Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v. Bafna-Louis, Not Reported in Fed....2023 WL 6173335 (2d Cir.,2023)[United Kingdom][Habitual residence][Rights of custody] [Petition granted]

 

In Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v. Bafna-Louis, Not Reported in Fed....2023 WL 6173335 (2d Cir.,2023) the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the petition for return.

      Bafna-Louis first challenged the District Court’s determination that Baby L’s habitual residence was the United Kingdom. A child’s habitual residence presents a “mixed question of law and fact—albeit barely so.” Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719, 730 (2020) (quotation marks omitted). “Once “the trial court correctly identifies the governing totality-of-the-circumstances standard, however, what remains for the court to do in applying that standard ... is to answer a factual question: Was the child at home in the particular country at issue?”  Because the District Court identified the correct legal standard, it reviewed its habitual residence determination “by a clear-error review standard deferential to the factfinding court,” id., keeping in mind that “courts must be sensitive to the unique circumstances of the case and informed by common sense,”. In general, “[a] child ‘resides’ where she lives. [A child’s] residence in a particular country can be deemed ‘habitual,’ however, only when her residence there is more than transitory.”). For children who are too young to acclimate to their surroundings, as is the case with Baby L, the “intentions and circumstances of caregiving parents are relevant considerations.” “No single fact, however, is dispositive[.]” Here, the District Court considered all of the relevant factors and credited Bafna-Louis’s testimony that she intended to relocate to New York with Baby L. The District Court nevertheless found that Baby L was a habitual resident of the United Kingdom. That finding was supported principally by the following record evidence: (1) Baby L was born in London and was issued a passport by the United Kingdom; (2) at the time Baby L was born, Bafna-Louis “had long maintained a residence in [the United Kingdom];” (3) when Bafna-Louis traveled internationally prior to Baby L’s birth, she resided principally in the United Kingdom; and (4) Baby L’s biological father was physically located in the United Kingdom, and the court proceedings related to him occurred there. On such a record, it could not conclude that the District Court clearly erred in finding that Baby L’s habitual residence was the United Kingdom.

           Bafna-Louis next challenged the District Court’s conclusion that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (“RBKC”) had custody rights over Baby L at the time Baby L was removed from the United Kingdom. According ”considerable weight” to the laws of the United Kingdom, the country of Baby L’s habitual residence, it affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that RBKC had custody rights over Baby L at the time of removal. First, before Baby L was removed, the High Court of Justice (the “High Court”), Family Division in London issued two ne exeat orders prohibiting the removal of Baby L from the United Kingdom. See App’x 77; App’x 898 (“The mother must not remove the child from the jurisdiction of England and Wales until further order.”). These ne exeat orders granted the High Court rights of custody over Baby L. See A v. B (Abduction: Declaration) [2009] 1 FLR 1253, 1259-60 (noting that courts become vested with rights of custody once a “judicial determination” has been issued). The High Court’s ne exeat orders vested the RBKC with custody rights over Baby L before his removal and that the RBKC properly exercised those rights in this case..

         Finally, Bafna-Louis contended that the District Court erred in determining that Baby L did not face a “grave risk that his ... return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,” within the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Convention. While the holder of a “ne exeat right has a right of custody and may seek a return remedy, a return order is not automatic.” “[A] respondent who opposes the return of the child has the burden of establishing ... by clear and convincing evidence” that Article 13(b) applies. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(A); see Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir. 1999). But Article 13(b)’s “grave risk of harm” standard “involves not only the magnitude of the potential harm but also the probability that the harm will materialize.” Souratgar, 720 F.3d at 103. “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.”. More specifically, “a grave risk of harm from repatriation arises in two situations: (1) where returning the child means sending him to a zone of war, famine, or disease; or (2) in cases of serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional dependence, when the court in the country of habitual residence, for whatever reason, may be incapable or unwilling to give the child adequate protection.”

     Based principally on her testimony that Individual-1 and Individual-2 raped, harassed, and assaulted her, Bafna-Louis argued that there is a grave risk that Baby L will be exposed to great harm from those individuals if he is returned to the United Kingdom. Substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s March 7 order, however, it agreed that Bafna-Louis failed to show that Baby L’s removal to the United Kingdom posed a grave risk of harm to the child or would create an intolerable situation under Article 13(b). Bafna-Louis, 2023 WL 2387385, at *25-27.

 

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Mcelligott v. Mcelligott, 2023 WL 5932947 (D. New Jersey, 2023)[Ireland][Petition granted] [Wishes of the Child Defense] [Indue influence]

 Mcelligott v. Mcelligott, 2023 WL 5932947 (D. New Jersey, 2023)

 The District Court granted the Petition by Stephen McElligott for the return of his minor child C.M., to Ireland. Petitioner Stephen McElligott was born in Ireland and was an Irish citizen. Respondent Audrey McElligott (nee Mocco) was born in New York and was an American citizen. The parties were married on November 10, 2009, in Ireland where they lived together until November 14, 2022. The parties’ older son, C.M., was born in Ireland on April 9, 2011, and lived in the family home in Ireland with both parents until November 14, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Petitioner gave written consent to Respondent to travel to the United States with C.M. and J.M. from November 14, 2022, until November 28, 2022.  C.M. was a citizen of Ireland. J.M., a second son, was born in Ireland on March 19, 2013, and lived in the family home in Ireland with both parents and his older brother, C.M. The Court concluded that Petitioner made out a prima facie case under the Convention that C.M. was wrongfully retained in the United States after removal from his habitual residence in Ireland, in violation of Petitioner’s custody rights under Irish law, which he was exercising at the time of wrongful retention. The Court found that C.M. offered rational and particularized reasons for opposing return, beyond a mere “generalized desire” to remain where he was. The Court found that C.M.’s desire to remain in the United States and not return to Ireland was the product of undue influence. The Court found that the child’s wrongful detention in New Jersey for what was approaching a year among his mother and her close-knit family, all of whom view Petitioner very negatively and apparently had no hesitation in expressing the same in front of C.M. — coupled with the welcome American accoutrements such as summer camps, cellphones, and private gyms that were not afforded to him in Ireland — had understandably but improperly contributed to his desire to remain here.  Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion under the Convention to find that this is not an appropriate case in which to deny the Petition. C.M. must return to his father and brother in Ireland.

 

 

Green v Phuong, 2023 WL 5608992 ( Ninth Circuit, 2023) [Indonesia][ Subject matter jurisdiction ][Petition denied]

 [Indonesia][ Subject matter jurisdiction ][Petition denied]

 

In Green v Phuong,  2023 WL 5608992 ( Ninth Circuit, 2023) Richard Lee Green appealed pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Hague Convention. The Ninth Circuit held that the dismissal of Green’s action was proper because Green did not allege facts sufficient to show that his children were “habitually resident in a Contracting State” because Indonesia is not a Convention signatory. See Convention, Art. 4 (providing that the Convention applies “to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights”)

 

Tsuruta v Tsuruta,2023 WL 5114936 (Eighth Circuit, 2023) [Japan][Habitual Residence][Petition granted]

In Tsuruta v Tsuruta,2023 WL 5114936 (Eighth Circuit, 2023) the Eighth Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court which granted the Petition of  Naoteru Tsuruta (“Naoteru”) for the return of the parties' child to Japan  

     In 2015, Sarah gave birth to L.T. in Miami, Florida. At the time, Naoteru was living in the U.K. Ten months after L.T. was born, Sarah and L.T. moved to the U.K. to live with Naoteru. In 2018, Naoteru and Sarah married, and the family moved from the U.K. to Japan. While in Japan, L.T. attended school/daycare, learned to speak Japanese and English, engaged in extracurricular activities, traveled, and spent time with extended family. In November 2019, Sarah and L.T. traveled from Japan to Missouri to visit Sarah’s family. In February 2020, Sarah and L.T. voluntarily returned to Japan. Sarah became unhappy with the living situation in Japan and repeatedly told Naoteru she wanted to leave Japan and get a divorce. After continued arguments between Naoteru and Sarah, Naoteru attempted to conceal L.T.’s Japanese passport and expired U.S. passport. On October 15, 2021, Sarah found the concealed passports in Naoteru’s work storage facility and went to the U.S. Embassy in Japan. At the Embassy, Sarah reported she feared for her life and her child’s safety. The Embassy issued an emergency passport, and the two went directly to the airport and flew back to the United States. Sarah and L.T. had return flights booked for March 15, 2022. In November 2021, Sarah filed a petition for divorce in Missouri. After learning of the divorce filings in March 2022, Naoteru filed the present petition to have L.T. returned to Japan under the Hague Convention.

      The only contested element of the prima facie case was L.T.’s habitual residence prior to being removed in October 2021. At an evidentiary hearing, Naoteru argued Japan was L.T.’s habitual residence because L.T. had spent most of her time in Japan for the previous three years, attended school in Japan, participated in extracurricular activities in Japan, and gotten to know the extended family in Japan. Additionally, L.T. had spent limited time in the United States before being removed in October 2021, spending only a few months in Missouri before voluntarily returning to Japan. Sarah argued Japan was not L.T.’s habitual residence because Sarah was coerced into living in Japan, L.T. had significant connections to the United States, Japan was never intended as a permanent residence, and L.T. never acclimated to Japan. To support her coercion argument, Sarah asserted Naoteru had her sign a marriage license she didn’t understand, controlled all of the finances, isolated L.T. from Sarah by only speaking Japanese, and controlled all important decisions. Sarah also argued Naoteru’s petition was an effort to “forum shop.” Sarah asserted Naoteru wanted to avoid a child custody case in the United States due to negative experiences in previous U.S. divorce proceedings with a different woman including the issuance of warrants for his arrest for failure to pay child support.

The  district court noted the determination of habitual residence “is a ‘fact-driven inquiry’ and ‘depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case.’ ” The district court then found Naoteru had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Japan was L.T.’s habitual residence prior to removal in October 2021. In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on several factors including: evidence showing L.T. acclimated to Japan between 2018 and 2021, evidence showing Sarah and Naoteru had a “settled purpose of creating a home in Japan,” and a lack of evidence to show Sarah was coerced into living in Japan. The district court concluded the lack of physical abuse, violence, or threats of violence as well as limited evidence of control distinguished this case from other instances where coercion impacted the habitual residence determination.

The Eighth Circuit observed that Determining habitual residence is a mixed question of fact and law. Monasky, 140 S. Ct. at 730. It found that the district court did not commit a clear error in determining L.T. was “at home” in Japan as of October 15, 2021. L.T. spent most of her time in Japan since 2018. She attended school/daycare in Japan. She participated in activities in Japan. While Sarah might not have intended to spend the rest of L.T.’s life in Japan, Japan was where L.T. was “at home” on the relevant date.

On appeal, Sarah again argued Japan could not be L.T.’s habitual residence because Sarah was coerced into living in Japan and therefore did not intend to make Japan L.T.’s home. Sarah cites two cases for the proposition that one parent being coerced into living in a country is relevant to the habitual residence determination because it affects the intent of the parents. See Application of Ponath, 829 F.Supp. 363, 368 (D. Utah 1993) (“Petitioner’s coercion of respondent by means of verbal, emotional and physical abuse removed any element of choice and settled purpose which earlier may have been present in the family’s decision to visit Germany.”); Tsarbopoulos v. Tsarbopoulos, 176 F.Supp. 2d 1045, 1049 (E.D. Wash. 2001) (“The verbal and physical abuse of one spouse by the other is one of several factors in the Court’s determination of the existence of ‘shared intent’ to make a place the family’s ‘habitual residence.’ ”). The district court addressed these cases and found: “The physical abuse, verbal abuse, and controlling behavior that motivated the courts in both Tsarbopoulos and Ponath are simply not present here. There is no evidence of physical abuse, violence, or threats of violence in this case. Additionally, having considered the testimony of Petitioner and Respondent and having reviewed the text message exchanges between the parties, the court did not find evidence of the type of verbal abuse or controlling behavior that would suggest that Petitioner was coerced or forced into staying in Japan.” Therefore, Sarah’s coercion argument on appeal was  inconsistent with the district court’s factual findings, which are not clearly erroneous.

      Sarah also argued, for the first time on appeal, that Naoteru had “unclean hands” which precluded him from seeking relief in this case. Given the factual questions and the lack of a record or findings as to a connection between Naoteru’s allegedly improper conduct and this case, the Court declared that this was not the time to decide whether “unclean hands” applies to Hague Convention cases.

The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook by Joel R. Brandes

 

The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is a “how to” book. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a matrimonial action and custody case. The book deals extensively with the testimonial and documentary evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof. There are thousands of suggested questions for the examination and cross-examination of the parties and expert witnesses at trial. It is available in hardcover, as well as Kindle and electronic editions. It is also available from Amazon,  and other booksellers.  See Table of Contents. 

The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook 2023 Cumulative Update is available on Amazon in hardcover, paperback, Kindle, and electronic editions. This update includes changes in the law and important cases decided by the New York Courts since the original volume was published. It brings the text and case law up to date through and including December 31, 2022, and contains additional questions for witnesses. See Table of Contents.

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Soterano v. Aponte, 2023 WL 3790895, (S.D. Florida,2023)

 [Venezuela][Petition denied][Well-settled]

Soterano v. Aponte, 2023 WL 3790895, (S.D. Florida,2023).

Petitioner, Adel Jose Sabbagh Soterano, sought the return of his son A.S.O. and his daughter R.S.O. to Venezuela. The Mother argued one of the Hague Convention exceptions applies, specifically that the Father was not exercising custodial rights, that the Children would be at risk of harm if they were to return, or because the Father’s filing is untimely, the Children are well-settled and object to returning to Venezuela. The Court found that the Father had established a prima facie case for return. However, because the Father’s petition was not filed within a year of removal and the Mother had met her burden in showing that the Children were well-settled in their new environment and prefer to live with their Mother, the Court denied the Petition.

 

Recent Hague Convention District Court Cases - Sarmiento v Morales. 2023 WL 3886075 (S.D. Texas, 2023)

 Ecuador][Petition denied][Grave risk of harm]

Sarmiento v Morales. 2023 WL 3886075  (S.D. Texas, 2023)

Petitioner by Victor Modesto Hernandez Morales for the return of his five-year-old son, VAHV (o Ecuador. In January 2022, when he was not yet four, VAHV was brought to the United States by his mother. The Court found that Petitioner met his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that VAHV was wrongfully removed from Ecuador. the Court found that Respondent met her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that VAHV was at grave risk of being exposed to physical and psychological harm should the Court order his return to Ecuador. The Court declines to order a return. The Petition for Return was denied.