) whether the child has a particularized objection to being repatriated; and (3) whether the objection is the product of undue influence. See Colon v. Mejia Montufar, 470 F. Supp. 3d 1280, 1295 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (citing Tsai-Yi Yang v. Fu-Chiang Tsui, 499 F.3d 259, 279 (3d Cir. 2007)).  As to the first factor, courts have looked to the child’s age, ability to express mixed feelings, and to plan past obstacles as indications of maturity. Alvarez Romero said the district court relied solely on ABB’s age in finding that she was sufficiently mature, but that assertion wass not supported by the record. The district court considered ABB’s age (she was fourteen years old at the time), the fact that she was able to express some positive feelings about life in Chile, her ability to provide detailed answers demonstrating an understanding of her situation, and the testimony of her teacher in finding that she was sufficiently mature. In determining whether a child has particular objections to repatriation, courts consider whether the child is expressing merely a preference against return or is “affirmatively objecting to returning to one country—when living in that country would be unacceptable.” Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F.3d 466, 477 (5th Cir. 2016). Alvarez Romero claimed that ABB expressed a mere preference to stay in the United States, but he did not support this claim with references to the record. An actual review of the record showed that ABB provided lengthy and detailed particularized objections to being repatriated to Chile based on her father’s constant verbal and physical abuse of her mother. Alvarez Romero also insisted that ABB’s testimony could only be the product of Gajardo Bahamonde’s undue influence. When considering whether a child’s objection is the product of undue influence, courts place great weight on whether the objection is based on the child’s firsthand experiences. Colon, 470 F. Supp. 3d at 1298 (collecting cases). Unquestionably, ABB’s objections were based on her firsthand experiences. She described witnessing numerous incidents of Alvarez Romero physically and verbally abusing her mother, going hungry and homeless when Alvarez Romero cut off her mother financially, observing Alvarez Romero take drugs, and being subject to his harsh discipline. The district court did not err in applying the mature child exception to ABB.

When a Hague Convention petition is filed more than a year after a child is retained, the retaining parent can assert the well-settled defense. Hague Convention Art. 12 (noting that the child must still be returned if the petition is filed after one year “unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.”) The retaining parent must establish that the child is well-settled by a preponderance of the evidence. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B). Alvarez Romero filed the  petition more than one year after Gajardo Bahamonde and the children remained in the United States. But Alvarez Romero complained that the district court should not have considered the well-settled defense because he says Gajardo Bahamonde concealed the children’s location from him. Alvarez Romero’s argument failed on both the facts and the law. As a factual matter, the district court determined that Gajardo Bahamonde did not conceal the children’s whereabouts from Alvarez Romero.  And even if the record indicated that Gajardo Bahamonde had concealed the location of her children, that alone would not prevent her from asserting the well-settled defense. As the Supreme Court held in Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (2014), concealment does not equitably toll the one-year deadline for a parent to file a petition and preclude the retaining parent from asserting the well-settled defense. Id. at 4, 134 S. Ct. at 1228. Therefore, the district court properly considered the well-settled defense here.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument that the district court’s factual findings did not support its ruling that the children were well-settled in the United States. In this circuit, a child is well settled for purposes of the Hague Convention “when a preponderance of the evidence shows that the child has significant connections to their new home that indicate that the child has developed a stable, permanent, and nontransitory life in their new country to such a degree that return would be to the child’s detriment.” Fernandez v. Bailey, 909 F.3d 353, 361 (11th Cir. 2018). The district court’s application of the well-settled defense is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Courts look to how frequently children move around within their new country, whether they attend extracurricular and community activities, and whether they regularly attend school when determining whether they are well-settled. Lozano, 572 U.S. at 17, 134 S. Ct. at 1236 (collecting cases). The children had been living in the United States since December 2017, when Alvarez Romero brought them here. They had been enrolled in school in the United States since January 2018, when he first enrolled them. They changed school districts only once—when they moved to Georgia in November 2018. Both children were doing well in school. Before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, both children were involved in numerous extracurricular activities, including music lessons, skating, swimming, and soccer. They had close friendships at school and in their neighborhood. The children get along with each other. They were also close with their half-brother, who visited from Alabama every few weeks. Gajardo Bahamonde and the children’s visas were expired. An immigration attorney, who presented expert testimony as to immigration law matters, advised that Gajardo Bahamonde was not under any threat of removal and that she had three options for regularizing her status.

 The Court found that record clearly established that ABB and PDCB would face a grave risk of harm if returned to Chile. For years, Alvarez Romero physically and verbally abused Gajardo Bahamonde, including beating her so severely that she miscarried and breaking her ribs and nose. The children witnessed numerous incidents of abuse, to the extent that they underwent court-mandated mental health treatment. And when Gajardo Bahamonde was finally able to leave this abusive relationship, Alvarez Romero left her and their children homeless and hungry. Alvarez Romero abused drugs while caring for his children, including in their presence. Alvarez Romero challenged the district court’s factual findings. He argues that the district court should have credited his and his mother’s testimony denying abuse instead of crediting Gajardo Bahamonde, ABB, and Loyola’s testimony describing his abuse and other disturbing behavior. But Alvarez Romero again fails to show that the district court’s credibility determinations were clearly erroneous. The Court saw no basis for displacing the district court’s findings that the testimony that Alvarez Romero abused Gajardo Bahamonde for years was credible and his denials were not credible.

 

Jacquety v Baptista, 2021 WL 1885263 (S.D. N.Y., 2021)[Morocco][Grave Risk of Harm][Ameliorative measures][Petition denied]

 

In Jacquety v Baptista, 2021 WL 1885263 (S.D. N.Y., 2021) the district court denied the Petition of Guillaume Jacquety against Respondent Geraldine Helena Tena Baptista (“Geraldine”) seeking return of their daughter E.J. to Guillaume’s custody in Morocco. 

 The parties were  formerly husband and wife under French law. They had a young daughter, referred to as “E.J.” In early November 2018, Geraldine traveled with E.J. from the family’s home in Morocco to Geraldine’s mother’s home in Switzerland and then a few days later to Portugal, where they were joined by Respondent Dr. Yousseff Zaim Wadghiri (“Wadghiri”). From there, Geraldine, E.J., and Wadghiri traveled to New York City, where they have since lived in Wadghiri’s home.

The trial of this matter took place by remote means over twelve days between January 25, 2021 and February 9, 2021. The parties stipulated to Petitioner’s prima facie case. The issues for trial were whether E.J. faced a grave risk of physical or psychological harm if she were repatriated to Morocco and, if so, whether arrangements could be implemented in Morocco that would adequately protect E.J. from that grave risk of harm. 

The district court observed that “The grave-risk exception is found in Article 13 of the Hague Convention, which states that: the judicial ... authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person ... which opposes its return establishes that ... there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. Convention, art. 13(b). The Second Circuit has explained the high bar required to meet the exception: [A] grave risk of harm from repatriation arises ... in cases of serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional dependence, when the court in the country of habitual residence, for whatever reason, may be incapable or unwilling to give the child adequate protection. The potential harm to the child must be severe, and the ... level of risk and danger required to trigger this exception has consistently been held to be very high. The grave risk involves not only the magnitude of the potential harm but also the probability that the harm will materialize. Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 103 (internal quotation marks, citations, and emphasis omitted); see also Norden-Powers v. Beveridge, 125 F. Supp.2d 634, 640 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (collecting cases). The exception is to be interpreted narrowly, “lest it swallow the rule.” Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 103; see also 22 U.S.C. § 9001(a)(4) (referring to the Convention’s “narrow exceptions”). 

The grave-risk inquiry is “not whether repatriation would place the respondent parent’s safety at grave risk, but whether so doing would subject the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.” Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 104. “Sporadic or isolated incidents of physical discipline directed at the child, or some limited incidents aimed at persons other than the child, even if witnessed by the child, have not been found to constitute a grave risk.” Id. (collecting cases). In contrast, “[t]he exception to repatriation has been found where the petitioner showed a sustained pattern of physical abuse and / or a propensity for violent abuse that presented an intolerably grave risk to the child.”. As the Second Circuit has explained: [A]t one end of the spectrum are those situations where repatriation might cause inconvenience or hardship, eliminate certain educational or economic opportunities, or not comport with the child’s preferences; at the other end of the spectrum are those situations in which the child faces a real risk of being hurt, physically or psychologically, as a result of repatriation. The former do not constitute a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b); the latter do.  Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 162 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Blondin IV”)

 

“Evidence of prior spousal abuse, though not directed at the child, can support the grave risk of harm defense, as could a showing of the child’s exposure to such abuse,” though “[e]vidence of this kind ... is not dispositive in these fact-intensive cases.” Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 104 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted); see also Davies v. Davies, 717 F. App’x 43, 49 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (finding no error in district court’s grave risk finding “premised on overwhelming evidence of Mr. Davies’s extreme violence and uncontrollable anger, as well as his psychological abuse of Ms. Davies over many years, much of which was witnessed by [the child]”); Ermini, 758 F.3d at 164 (“Spousal violence ... can also establish a grave risk of harm to the child, particularly when it occurs in the presence of the child”); Mohácsi v. Rippa, 346 F. Supp.3d 295, 320, 322 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“witnessing the abuse of [one’s] mother is enough to establish the applicability of the defense”), aff’d sub. nom. In re NIR, 797 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order affirming denial of petition).

 

Even if the requirements of the grave risk of harm exception are met, principles of comity require the court to “determine whether there exist alternative ameliorative measures that are either enforceable by the District Court or, if not directly enforceable, are supported by other sufficient guarantees of performance.” Saada v. Golan, 930 F.3d 533, 541-42 (2d Cir. 2019). The Court may consider, among other things, “whether [the other country’s] courts will enforce key conditions” to protect the child. Id. at 541.

 

The Convention’s grave-risk exception is an affirmative defense that the respondent must prove “by clear and convincing evidence,” although “subsidiary facts need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.” Elyashiv v. Elyashiv, 353 F. Supp.2d 394, 404 & n.10 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); see 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(A).

 The court found that Respondent has proven by clear and convincing evidence that E.J. faces a grave risk of harm if she is repatriated to Morocco. Petitioners expert, Dr. Goslin determined that there was “clear and compelling evidence” that E.J. suffers from PTSD resulting from domestic violence by Guillaume toward Geraldine, and that E.J. was at serious risk of an increase in her PTSD symptoms and negative impact on her development if she were to return to Morocco. Dr. Goslin predicted “with a great deal of certainty” that if returned to Morocco, E.J.’s PTSD symptoms would increase and her developmental functioning would regress. In short, E.J. would not be able to recover from her PTSD if returned to Morocco.  

E.J.’s plight had been made even more precarious as a result of the recent Moroccan Judgment awarding physical and residential custody of E.J. to Guillaume based on a one-sided record. Dr. Goslin testified that if left in an unsupervised setting with her father, E.J.’s PTSD symptoms would intensify and she therefore would neither feel safe nor be safe. Making matters worse, the Moroccan Judgment imposed extreme restrictions on Geraldine’s visitation rights, limiting her to only day time visits on the weekends. As a result, E.J. would be deprived of her primary caregiver, further exacerbating her PTSD.

 

Dr. Goslin was the only expert who evaluated E.J. Petitioner provided no expert testimony. Courts have denied petitions under the Convention in such circumstances. For instance, in Blondin IV, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition to return two children to France. The district court found that petitioner had beaten his wife, the respondent, often in the child’s presence and that he had also beaten one of the children. The district court also accepted the expert testimony of an expert child psychiatrist, Dr. Solnit. Like Dr. Goslin here, Dr. Solnit opined that the children were recovering from PTSD and that “if the children were returned to France with or without their mother and even if they could avoid being in the same domicile as the father ... they would almost certainly suffer a recurrence of their [PTSD] that would impair their physical, emotional, intellectual and social development.” 238 F.3d at 160. The petitioner in Blondin IV did not provide any contrary expert testimony to rebut Dr. Solnit’s opinions. 

Sixteen years later, the Second Circuit in Davies reached a similar conclusion in affirming the district court’s denial of a petition to return a child to French St. Martin. Davies v. Davies, No. 16-CV-6542, 2017 WL 361556, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017).See also Elyashiv, 353 F. Supp.2d at 408-09 (denying repatriation where there was uncontroverted expert testimony that the children would suffer relapse of their PTSD symptoms upon returning to Israel, even if they had no contact with petitioner); Reyes Olguin v. Cruz Santana, No. 03-CV-6299, 2005 WL 67094, at *2-4, 7, 11-12 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2005) (denying repatriation where there was uncontroverted expert testimony that return to Mexico would exacerbate child’s PTSD).

 The Court found by clear and convincing evidence, based on Dr. Goslin’s opinion (Respondents’ expert child psychologist), Dr. Cling’s opinion (he was retained by Respondents to evaluate Geraldine)  regarding Geraldine, and the parties’ testimony to the extent deemed credible, that E.J. experienced PTSD due to domestic violence, that returning her to Morocco would exacerbate her PTSD, and that she faced grave risk of harm if returned to Morocco. Those findings were supported by E.J. herself in what she reported to Dr. Goslin, including that her dad “smacked” her mother many times, used bad language, yelled, was verbally abusive, and broke things in the home; that incidents of that nature happened a lot; that “[her father] kept smacking [her mother]” even though “she never does something”; that E.J. felt “bad” and worried for her mother’s safety, “because she’s my mom and no one can touch her like that”; that she “didn’t trust [her] dad at all”; and that she “was afraid [her dad] would smack [her] mom again.” And although E.J. has tried to stop thinking of the violence, “like 100 times,” “it didn’t work” and she “tr[ies] to forget all day long but it always comes back.” In short, E.J. was exposed to sustained and serious violence that continues to haunt her.

 The Court observed that even where there is a grave risk of harm from repatriation, the Court must consider whether there are “any ameliorative measures (by the parents and by the authorities of the state having jurisdiction over the question of custody) that can reduce whatever risk might otherwise be associated with [the] child’s repatriation.” Blondin II, 189 F.3d at 248. The Court  considered means of mitigating E.J.’s grave risk of harm upon repatriation and found that there are no ameliorative measures sufficient to prevent exacerbation of E.J.’s PTSD. 

 Petitioner offered expert testimony that Morocco has laws to protect persons who are abused. Respondent has offered expert testimony explaining that despite having laws on the books, domestic violence remains prevalent and women remain unprotected. The Court noted that the extent to which those propositions are true need not be resolved. As the Second Circuit has recognized, even when a country’s authorities “are both willing and able to make numerous arrangements and accommodations to facilitate repatriation,” there may be circumstances where they still “cannot provide the necessary protection.” Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 162. This case presented such circumstances because to provide the necessary protection, Moroccan authorities “would [be] require[d] ... to fulfill the impossible task of ensuring that a return to [Morocco] would not trigger a recurrence of traumatic stress disorder in the children.” In Blondin II, the Second Circuit remanded the district court’s initial decision finding a grave risk of harm specifically for the purpose of evaluating potential ameliorative measures. On remand, the district court found that there were no arrangements at all that would mitigate the grave risk of harm posed to the children, “because returning to France under any circumstances would cause them psychological harm, as France was the scene of their trauma. The court based this determination on uncontested expert testimony that the children would suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder upon repatriation.” Blondin IV, 238 F.3d at 157; see also Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 104 (explaining that “[t]he holding in Blondin IV depended on the fact that due to the nature of the potential harm at issue – recurrence of PTSD that would occur as soon as the children entered France – there was nothing the courts could do to prevent it”). The situation here was the same.  The recent Moroccan Judgment only underscored the point. 

In his post-trial reply brief, Petitioner requested for the first time that he be given the opportunity to propose undertakings he would take in the event the Court were otherwise to deny the Petition. The court held that his  belated request was too little too late. And the Court found that there were no undertakings that Petitioner could offer to sufficiently address the problem. Undertakings are of limited efficacy in that the court imposing the conditions “retain[s] no power to enforce those orders across national borders.” Baran, 526 F.3d at 1350. “Because the court granting or denying a petition for return lacks jurisdiction to enforce any undertakings it may order, even the most carefully crafted conditions of return may prove ineffective in protecting a child from [grave] risk of harm.”  Accordingly, “in cases in which a district court has determined that repatriating a child will expose him or her to a grave risk of harm, unenforceable undertakings are generally disfavored, particularly where there is reason to question whether the petitioning parent will comply with the undertakings and there are no other sufficient guarantees of performance.” Saada, 930 F.3d at 540; see also Davies, 2017 WL 361556 at *20 (concluding that petitioner could not be trusted to honor agreements or commitments he might make).

 

The Court did not believe that Petitioner could be relied on to make the requisite effort to abide whatever undertakings he may propose. Nor were there potential undertakings that would sufficiently ameliorate the grave risk of psychological harm to E.J. for the same reason that there were no potential Moroccan legal remedies or services that would do so: returning to Morocco would trigger E.J.’s PTSD. The Court found that there were no undertakings or other ameliorative measures that could sufficiently protect against the grave risk of harm E.J. would face upon return to Morocco.

Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 1904258 ( E.D. New York, 2021) [Montenegro] [Necessary expenses] [Denied] [Clearly inappropriate]

 Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 1904258 ( E.D. New York, 2021)  

In Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 1904258 ( E.D. New York, 2021)  petitioner, Tomislav Lukic, moved for costs pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3) relating to the return of his child, N.L., to Montenegro. Respondent, Bahrija Elezovic, opposed, arguing that equitable factors favored denying a costs award. The district court denied the motion.

 The Court observed that 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3)  provides that “Any court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under [the Hague Convention] shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care during the course of proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate.”.  “In considering whether expenses are ‘clearly inappropriate,’ courts in this Circuit consider factors including: (1) whether there was a reasonable basis for removing the children to the United States ...; (2) whether either party engaged in forum shopping ...; (3) the degree to which the petitioner bears responsibility for the circumstances giving rise to the fees and costs associated with a petition ...; (4) a respondent’s inability to pay an award ...; (5) whether fees and costs will deter such conduct from happening in the first place ...; and (6) whether the case is not a difficult one and falls squarely within the heartland of the Hague Convention ....” Nissim v. Kirsh, No. 18-CV-11520 (ALC), 2020 WL 3496988, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020) 

 Petitioner sought  €1,132.39 for “his airline travel to the United States and his airline travel back to Montenegro with” N.L. The court found that  equitable factors favored denying even this partial cost award. Respondent had shown she had no income or assets and relied on her family in New York to provide basic needs. Even though petitioner’s requested award was relatively modest, it far exceeded anything respondent wass able to pay. The Second Circuit has noted that “an expenses award that is greater than a respondent’s total assets ... at a minimum[ ] require[s] a reasoned explanation.” Souratgar v. Lee Jen Fair, 818 F.3d 72, 81 n.3 (2d Cir. 2016).  

The Court found that while respondent had petitioner’s permission to bring N.L. to the United States, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to retain N.L. beyond the bounds of a tourist visa. Neither party appeared to have engaged in forum shopping. The Montenegrin Family Court had awarded respondent physical custody of N.L. in 2015. While petitioner had moved the Montenegrin Family Court to amend this judgment in December 2018 and those proceedings were ongoing when respondent brought N.L. to the United States, respondent had an advantage in that forum as the existing custodial parent. There was no evidence that she moved abroad to avoid an amended custody judgment, and she ultimately prevailed in that dispute. Petitioner did  not bear responsibility for the circumstances giving rise to his airline travel. Respondent did contribute to delay in effectuating N.L.’s return, but that delay only incurred a €30 airline change fee. Ordering costs here would have some deterrent value, but this is not a quintessential Hague Convention case in which the respondent “attempt[ed] to find a friendlier forum for deciding custodial disputes.” The Montenegrin family court awarded respondent physical custody, and N.L.’s unlawful retention interfered with petitioner’s statutory ne exeat rights, not any court judgment. Although petitioner’s entitlement to N.L.’s return was clear, this case did not implicate the heartland of the Hague Convention’s purpose “to remedy abuses by noncustodial parents who attempt to circumvent adverse custody decrees.”  On balance, while equitable factors were mixed, respondent’s lack of assets outweighed any considerations favoring a costs award. Petitioner received sophisticated pro bono representation that led to N.L.’s return to Montenegro and only incurred travel costs to effectuate his legal win. Respondent’s current separation from her child wass more than just punishment for her unlawful actions. Taxing her negligible assets 

Recent District Court Hague Convention Cases - Rishmawy v Brooks, 2021 WL 1760303 (S.D. Georgia, 2021) [Honduras] [Habitual Residence] [Rights of Custody] [Grave risk of harm] [Petition granted]

 

Rishmawy v Brooks, 2021 WL 1760303 (S.D. Georgia, 2021) 

[Honduras] [Habitual Residence] [Rights of Custody] [Grave risk of harm] [Petition granted]

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Wan v Debolt, 2021 WL 1733500 ( C.D. Illinois, 2021). [Hong Kong] [Federal & State judicial remedies] [National Security Law for Hong Kong] [Grave risk of harm] [Petition granted]

 

Wan v Debolt, 2021 WL 1733500 ( C.D. Illinois, 2021).

[Hong Kong] [Federal & State judicial remedies] [National Security Law for Hong Kong] [Grave risk of harm] [Petition granted]

 

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Chambers v Russell, 2021 WL 1581074 (M.D. N. C. 2021) [Jamaica] [Necessary Costs and Expenses] [Defense of financial hardship] [Defense of Good faith belief actions were justified] [Granted in part: $20,917.42 in legal expenses, and $38.54 in non-legal expenses.]

 

Chambers v Russell, 2021 WL 1581074 (M.D. N. C. 2021)

[Jamaica] [Necessary Costs and Expenses] [Defense of financial hardship] [Defense of Good faith belief actions were justified] [Granted in part: $20,917.42 in legal expenses, and $38.54 in non-legal expenses.]

Bordelais v Bordelais, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2021 WL 1554729 (Mem) (7th Cir., 2021)[Switzerland] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Appeal moot] [Sanctions]

In Bordelais v Bordelais, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2021 WL 1554729 (Mem) (7th Cir., 2021) Antoine Bordelais, a French citizen, sought the return of his child under the Hague Convention. Since his ex-wife, Valerie, an American citizen, took their child from Switzerland to Illinois in 2016, Antoine has sued her at least seven times for the child’s return. See In re Antoine Bordelais, 20 C 4165 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2020). 

In 2016, in the midst of divorce and custody proceedings in Swiss court, Valerie took the couple’s then-13-year-old child to visit her parents in Illinois. They did not return. Antoine petitioned in Illinois state court for divorce and for return of the child under the Hague Convention. Valerie counterclaimed, alleging that she had sole custody of the child and that removal would place the child in grave danger. In 2017, dissatisfied with the pace of the state court proceedings, Antoine filed a similar version of his state court petition in federal court. Valerie moved to dismiss the petition or stay the proceedings under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813–14 (1976), on grounds that Antoine’s suit duplicated his ongoing state court litigation. The district court agreed that the state and federal actions were parallel and stayed the suit. Antoine, arguing that he had withdrawn his state-court petition and that the case was closed, moved to lift the stay in 2018. Valerie disagreed with his characterization about the status of the state-court proceedings and insisted that disputes over their daughter were still being adjudicated. The court denied Antoine’s motion. In 2019, Antoine requested emergency “protective measures” under Article 7 of the Hague Convention to prevent what he believed was a real possibility that Valerie would take the child to Mexico, where she had relatives. The district court denied this request as inconsistent with its stay order. In November 2019, the child turned 16, and Valerie moved to dismiss the suit on grounds that the Hague Convention does not apply to children over 16. The district court held a hearing the following month and granted Valerie’s motion. The court added that it also denied Antoine’s oral motion to amend his complaint, as well as his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Antoine then filed a notice of appeal.

 Valerie moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. She argued that the Hague Convention no longer supplied the basis for federal jurisdiction because their daughter, upon reaching the age of 16, had aged out of the Convention, and the case was now moot. Antoine responded that the Convention continued to apply in Illinois until a child turns 18. 

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It observed that the child turned 16 in 2019. The Convention, by its terms, “shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.” See Hague Convention, art. 4. As the State Department has opined, “[e]ven if a child is under sixteen at the time of the wrongful removal or retention as well as when the Convention is invoked, the Convention ceases to apply when the child reaches sixteen.” U.S. Dep’t of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494, 10,504 (Mar. 26, 1986), quoted in Custodio v. Samillan, 842 F.3d 1084, 1088 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissing as moot the appeal of denial of Hague Convention petition where child turned sixteen during pendency of proceedings).

 Valerie sought sanctions against Antoine under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, arguing that the appeal was frivolous and meant only to harass and intimidate her. She urged the Court to view the appeal in the context of the fifteen suits since 2016 that Antoine filed against her, her family, her employer, her lawyers, and her child’s therapist. See In re Antoine Bordelais, 20 C 4165 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2020) (Executive Committee order enjoining Antoine from filing any new civil action in district without first obtaining leave to file). The Seventh Circuit found that sanctions were warranted. Antoine subjected Valerie’s counsel to extra work to defend against his meritless arguments. Allen-Noll v. Madison Area Tech. College, 969 F.3d 343, 351 (7th Cir. 2020). He also wasted this and other courts’ time, not just with this appeal; he had filed five other appeals from his suits against Valerie and her family. And, the Executive Committee of the Northern District had run out of patience with his pattern of frivolous and duplicative filings. Accordingly, he was ordered to show cause within fourteen days why reasonable attorney’s fees and costs should not be imposed. The Court also warned Antoine that further frivolous appeals will subject him to monetary fines and a possible bar order pursuant to Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Dawson v Dylla, 2021 WL 1534608 (D. Colorado, 2021) [United Kingdom] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate merits of the underlying custody dispute][ Petition to enforce a foreign parenting order denied.]

 Dawson v Dylla, 2021 WL 1534608 (D. Colorado, 2021)

[United Kingdom] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate  merits of the underlying custody dispute][ Petition to enforce a foreign parenting order denied.] 

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases (List)

Luis Alfonso VH v Banessa Cristina AZ, 2021 WL 76971 (W.D. Virginia, 2021).

[Honduras] [Well-settled] [Petition denied]

Alverez Romero v Gajardo Bahamonde, 2020 WL 8459278 (M.D. Georgia, 2021)

[Chile] [Well-Settled] [Wishes of the child [Petition   denied] 

Dubikovskyy v. Goun, 2021 WL 456634 (W.D. Missouri, 2021) 

[Switzerland] [Wishes of the Child] [Petition denied]

Forcelli, v. Smith,.2021 WL 638040 (D. Minnesota, 2021)

[Germany] Necessary Expenses] [not clearly inappropriate] [Reasonable attorneys fees and transportation costs awarded]

Sanchez Mena v Gomez Paz, 2021 WL 633586 (D. Utah, 2021.) 

[Peru] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Respondent’s motion for enlargement of time to file motion to dismiss moot. Respondent’s motion for consolidation of defenses denied. Respondent’s motion to amend the scheduling order is granted in part and denied in part.]

Colchester v Lazaro, 2021 WL 764136, (W.D. Washington, 2021)

[Spain] [Habitual Residence] [Petition granted] [Necessary expenses against Ms. Lazaro is not “clearly inappropriate]

Jose De Jesus Joya Rubio v Yelaine Memendez Alvarez, 2021 WL 956197 (S.D. Florida, 2021) 

[Mexico] [Well-Settled] [Wishes of the child] [Petition denied]

Radu v Shon, 2021 WL 1056393 (D. Arizona, 2021).

[Germany] [Necessary Expenses] [Clearly inappropriate] [Motion denied] 

Sanchez v Sanchez, 2021 WL 1227133 (M.D. North Carolina, 2021)

[Honduras] [Grave risk of harm] [Petition denied].

Saada v Golan, 2021 WL 1176372 (E.D. N. Y.) [Italy] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Stay pending application for certiorari]

In Saada v Golan, 2021 WL 1176372 (E.D. N. Y.)  the district court denied the respondent’s motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, to stay the action pending her petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

The petitioner, an Italian citizen, alleged that in August of 2018, the respondent, an American citizen, wrongfully kept their minor son, B.A.S., in the United States.  After a bench trial, in a March 22, 2019 decision, the district court found that B.A.S. was a habitual resident of Italy, and that while he would be subject to grave risk of harm upon repatriation, there were sufficient measures available in Italy that would ameliorate the risk to B.A.S. upon his return.  

The Second Circuit affirmed the decision in part and vacated it in part. Saada v. Golan, 930 F.3d 533, 537 (2d Cir. 2009) (Saada I). The Court agreed that Italy was B.A.S.’s “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention, but determined that certain ameliorative measures could not be enforced before B.A.S. was repatriated to Italy. The Second Circuit remanded the case with instructions to ensure that the measures necessary for B.A.S.’s safe repatriation could be “enforce[d] by the District Court or supported by other sufficient guarantees of performance.”  On May 5, 2020, after additional briefing and an extensive examination of the ameliorative measures available in Italy, the district court found that “the Italian courts are willing and able to resolve the parties’ multiple disputes, address the family’s history and ensure B.A.S.’s safety and well-being.” In December of 2019, the Italian court issued an order to help facilitate B.A.S.’s repatriation that included a protective order against the petitioner and an order requiring Italian social services to oversee his parenting classes and behavioral and psychoeducational therapy. Moreover, the petitioner agreed to give the respondent a sum of money to allow her to live independently of the petitioner and his family upon her return. The district court granted the petition and ordered that B.A.S. be returned to Italy. On January 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in its entirety. Saada v. Golan, 833 F. App’x 829, 831 (2d Cir. 2020) (Saada II).

 

On January 25, 2021, shortly after the Court of Appeals issued its mandate in Saada II, the respondent filed the motion seeking to vacate the May 5, 2020 order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), based on “newly discovered evidence.” Describing the Courts remarks at an October 16, 2018 proceeding as a “court order,” the respondent stated that the petitioner “hired an investigator who surveilled B.A.S. and the respondent and took pictures of them in their apartment,” in “blatant violation” of an October 16, 2018 court order directing the petitioner not to try to locate the respondent during the 2018 trial. According to the respondent, the surveillance showed that the petitioner will not comply with its orders, which in turn demonstrated that he would not follow the Italian court’s protective orders. In short, the respondent argued that this “new” evidence established that B.A.S. will face a “grave risk of harm” that cannot be ameliorated, and therefore, the petition should be denied. To support her allegation of secret surveillance, the respondent submitted the transcript of a November 2020 conversation between the petitioner, his father, and a rabbi who was working with the respondent to help her secure a get. Unbeknownst to the petitioner, the respondent was listening in, and the call was being secretly recorded. 

The Court observed that Rule 60(b) outlines the grounds for relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding, including “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). A Rule 60(b)(2) motion must be made “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), and may not be used “simply to relitigate matters settled by the original judgment.” The decision to grant a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is left to the discretion of the court. Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012). The district court found there was no evidence that the petitioner or his attorneys tried to find out where the respondent lived, certainly not during the trial or anytime thereafter. Knowledge of the limited investigation that did take place would not have changed the outcome of my May 5, 2020 order, because it did not establish that the petitioner violated an order of the Court or that the protections put in place in Italy would be insufficient to protect B.A.S. from a grave risk of harm. The evidence was not sufficient grounds to reverse the judgment; therefore, the respondent’s motion to set aside the judgment was denied.

 

The Court pointed out that in deciding whether to stay a return order in a Hague Convention case, courts must balance the “importance of the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained” with the concern that “shuttling children back and forth between parents and across international borders may be detrimental to those children.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 178 (2013). “Staying the return of a child in an action under the Convention should hardly be a matter of course.” Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1063 (6th Cir. 1996). Courts considering whether to stay a return order must apply the four traditional stay factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Chafin, 568 U.S. at 179 (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). A decision to stay the return should include an “appropriate consideration of the child’s best interests.” 

 

The district court found that given the small percentage of cases that the Supreme Court accepts each term, it was not likely that the respondent’s petition for certiorari would be successful. This case did present an interesting legal question, which appeared to be a matter of first impression before the Court. Overall, this factor did not weigh strongly for or against a stay. The court was not persuaded that the respondent would be irreparably injured absent a stay. The Italian court has put many protections in place to ensure the respondent’s safety in Italy, and she will have money to provide for herself and B.A.S. when they return. B.A.S.’s return would not moot the respondent’s claims or prevent her from continuing to litigate this action. See Chafin, 568 U.S. at 180. If the return order is reversed, there were currently no substantial barriers that would prevent the respondent’s return to the United States with B.A.S. The respondent was a United States citizen and would retain sole custody of B.A.S. in Italy, at least until the custody dispute was resolved in the Italian courts; she should be able to return to the United States if the Court ultimately decided in her favor. The prejudice to the Petitioner weighed against a stay. The Court ordered B.A.S.’s return to Italy almost two years ago, but he still resided in New York. The aim of the Convention is to secure prompt return of the child to the correct jurisdiction, and any unnecessary delay renders the subsequent return more difficult for the child, and subsequent adjudication more difficult for the foreign court. Haimdas v. Haimdas, 720 F. Supp. 2d 183, 211 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 401 F. App’x 567 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Friedrich, 78 F.3d at 1063). Public interest cautioned against further delay of the return order. Weighing all the factors the court declined to stay the case pending the outcome of the respondent’s petition to the Supreme Court. 

Bejarno v Jimeniz, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2021 WL 796404 (Mem) (3rd Cir., 2021)[Honduras][Now-settled] [petition denied]

 

     In Bejarno v Jimeniz, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2021 WL 796404 (Mem) (3^rd Cir., 2021) [Not Selected for Publication] Kevin Daniel Sauceda Bejarno appealed from the District Court’s denial of his petition to return his son, L.S., to Honduras. The Third Circuit affirmed. It held that although Appellant established a prima facie case that Appellee, L.S.’s mother, had wrongfully removed L.S. from Honduras to the United States, the District Court denied the return request because a petition filed more than one year after removal “is subject to certain affirmative defenses, including Appellee’s demonstration [by a preponderance of the evidence] that ‘the child is now settled in its new environment.’ ” Monzon v. De La Roca, 910 F.3d 92, 96 (3d Cir. 2018) The District Court determined that Appellee met this burden. [This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.]

 

The Court reviewed the factual findings for clear error and any conclusions of law de novo. See Yang v. Tsui, 499 F.3d 259, 270 (3d Cir. 2007). It found that in a careful and thorough analysis of the ten factors specified in Monzon, the District Court determined that only two weighed against L.S. being well-settled in his New Jersey home and community: “the stability of [Appellee’s] employment or other means of support” and “the immigration status of the child and parent.” These factors are: “(1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the child’s new residence; (3) whether the child attends school ... consistently; (4) whether the child attends church regularly [or participates in other extracurricular and community activities]; (5) the stability of the parent’s employment or other means of support; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the area; (7) to what extent the child has maintained ties to [Honduras]; (8) the level of parental involvement in the child’s life; (9) active measures to conceal the child’s whereabouts ... ; and, (10) the immigration status of the child and parent.” A16 & n.14; see Monzon, 910 F.3d at 105, 106 n.88.  As to those factors, the District Court reasoned that L.S. and Appellee were not citizens, so “their immigration status remains uncertain,”  while their asylum application is pending, and that without a work permit, Appellee haf only “worked sporadically in a restaurant,” Nonetheless, it concluded that these considerations were greatly outweighed by the remaining considerations, including L.S.’s “stable” family life with his stepfather and half-brother, with whom he has “grown very close,”; his involvement in school, extracurricular activities, and community activities; and his memories of and ties to America, formed from ages four to six.

 

The Court rejected Appellants argument the District Court erred in declining to hear additional testimony concerning L.S.’s and Appellee’s immigration status and in refusing to treat this factor as dispositive of whether L.S. was well-settled. Appellee’s immigration status would not change the outcome of the ten-factor analysis nor would it be independently dispositive. Immigration status “is neither dispositive nor subject to categorical rules, but instead is one relevant factor in a multifactor test.” Hernandez v. Garcia Pena, 820 F.3d 782, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). The Court held that the District Court’s ultimate evaluation of the totality of the circumstances was consistent with Article 12 of the Hague Convention and the implementing statute, the Courts precedent, and the case law of other circuits that immigration status “cannot undermine all of the other considerations which uniformly support a finding that [the child] is ‘settled’ in the United States.” In re B. del C.S.B., 559 F.3d 999, 1010 (9th Cir. 2009); see Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41, 57 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that “no court has held [immigration status] to be singularly dispositive”), aff’d sub nom. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014); Alcala v. Hernandez, 826 F.3d 161, 174 (4th Cir. 2016) (same). It agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that Appellant met her burden of showing L.S. was well-settled in the United States.

Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 804384 (E.D. N.Y., 2021)[Montenegro] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Summary judgment] [Petition granted] [Stay denied]

 

In Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 804384 (E.D. N.Y., 2021) Respondent, Bahrija Elezovic, sought a stay pending appeal the  February 9, 2021 opinion and order requiring that she return her six-year-old daughter N.L. to Montenegro forthwith, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) Lukic v. Elezovic, No. 20-CV-3110 (ARR) (LB), 2021 WL 466029, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2021).

 

Respondent had not complied with the order. After petitioner, N.L.’s father, filed a motion for contempt, respondent’s counsel informed petitioner’s counsel that respondent agreed to proceed with petitioner’s plan in which petitioner accompanied N.L. back to Montenegro. On March 1, 2021, the parties received a decision from the Montenegrin Family Court in their custody dispute over N.L.  Petitioner had moved to amend the 2015 custody judgment that afforded physical custody rights to respondent. The Montenegrin Family Court denied petitioner’s request and declined to disturb the 2015 custody judgment. Id. After reviewing this judgment, respondent’s counsel informed petitioner’s counsel that respondent believes this decision “entirely changes the situation.” Respondent then filed a notice of appeal and notified petitioner’s counsel that she intended to seek a stay, as well. Respondent filed a stay motion on March 2, 2021.

 

The Court pointed out that  Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a district court to stay enforcement of a judgment while an appeal is pending. A party seeking such a stay bears a “difficult burden.” United States v. Private Sanitation Indus. Ass’n, 44 F.3d 1082, 1084 (2d Cir. 1994). In evaluating whether to stay a “return order” under the Hague Convention, “[c]ourts should apply the four traditional stay factors ...: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ ” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 179 (2013) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). “Staying the return of a child in an action under the [Hague] Convention should hardly be a matter of course.” Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1063 n.1 (6th Cir. 1996). “The aim of the Convention is to secure prompt return of the child to the correct jurisdiction, and any unnecessary delay renders the subsequent return more difficult for the child, and subsequent adjudication more difficult for the foreign court.” The district court concluded that (1) Respondent was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her Appeal. (2)  Respondent would not ne Irreparably injured absent a Stay, but a Stay Would Substantially Harm Petitioner and N.L. and (3)  The Public Interest Favors Denying a Stay.“ [T]he public interest, as relevant to a Hague Convention dispute, is primarily defined by the treaty itself, the express purpose of which is ‘to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State.’ ” Hofmann, 2012 WL 8466673, at *1 (quoting Hague Convention art. 1); see also Vale, 2008 WL 2246929, at *3 (“[T]he public interest of this country and of other countries which are signator[ie]s to the Convention is met when the purpose of the Convention is met.”). “Protraction ... is hardly consonant with the Convention’s objectives.” Chafin, 568 U.S. at 185 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Here, denying a stay pending appeal would better adhere to the Hague Convention’s purpose. N.L.’s wrongful retention has continued for more than a year, and further delay will cause significant harm to petitioner and N.L. Moreover, I have reviewed the 2021 custody judgment, respondent’s only new evidence, and determined that it does not alter my return analysis. See supra Section I. Thus, N.L.’s expeditious return to Montenegro furthers the objectives of the Hauge Convention and, in turn, the public interest .For the foregoing reasons, the court denied respondent’s motion to stay its February 9, 2021 opinion and order pending appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c).

 

Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 466029 (E.D. N.Y., 2021) [Montenegro] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Summary judgment] [Petition granted]

 

 

In Lukic v Elezovic, 2021 WL 466029 (E.D. N.Y., 2021) the district court granted Petitioners motion for summary judgment for the return of his minor daughter, N.L., to Montenegro.

 

N.L. was the shared daughter of petitioner and respondent. She was born in Ulcinj, Montenegro in May 2014 and was six years old.  N.L. was a citizen of Montenegro. Petitioner and respondent also shared an older son, D.L., who was now nine years old. D.L. currently lived with petitioner, who has had official custody of him since 2018. When N.L. was approximately twenty days old, she and respondent ceased living with petitioner and moved to Podgorica, Montenegro. In April 17, 2015, the Primary Court in Podgorica issued an order governing N.L.’s custody.  The court awarded “care and upbringing” to respondent, “with whom the minor [N.L.] is to reside.” The court also ordered that petitioner had the right to have contact with N.L. every fifteen days until she reached two years old, after which he would have the right to take her with him every other week from Friday evening to Sunday evening. N.L. remained living with respondent in Podgorica and attended school in Montenegro until she entered the United States in July 2019. Respondent claims she “struggled to live” and “was forced to request help from the social services and Food Bank.” Petitioner denied that his “children went to bed hungry” and claims that respondent’s apartment in Podgorica “had everything.” Petitioner claimed that in accordance with the custody judgment he visited N.L. in Podgorica often before she turned two. After that, he claims he continued to visit her or bring her to Ulcinj on alternating weekends. Respondent denied these assertions. Petitioner failed to pay child support on three occasions, resulting in criminal judgments against him. But petitioner testified that he does not currently pay child support for N.L. because the child support respondent owes him for their son’s care is a nearly equal amount. And respondent admitted that petitioner paid “regularly every month after the last court order” up until June 2019.

 

On August 11, 2017, petitioner and respondent signed similar consent forms, one allowing D.L. to “cross the border in the company of” petitioner “to travel out of Montenegro (Serbia and abroad) in the period unlimited,” and one allowing N.L. to “cross the border accompanied by” respondent “for the purpose of traveling abroad (America) during the period from unlimited.” Petitioner testified that the form for N.L. gave respondent “the consent that she can go and travel as much as she wants so that I don’t have to go every time to Podgorica every time she wants to travel. Just as I have for the son, so that I don’t have to go every time to Podgorica, to United States, to ask for consent or to let the son go to excursion with school.”. Respondent testified that in presenting the form for D.L., petitioner “never acknowledged any intention to have our son relocated. He asked me for the permission for foreign travel at the same time when I asked him to sign off the permission that I can travel with our daughter. So, I signed also the permission for him that he can travel with our son. When asked if the form for N.L. “sa[id] anything about relocation,” respondent replied, “[N]o. It says here just for travel .... [T]his is the permission just to -- that you can freely get over the border to get out of the country, and nothing else.”. Respondent further testified that she never spoke to petitioner about “how long the trip [to the United States] [wa]s going to be,” nor did she “know that [she] was going to stay” in the United States ahead of time. Nevertheless, she asserted that “[t]here’s no time limit, how long I can stay with my child here in the United States.”

 

 

 

N.L. and respondent entered the United States in July 2019 on Montenegrin passports. To help N.L. obtain her passport, petitioner had signed a passport application for her shortly before she traveled to the United States. N.L. and respondent obtained nonimmigrant B-2 visitor visas to the United States. B-2 visas “are nonimmigrant visas for persons who want to enter the United States temporarily ... for tourism.” N.L.’s and respondent’s B-2 visas expired on January 1, 2020.  

 

N.L. has been in New York for more than eighteen months. She lives with respondent in an apartment with respondent’s sister, mother, and niece, and is enrolled in school, which takes place remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. N.L. “is in first grade and is learning how to write, draw, etc.” N.L. is attached to her mother, Elezovic, with whom she’s lived since birth.” Respondent is not currently employed, other than occasionally helping her sister with projects.

 

 

Articles 73 through 79 of Montenegrin Family Law regulate the relations between parents and children, as well as procedures related to the exercise of parental rights. Petitioner’s expert, Vladimir Radonjic, defines parental rights as “different duties and rights of parents to care about personality, rights and interests of their children.” Respondent’s expert, Vesna Raicevic, defines parental rights as “ha[ving] custody.” Article 78 provides that “[o]ne parent shall exercise parental right on the grounds of court decision when the parents do not live together, and have not concluded an agreement on exercise of parental right.” Both experts agree that Article 78 applies to N.L. Respondent asserts, based on Raicevic’s report, that the 2015 custody judgment appointed her “as the only parent who exclusively exercises parental rights” over N.L. Petitioner,  denied that only respondent has parental rights over N.L. Article 79 provides: The agreement on the independent exercise of parental rights includes the agreement of the parents on entrusting the joint child to one parent, the agreement on the amount of contribution for the maintenance of the child from the other parent and the agreement on maintaining the child’s personal relations with the other parent. The agreement on the independent exercise of parental rights transfers the exercise of parental rights to the parent to whom the child is entrusted. A parent who does not exercise parental rights has the right and duty to support the child, to maintain personal relations with the child and to decide on issues that significantly affect the child’s life jointly and in agreement with the parent exercising parental rights. Issues that significantly affect the child’s life, in terms of this law, are considered in particular: the child’s education, undertaking major medical procedures on the child, changing the child’s residence and disposing of the child’s property of great value. The rights granted under Article 79 of the Family Law of Montenegro can be altered only by a court order.

 

          Petitioner filed the action on July 13, 2020.  Petitioner argues that he is entitled to N.L.’s return to Montenegro because he had ne exeat rights protected by the Hague Convention and respondent breached those rights by keeping N.L. in the United States beyond the six months to which he consented. Respondent claims petitioner does not have any custody rights protected by the Hague Convention and even if he did, he waived them either by consenting to unlimited travel or failing to exercise those rights when N.L. was brought to the United States.

 

The district court found that the uncontested facts proves that six-year-old N.L. was habitually resident in Montenegro before coming to the United States. “[A] child’s habitual residence depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case,” taking into account “the family and social environment in which the child’s life has developed.” Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719, 723, 726 (2020) “Where a child has lived in one place with her family indefinitely, that place is likely to be her habitual residence.” Here, it was undisputed that N.L. resided in Montenegro her entire life, up to the point when respondent took her to the United States more than eighteen months ago.

 

The district court found that Respondent breached petitioner’s ne exeat rights over N.L. The Supreme Court has recognized that ne exeat rights—meaning joint rights to determine a child’s country of residence—constitute custody rights under the Hague Convention. See Abbott, 560 U.S. at 10–11. Here, it was undisputed that Article 79 of the Montenegrin Family Law grants “[t]he parent who does not exercise parental rights” the right “to decide on ... the child’s residence” and that this right can be derogated only through court order. The parties contested whether respondent exclusively holds “parental rights” over N.L. But this dispute was immaterial because Article 79 endows ne exeat rights even to “[t]he parent who does not exercise parental rights.” In fact, both experts appear to agree that Article 79 applies in this case. Thus, Article 79 established that petitioner has presumptive ne exeat rights over N.L.

 

Petitioner also had shown that respondent wrongfully retained N.L. in breach of his ne exeat rights. “ ‘[W]rongful retention’ occurs when one parent, having taken the child to a different Contracting State with permission of the other parent, fails to return the child to the first Contracting State when required.” Marks ex rel. SM v. Hochhauser, 876 F.3d 416, 421 (2d Cir. 2017). It was undisputed that petitioner consented to N.L. traveling to the United States with respondent and that N.L.’s and respondent’s B-2 tourist visas expired on January 1, 2020, which requires them to leave the country. Respondent contested, however, the scope of petitioner’s consent. She claims that the face of the consent form authorized N.L.’s remaining in the United States indefinitely because it allows N.L. to “cross the border” for the purpose of “traveling” abroad for an “unlimited” period of time. But in evaluating consent, courts look to “the petitioner’s subjective intent, including the nature and scope of the alleged consent.” In re Kim, 404 F. Supp. 2d 495, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). To preclude the return remedy, a respondent must show the petitioner had the “‘subjective intent’ to permit Respondent to remove and retain the child for an indefinite or permanent time period.” While one could interpret the term “unlimited” to encompass one trip of infinite length on its face,¹⁰ petitioner presented uncontroverted evidence that he understood the consent form only to authorize an unrestricted number of temporary trips. Not only did petitioner testify to this understanding, but respondent also confirmed it. She testified that she never spoke to petitioner about “how long the trip [to the United States] [wa]s going to be,” nor did she “know that [she] was going to stay” in the United States ahead of time. Elezovic Dep. Tr. 61:10–14, 22–24. Thus, petitioner could not have formed the intent to authorize N.L.’s indefinite relocation to the United States beyond the bounds of a tourist visa. Moreover, respondent testified that she understood both the form petitioner signed for N.L. and the nearly identical form she signed for D.L. to grant “permission just to ... freely get over the border to get out of the country, and nothing else.” Based on this evidence, no reasonable jury could find that petitioner consented to N.L.’s indefinite retention in the United States and thus petitioner has established that N.L.’s retention was wrongful after the expiration of the parties’ B-2 visas on January 1, 2020.

 

[T]he standard for evaluating whether a petitioner is exercising custody at the time of removal is fairly lenient.” Valles Rubio v. Veintimilla Castro, No. 19-CV-2524 (KAM) (ST), 2019 WL 5189011, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2019), aff’d, 813 F. App’x 619 (2d Cir. 2020). “A ‘person cannot fail to “exercise” [his] custody rights under the Hague Convention short of acts that constitute clear and unequivocal abandonment of the child.’” Souratgar v. Fair, No. 12-CV-7797 (PKC), 2012 WL 6700214, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2012) (quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1066 (6th Cir. 1996)), aff’d sub nom. Souratgar v. Lee, 720 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2013). “[A] ne exeat right is by its nature inchoate and so has no operative force except when the other parent seeks to remove the child from the country.” Abbott, 560 U.S. at 13. “If that occurs, the parent can exercise the ne exeat right by declining consent to the exit or placing conditions to ensure the move will be in the child’s best interests. When one parent removes the child without seeking the ne exeat holder’s consent, it is an instance where the right would have been exercised but for the removal or retention.” Petitioner had shown that respondent sought his permission to travel to the United States with N.L. and that he consented to temporary visits. These facts alone show that petitioner was exercising his ne exeat rights at the time respondent wrongfully retained N.L. See Valles Rubio, 2019 WL 5189011, at *18 (finding petitioner exercised ne exeat right “by consenting to limited-duration travel”). Moreover, petitioner has shown that respondent retained N.L. in the United States past the boundaries of his consent, see supra Section I.B, and that he submitted a request for return under the Hague Convention on February 3, 2020, in addition to the instant lawsuit. See Haimdas, 720 F. Supp. 2d at 204 (finding the petitioner “would have exercised her ne exeat right but for the retention” because she declined to consent to her children “staying out of England for longer than one month” but “had no way to enforce that condition once they were physically present in the United States”).

 

Petitioner established a prima facie entitlement to the return remedy that respondent has failed to rebut. Respondent raised four affirmative defenses: (1) that petitioner consented to N.L.’s retention in the United States; (2) that petitioner was not exercising custody rights at the time of N.L.’s retention; (3) that judicial proceedings were not commenced within one year of N.L.’s retention and now she is well settled in New York; and (4) that there is a grave risk that N.L.’s return would expose her to harm. She failed to show either that she was entitled to summary judgment on any of these defenses or that genuine disputes of material facts existed regarding them.