Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Esparza v Nares, 2022 WL 17724414 ( S.D. Texas, 2022)

 

[Mexico] [Age and Maturity exception] [Petition granted]

In Esparza v Nares, 2022 WL 17724414 ( S.D. Texas, 2022) the District Court granted the petition for the return of the two minor children to Mexico. Petitioner and Respondent were Mexican. During their marriage, Esparza and Nares had two children: M.G.R.D. and V.N.R.D. The Children were both Mexican citizens, having been born in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. They resided there for the majority of their lives. In April  2021, Esparza and Nares divorced. As part of their divorce, the parties, entered into a divorce decree, that governs the legal custody arrangement of the Children. Under the decree, that was agreed to by both sides, the parents maintained joint legal custody of the Children. Pursuant to that decree, Esparza was permitted to see and live with his daughters from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Wednesdays. At all other times, the Children remained with Nares. The divorce agreement also specified how the parents were to travel with the Children. Under that agreement, each parent was allowed to travel with the Children, but travel was limited to 15 days per trip and the parties were required to inform one another about the trips. In May 2022, Nares, without permission or prior notice to Esparza, left Nueva Leon and brought the two Children to Texas. The Children remained in Texas ever since. The only issue for the Court to decide was whether the Hague Convention’s Article 13 age and maturity exception applied. It states, “[t]he judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.” Hague International Child Abduction Convention; 51 Fed. Reg.at 10494-01, Art. 13. The party opposing the child’s return must establish the child’s maturity by a preponderance of the evidence. England v. England, 234 F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 2000). “[W]hether a child is of sufficient age and maturity is a fact-intensive process,” and the Fifth Circuit has “declined to hold, as a matter of law, that any particular age is sufficient of insufficient to meet the defense.” Dietz v. Dietz, 349 F. App’x 930, 934 (5th Cir. 2009). The  age and maturity exception is to be applied narrowly. The two Children here were  eleven and six years old. Neither speaks English; consequently, the Court’s interpreter translated. The girls were interviewed separately so the Court could evaluate them separately. During their respective interviews, both kept their eye cast downwards and spoke in a quiet manner. Both Children only spoke a couple of words at a time. For the most part, they were unable to explain their answers, often sticking to yes, no, I don’t know or one word answers. The case shared similarities with Dietz v. Dietz. In the Dietz case, the court held a 13-year-old was not mature under the Hague Convention. Dietz, 349 F. App’x at 934. The court noted that he was “highly defensive,... he spoke in a short and cut manner in a low monotone and kept his eyes cast downward.” The court also pointed to the report of a child psychologist who examined the boy and determine despite showing high average to superior intelligence, he displayed only average verbal skills, and performed poorly in school. Id. Also in that case, the Court did not credit 9-year-old Angus’s preference because it found that his views were “unduly influenced by his father.” The Court acknowledged that both Children voiced a preference for remaining in Texas with their mother, but this testimony, even when one gives due consideration to the circumstances surrounding the questioning, was not sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Children were mature enough for the Court to appropriately take into account their views under the age and maturity exception. Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F.3d 466, 476 (5th Cir. 2016) (requiring an “[o]bject[tion] not a mere preference.”). In so holding, this Court considered their answers, but also their demeanor, their attention to what was being asked, and the manner of their responses. The totality of the evidence made it clear that neither girl demonstrated the age and maturity necessary for the Court to take their views into account. Since the Court found the Children were not of sufficient age and maturity, and ordered the two minor children be returned to Nuevo Leon, Mexico.

 

 

 

Poix v Santana, 2022 WL 16751915 ( S.D. New York, 2022)[Dominican Republic] [Petition granted] [ Temporary stay granted]

 

In Poix v Santana,  2022 WL 16751915( S.D. New York, 2022) on October 17, 2022, the Court granted  Petitioner Joseph Etienne’s Petition for the return of his children, M.G.E. and A.F.E., to the Dominican Republic. Respondent filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay its order for the return of the children pending appeal. The District Court observed that courts should apply the four traditional stay factors in considering whether to stay a return order: ‘(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) “[A] district court’s application of these four factors to its own return order under the Hague Convention will rarely augur in favor of issuing a stay.” Hofmann v. Sender, No. 12 Civ. 8104 (KMK), 2012 WL 8466673, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 20, 2012); see also Lukic v. Elezovic, No. 20 Civ. 3110 (ARR) (LB), 2021 WL 804384, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2021) (“[S]tays pending appeal of Hague Convention return orders ... are heavily disfavored.”; Haimdas v. Haimdas, 720 F. Supp. 2d 183, 211 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Staying the return of a child in an action under the Convention should hardly be a matter of course.” Three of the four factors clearly favored denying a stay.  Nor did the remaining factor—irreparable harm to the moving party—favor granting a stay. The return of the children would  not moot Respondent’s appeal to the Second Circuit, see Chafin, 568 U.S. at 180, and were the Court’s decision to be reversed she should be able to bring the children back to the United States, since she retained temporary guardianship of them in the Dominican Republic. Nonetheless, although staying return is ordinarily disfavored in the context of Hague Convention cases, district courts in this Circuit often grant brief, temporary stays to enable respondents to seek emergency relief from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before a child is returned. See, e.g., In re E.Z., No. 21 Civ. 6524 (MKV), 2021 WL 5106637, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2021); Lukic, 2021 WL 804384, at *4; Grano v. Martin, 443 F. Supp. 3d 510, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Souratgar v. Fair, No. 12 Civ. 7797 (PKC), 2012 WL 6700214, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2012); Hofmann, 2012 WL 8466673, at *2; Haimdas, 720 F. Supp. 2d at 211-12. And the Court of Appeals has indicated that it finds such brief delays helpful. See Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2001) (“The District Court helpfully stayed its order until November 30 to permit Mezitis to seek a stay pending appeal from this Court.”). For that reason, the Court granted a brief stay of one week of its October 17, 2022 order that Respondent return M.G.E. and A.F.E. to the Dominican Republic, so that Respondent may seek emergency relief from the Court of Appeals.

Poix v Santana, 2022 WL 9847347 ( S.D. New York, 2022) [Dominican Republic] [Petition granted] [Habitual residence][Grave risk of harm not established]

In Poix v Santana, 2022 WL 9847347 ( S.D. New York, 2022) the Court granted the Petition and ordered the children M.G.E. and A.F.E., returned to the Dominican Republic.

 Petitioner, who was born in Haiti in 1968, was a citizen of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, while Respondent was born in the Dominican Republic in 1986. The two met in 2013 and were married in the Dominican Republic in April 2014. Following their marriage, they resided in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. They had two children. M.G.E was born in Manhattan in January 2016, and A.F.E. was born in Manhattan in October 2017. Soon after each child was born in the United States, thereby securing U.S. citizenship, the Respondent and the child returned to the Dominican Republic, In April 2020, the parties separated, and the Respondent and the children moved out of the family’s joint residence. The parties subsequently were divorced by mutual consent in December 2020. At some point around the end of July 2021, Respondent moved with the children from Santo Domingo to Santiago, the city in the Dominican Republic where her family resided. Then, on August 22, 2021, the Respondent and the children traveled from the Dominican Republic to the United States. They currently resided in New York City, where the Respondent worked as a teacher. Petitioner realized that Respondent and the children had left the Dominican Republic for the United States at some point in September 2021. 

 

The Court found that the evidence at trial established that, aside from their births, M.G.E. and A.F.E. lived in the Dominican Republic until the Respondent removed them to the United States in August 2021. The testimony further revealed that, while married, Petitioner and Respondent both intended the Dominican Republic to be the children’s habitual residence. Dominican family law grants “[p]arental authority ... equally to the father and mother.”  Dominican Republic Law 136-03, art. 67 That parental authority ends when a child reaches adulthood, marries, or dies, or when it is terminated by a court. The children are not adults, they have not married, and they have not died, nor has Petitioner’s parental authority been terminated by a court. Respondent was granted temporary guardianship of the children in the decree of divorce that dissolved their marriage. But an award of temporary guardianship to one parent does not constitute an order terminating the other’s parental authority. Thus, Petitioner retained parental authority over the children after his divorce from Respondent, including at the point when she removed them from the Dominican Republic to the United States. Under Dominican law, Petitioner’s parental authority grants him a ne exeat right to prevent the children from being taken from the country without his consent: “If one of the parents intends to leave the country with one of their sons or daughters, they may not do so without the written consent of the other [parent].” Dominican Republic Law 136-03, art. 204; Respondent herself acknowledged to Petitioner when renewing the children’s passports that she would need his consent to take them out of the country. Because she removed the children from the Dominican Republic without Petitioner’s written consent, Respondent violated Petitioner’s ne exeat right under Dominican family law. And since a ne exeat right is a right of custody under the Convention, see Abbott, 560 U.S. at 10, the removal was “in breach of rights of custody” under Article 3 of the Convention, as Respondent conceded, The evidence submitted at trial easily satisfied Petitioner’s burden of showing that his involvement with the children prior to their removal constituted the exercise of his rights of custody. After the separation, he saw them “[a]t least once a week on a regular basis.”  Beyond his in-person interactions with the children, Petitioner further exercised his rights of custody by helping with the children’s expenses and participating in childcare—as Respondent herself acknowledged at trial. With all three elements under the Convention established, see Gitter, 396 F.3d at 130-31, the Court concluded that the children were wrongfully removed from the Dominican Republic for purposes of the Convention. 

The Respondent argued that Petitioner ceased to exercise his rights of custody during the months immediately before the children’s removal from the Dominican Republic. During that period, she argued, he did not visit them in person, he refused to communicate with them over telephone or video chat, and he refused to visit them in person by traveling from Santo Domingo, where he lived, to Santiago, where Respondent was living with the children. The parties do not dispute those facts. Petitioner did not see the children in person from late June or early July 2021 until their removal (and, indeed, has not seen them since). During that period, Petitioner acknowledged, he refused to travel to Santiago even though Respondent had said she would let him see the children there. And when Respondent told him that she was willing to permit him to communicate with the children only via telephone or video chat, he responded not by using those methods of communication but rather by telling her that her offer was “unacceptable.” The court noted that in some circumstances, a parent’s cessation of communications or in-person visits with a child might suggest that he stopped exercising his rights of custody. But while Petitioner did not actually communicate with the children or see them in person after around late June 2021, the evidence at trial showed that he attempted to maintain contact with them in July and August 2021 before they left the Dominican Republic for the United States. The evidence established that Petitioner did attempt to maintain regular contact with the children between June 2021 and their departure from the Dominican Republic in August 2021: he repeatedly asked Respondent to allow him to visit them in person, and the Court concludes that he would have continued to maintain contact with them had those requests been granted. Thus, although he did not visit them in person after June 2021, in these circumstances that fact did not reflect a failure to exercise rights of custody at the time of the removal. Accordingly, Petitioner established at trial by a preponderance of the evidence that he was exercising rights of custody at the time the children were removed from the Dominican Republic. Consequently, their removal was wrongful under Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, because Respondent had not produced sufficient evidence to show that Petitioner “was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal,” the exception established by Article 13(a) of the Convention cannot apply.

 

The Court rejected the Respondent's grave risk defense under Article 13(b) of the Convention, which permits a court not to return a child if “there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” Hague Convention art. 13(b). While Respondent did present some evidence in support of her Article 13(b) defense, that evidence was insufficient to show it highly probable or reasonably certain that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. Consequently, Respondent did not show that Article 13(b) permits this Court to decline to order the return of the children to the Dominican Republic.

 

Respondent’s counsel argued at trial that returning the children to the Dominican Republic would risk exposing them to physical violence from Petitioner. Tr. at 239:20-23. Without a doubt, violence directed at a child could qualify as severe harm under Article 13(b). See Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153, 164-65 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding a “sustained pattern of physical abuse” on the part of a petitioner sufficient for an Article 13(b) defense).  The primary event Respondent cited as evidence of that risk is the incident of spousal violence, that she alleged took place while she was pregnant with A.F.E. As described, the incident was disturbing and abhorrent. But even accepting Respondent’s characterization as accurate, it would provide only weak evidence in support of an Article 13(b) defense, however poorly the incident might otherwise reflect upon Petitioner. For even if it demonstrates that Respondent might have faced a grave risk of further violence were she to have remained in a relationship with Petitioner, “[t]he Article 13(b) 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 (emphasis added). That is, spousal violence bears on Respondent’s Article 13(b) defense only to the extent that it identifies a grave risk of violence that the children would face if returned. Certainly, spousal violence can sometimes support a finding that such a risk to the children exists if it “show[s] a sustained pattern of physical abuse and/or a propensity for violent abuse.” But a single incident of violence does not suffice to demonstrate a sustained pattern of or propensity for abuse. “[L]imited incidents aimed at persons other than the child, even if witnessed by the child, have not been found to constitute a grave risk.” Indeed, the Second Circuit has affirmed an order for a child’s return despite evidence of repeated spousal violence; because given “the lack of any indicia of ill-will on the part of [the petitioner] toward [the child], and contrary credited evidence of a loving father-son relationship,” the spousal violence was insufficient to establish a “clear and convincing showing in the record that the boy faces a grave risk of harm from his father,” id. at 106. And if repeated spousal violence does not suffice for an Article 13(b) defense, then the single incident Respondent alleged cannot suffice either, especially when combined with the absence of any evidence that Petitioner ever abused the children and the ample evidence of his loving relationship with them.

 

To support her Article 13(b) defense, Respondent also pointed to the social gathering in Puerto Plata in 2017 that she, Petitioner, and M.G.E. attended. At that gathering, some friends of Petitioner’s were smoking marijuana, causing Respondent to feel unsafe and ultimately to leave with M.G.E. Subsequently, she was forced to make her way home by herself via taxi and public transportation, despite having very little cash on her. Petitioner’s conduct on this occasion, while perhaps not exemplary, did not amount to clear and convincing evidence that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. An Article 13(b) defense may succeed based on the risk that a petitioner himself will cause harm “in cases of serious abuse or neglect.” Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 103  

The Court rejected the argument that Petitioner’s refusal to contact the children via telephone or video chat after they were removed from the Dominican Republic justifies a finding that returning them would create a grave risk because his failure to contact the children demonstrates his lack of empathy for them and disregard for their wellbeing. 

 The remaining evidence Respondent advanced to sustain her Article 13(b) defense largely concerned Petitioner’s treatment of her during their marriage. Respondent testified that Petitioner misinformed her about the number of children he had and about the nature of his relationships with some of them; he began drinking during the marriage; he would not let her visit her family for the holidays; he misled her about his faith,  he was unfaithful to her after she gave birth to M.G.E.; he verbally abused her,  he used his control of the family’s finances to control her; and he argued with her in public around the couple’s friends. As a result, both Respondent and her witnesses testified that she was depressed and unhappy in the marriage. Article 13(b) does not establish an exception to return based on the relationship between the parents; rather, it permits children not to be returned only when there is a grave risk of harm to the children. Thus, the reasons for the breakdown of the parties’ marriage are not relevant to the Article 13(b) analysis unless they establish a very high likelihood that the children will suffer severe harm if they are returned. And while this evidence may establish Petitioner’s unsuitability to be married to Respondent, Respondent advanced no argument for why it showed that the children will likely suffer harm if they are returned to the Dominican Republic.

 

Respondent did not establish by clear and convincing evidence, the grave risk that returning the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. See Hague Convention art. 13(b).  

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Mejia Rodriguez v. Molina, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2022 WL 4597455 ( S.D. Iowa, 2022)

 [Honduras][Petition granted] [Grave risk of harm not established] 

In Mejia Rodriguez v. Molina, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2022 WL 4597455 ( S.D. Iowa, 2022) minor Child was born in Honduras to Eny Adamy Mejia Rodriguez and Dennys Antonio Reyes Molina. She lived with both parents for the first months of her life until they separated. Afterwards, she lived with Petitioner full-time while Respondent and Respondent’s family remained involved in her life. Minor Child lived with Petitioner from their separation until Respondent brought her to the United States. Court heard testimony from several people explaining how Petitioner struck Minor Child as punishment for misbehavior. The period of abuse started when the Minor Child was two and continued until she was removed from Honduras at the age of five. Respondent testified that Petitioner used physical violence to punish Minor Child for her behavior. She used a broom to strike the child for being energetic at the age of two. She repeatedly utilized either her fist or the palm of her hand to hit the Minor Child on the back as punishment, which started at the age of four. On another occasion, she repeatedly hit the Minor Child with a belt, leaving significant bruises, after she urinated in her bed. This caused the child to be so scared that she urinated in the bed again. Respondent’s sister, Luz Marina Reyes Molina, testified to Petitioner’s history of striking the minor child as well. She stated Petitioner once hit the child in her home when Petitioner and the child visited. Specifically, Petitioner punched the child in the back for being disrespectful. She recalled Minor Child would visit her house and tell her something like “mom hit me” during the visits. Respondent’s other sister, Lillian Maritza Reyes Molina, also witnessed Petitioner strike the child during a visit. She observed an instance of Petitioner hitting the Minor Child as punishment for her behavior. Petitioner kicked her other child, the child’s older brother, during the same visit. Beyond this incident, she stated there were two other instances where Petitioner was intoxicated and struck the child, although the timeframe of these incidents was unclear.

The parties did not dispute that Petitioner  established a prima facie case of improper removal under the Convention. The court found that Respondent had not established the applicability of a grave risk exception by clear and convincing evidence. The Petition for Return was granted. The Court held that Grave risk constitutes an affirmative defense when there will likely be “serious abuse or neglect” upon return. The key inquiry is “the gravity of risk” facing the child. This analysis focuses on “the probability of harm, but also the magnitude of the harm if the probability materializes. ”A court must cite “specific evidence of potential harm” to a child as part of the inquiry.  There are several factors to consider when examining the grave risk of serious abuse or neglect in the context of physical abuse. The first consideration is if a parent abused their children. The second factor is a parent’s ability to manage their anger. The third factor is spousal abuse. The Court found the record did not show by clear and convincing evidence that Minor Child would face a similarly grave risk of serious harm upon return to Honduras. The Court held the evidence was insufficient to grant Respondent the relief he sought. 

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Radu v Shon, 2022 WL 4535419 ( D. Arizona, 2022).

 

[Germany][Petition granted] [Request for third Stay denied]

 In Radu v Shon, 2022 WL 4535419 ( D. Arizona, 2022) on August 22, 2022, the Court granted Radu’s Petition for Return of Children to Germany. Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion to Stay the Court’s Third Return Order pending the appeal . The Court held that in considering whether to stay a return order in a Hague Convention case, courts consider the traditional stay factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [s]he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably inured 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). The Court did not find that Respondent had made a strong showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her appeal. The second factor weighed in favor of a stay because returning to Germany while Respondent’s appeal was pending will be disruptive to Respondent and the children. See Chafin, 568 U.S. at 178 (“shuttling children back and forth between parents and across international borders may be detrimental to those children”). The third factor weighed strongly against a stay, even though Respondent’s appeal had been expedited. Petitioner has joint custody rights under German law and yet, as a result of Respondent’s actions, he had been unable to see his children in over three years. The testimony and evidence before the Court indicated that Respondent interfered with Petitioner’s ability to contact his children. Respondent’s interference with Petitioner’s ability to see and contact his children has and continues to cause substantial and irreparable injury to Petitioner—and, appears to be causing injury to O.S.R., as well. The fourth factor was neutral, as the public interest favors both the prompt return of wrongfully removed children and the safeguarding of the well-being of children. On balance, the relevant factors weighed against granting a stay pending resolution of Respondent’s appeal. However, the Court granted Respondent’s alternative request to temporarily stay its Third Return Order until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on a timely filed motion to stay.

 

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Tsuruta v Tsuruta, 2022 WL 4299814( E.D. Missouri, 2022)

 Tsuruta v Tsuruta, 2022 WL 4299814( E.D. Missouri, 2022)

[Japan] [Petition granted] [Habitual residence] [Grave risk of harm not established][Consent or acquiescence not established]

 

In Tsuruta v Tsuruta, 2022 WL 4299814( E.D. Missouri, 2022) the Petitioner demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Japan was the habitual residence of L.T. immediately prior to her removal from Japan on October 15, 2021. There was significant evidence that L.T. acclimatized to Japan during her time there. Although the evidence regarding the intentions of L.T.’s parents was conflicting, it generally supported a finding that the parents had the settled purpose of creating a home in Japan, perhaps not forever, but for a significant period of time.

As of the time L.T. was removed from Japan, L.T.’s place of habitual residence was Japan. The burden thus shifted to Respondent to establish an affirmative defense to L.T.’s prompt return.

 In her Answer, Respondent asserted two affirmative defenses: (1) that returning L.T. to Japan would expose L.T. to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm; and (2) that Petitioner consented to and acquiesced in Respondent’s retaining L.T. in the United States. In her Answer, Respondent alleged that Petitioner had “abused, isolated, controlled, and assaulted Respondent and the Minor Child, both physically and verbally,” and that “[t]he Minor Child has expressed fear of Petitioner and is afraid of further harm at the hands of Petitioner.” Respondent also alleged that she and the child were held in Japan against their will for twenty months, and that Petitioner “told Respondent that if she ever tried to leave Petitioner’s control, he would kill her.” When she testified at trial, Respondent offered no evidence in support of most of these allegations. The Court found no evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that returning L.T. to Japan would subject L.T. to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.  In her Answer, Respondent alleged that prior to leaving Japan, she informed Petitioner of her intent to come home to the United States, that Petitioner was aware at all times that Respondent had left Japan with the child for the United States and was in continuous contact with Respondent; and that Petitioner did not make any effort to secure the return of the child until 180 days had passed after the removal and until over 150 days after Respondent filed divorce proceedings. Respondent did not address this defense in her trial brief or in the proposed memorandum opinion she filed after trial. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court found that Respondent had not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, either that Petitioner consented to the removal of L.T. before it occurred or that Petitioner acquiesced in the removal after it occurred.

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Homer v Homer, 2022 WL 4290465 (S.D. Texas, 2022)

 

Homer v Homer, 2022 WL 4290465 (S.D. Texas, 2022)

[Sweden] [Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expenses and Costs] granted in part and denied in part.

The Court awarded Derek $32,780 for attorney’s fees and $5,205.65 for expenses. Derek filed motion to recover his attorney’s fees, expenses and costs incurred for the return of S.C.H. in the amount o of $40,437 for Derek’s attorney’s fees and $16,198.22 for Derek’s costs and expenses in the United States and Sweden.  The Court observed that he respondent, not the movant. bears the burden of demonstrating that a fee award is clearly inappropriate. Ebele’s response failed to cite any case interpreting or applying the statute in support of an argument that there was an equitable basis for reducing the award of fees and costs. Ebele’s response did  not provide any evidence regarding her financial condition, employment status or other evidence that courts have used as an equitable basis to reduce an award. Instead, Ebele globally argued that the total amount of fees and costs requested are “patently not reasonable.