[Ireland][ motion to appoint a guardian ad litem denied]
McElliott v McElliott 2023 WL 4764816 (D. New Jersey, 2023)
Respondent’s motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for the benefit
of the minor child C.M. whom Petitioner seeks returned to Ireland was denied.
[Venezuela][Petition denied][Well-Settled]
Lugo v Padilla. 2023 WL 3853546, (M.D. Florida, 2023)
Recommends, that the Petition be denied. Upon weighing the totality
of the factors—none of which
weigh in favor of a finding that the child is not
well-settled—the court founds that Respondent has carried her burden of proving
that M is well-settled by a preponderance of the evidence. M was well-settled
in this community. Over a year has passed since M was removed from Venezuela,
and M is now a well-settled child. M has spent a substantial portion of his
life in this community, setting down roots all the while. That M’s original
removal was wrongful does not justify yet another uprooting. As the United
States Supreme Court has explained, “the expiration of the 1 year opens the
door to consideration of a third party’s interests, i.e., the child’s interest
in settlement.” Lozano, 572 U.S. at 15. This is a case where M’s interest in being settled outweighed the return
remedy.
[Brazil][Petition granted][Motion for reconsideration and stay pending appeal denied]
Junior v De Sousa. 2023 WL 4725909 (N.D. Ohio, 2023).
Petitioner Edward Jose Junior (“Jose Junior”) brought a petition seeking
an order compelling the return of his child, A.S.C., to Brazil. In 2020, his ex-wife and A.S.C.’s
mother, Respondent Aline Ferreira de Sousa wrongfully removed A.S.C. from
Brazil. On June 27, 2023, this Court granted Jose Junior’s petition and issued
a return order. Respondent Ferreira de Sousa asked the Court (1) to reconsider
the return order on two grounds
and (2) to stay the return order pending appeal. Motion denied.
[Brazil][Petition granted]
Junior v de Sousa 2023 WL 4228163 (N.D. Ohio
2023)
Petitioner Jose Junior sought an order compelling the return of his
seven-year-old child, A.S.C., to Brazil. Petition granted. Jose Junior
established a prima facie case of wrongful removal. Aline had not why a grave
risk of harm would exist if A.S.C. returns. Aline also has not shown that
Brazil would be incapable or unwilling to give A.S.C. adequate protection if it
is later needed. Ferreira de Sousa’s grave risk defense failed. The Court
similarly rejected Ferreira de Sousa’s argument that the United States human
rights principles bar the return of A.S.C. This public policy defense should
only be invoked only on “ ‘the rare occasion that return of a child would
utterly shock the conscience of the court or offend all notions of due
process.’ ” Ferreira de Sousa
has not met that high standard.
Mexico][Petition granted][wrongful removal][no grave risk of harm]
Godinez v Godinez. 2023 WL 3727863, (D. New Jersey,
2023)
Petition against Respondent Levi Helem Morales Godinez seeking the return
of their three minor children, J.A., S.D., and E.M., to Mexico. The Petition was
granted. Godinez exercised his custody rights, and he met his burden of
demonstrating a prima facie case of wrongful removal under the
Convention. While the Court was sympathetic, it could not find clear and
convincing evidence that Morales’s limited testimony of domestic abuse,
standing alone, was sufficient to establish that the children would be at grave
risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise in an intolerable situation
if they were returned to Mexico. There was no evidence of any abuse, neglect,
or violence directed toward any of the children.
[Mexico][Petition granted][Stay pending appeal denied]
Godinez v Godinez, 2023 WL 4295763 (D. New Jersey, 2023)
Stay
pending appeal denied.
[Brazil][Petition denied][Well-Settled]
De Costa v De Lima, 2023 WL 4049378 (D. Massachusetts,
2023).
Petition for the return of six-year-old son to Brazil. T.F. was currently
living in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. The Court found that T.F. was well
settled in the United States and would not order his return to Brazil, It did
not reach the issue of whether his return would put T.F. at grave risk of harm.
