By Michael P. Sampson

Sampson Collaborative Law, August 26, 2025

What are the six defenses to child abduction claims under the Hague Convention?

A parent who moves with a child from the child’s home country to another country, or retains the child in the other country, may face accusations that the move or retention is wrongful. The parent who stays behind may assert the parent who moved or kept the child from the home country committed wrongful child abduction in violation of international law.

Unless the parents agree to quick alternative dispute resolution such as mediation or the collaborative process, the parents will face fact-intensive, international litigation. The parent with the child must prove legal justification for removal or retention of the child. This article gives an overview of the Hague Convention defenses to international child abduction claims.

International Child Abduction: The Hague Convention

The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague on October 25, 1980 T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 U.N.T.S. reprinted in 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (1986) (“Hague Convention”) establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained. The International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”) is the statute in the United States that implements the Hague Convention. 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9011. One hundred other countries are Convention signatories. Status Table.

Under ICARA, a person may petition a court authorized to exercise jurisdiction in the country where a child is located for the return of the child to his or her habitual residence in another signatory country. See 22 U.S.C. § 9003; Hague Convention, art. 3(a), T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, at 4. Then the court with proper jurisdiction can determine the underlying, substantive time-sharing (custody) dispute.

To defend a petition for return, a parent may assert one or more Hague Convention defenses to child abduction claims. This article explores these defenses.

In a return action under ICARA, the court’s inquiry, “is limited to the merits of the abduction claim and not the merits of the underlying custody battle.” Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Ruiz v. Tenorio, 39 2 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.2004)). See also Palencia v. Perez, 921 F. 3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2019); De Carvalho v. Carvalho Pereira, 308 So. 3d 1078, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); 22 U.S.C. § 9001(b)(4); Hamprecht v. Hamprecht, 2012 WL 1890857, Case No. 2:12–cv–125–FtM–29DNF (M.D. Fla. 2012).

Wrongful Removal or Retention Under ICARA

A petitioner establishes wrongful removal or retention under ICARA by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) the habitual residence of the child immediately before the date of the allegedly wrongful removal or retention was in the country to which return is sought;

(2) the removal or retention breached the petitioner’s custody rights under the law of the child’s habitual residence;

(3) the petitioner was exercising or would have been exercising custody rights of the child at the time of the child’s removal or retention; and

(4) the child has not reached age 16.

See Lops v. Lops, 140 F. 3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998); Hamprecht v. Hamprecht, 2012 WL 1890857, Case No. 2:12–cv–125–FtM–29DNF (MD Fla. 2012); De Jesus Joya Rubio v. Alvarez, 526 F. Supp. 3d 1186, Case No. 1:20-cv-24208-KMM (SD Fla. 2021); De La Rosa v. Alonso, Case No. 4:24-CV-00059-AGD (ED Texas Oct. 30, 2024).

When a child has been wrongfully removed from the child’s home nation-state or “habitual residence,” the court must order the child to be returned to the habitual residence, unless the party removing the child can establish at least one of six narrow Hague Convention defenses. See Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 712 (11th Cir. 2004). Hague Convention art. 12, 13, 20.

Threshold Question: Where Is the Child’s Habitual Residence?

Before considering defenses to child abduction claims under the Hague Convention, a court must determine a threshold question: Where is a child’s “habitual residence?”

The Hague Convention doesn’t define “habitual residence.”  But, in  2020, in Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (February 25, 2020), the United Supreme Court held a child’s habitual residence depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case. Nowlan v. Nowlan, Case No. 21-1965 (4th Cir. Jan. 4, 2022). A child resides where she lives. 140 S. Ct. at 726.

Under Monasky’s totality of the circumstances test, parents’ agreement to fix a child’s habitual residence in the United States was only one factor in analyzing habitual residence. Baz v. Patterson, Case No. 23 C 5017 (Dist. Ct. N.D. Illinois Dec. 13, 2023).

But parents’ shared intention to make Miami their child’s habitual residence prevailed in BRE v. Aguirre, Case No. 23-23928-Civ-Scola (S.D. Florida Dec. 4, 2023). Their parenting plan expressed their agreement the child would primarily live with mom in Argentina   until age 10, then would return to the US as the child’s habitual residence. 

Unless the totality of the circumstances dictates otherwise, a child wrongfully removed from her country of “habitual residence” must be returned to that country. See Smith v. Smith, 976 F. 3d 558, 561-62 (5th Cir. 2020); De Los Angeles Gilede Solano v. Parra, Case No. 8:20 cv-2127-T-02CPT (M.D. Fla. September 11, 2020).  See also Keating, Amy and Reynolds, Chris, Defining Habitual Residence in the Hague Convention, Family Lawyer Magazine (Fall 2020) (discussing standards for habitual residence).

First Hague Defense: The Non-Traveling Parent Was Not Exercising Custody Rights

The first defense to child abduction claims a traveling parent may raise under the Hague Convention is the person seeking the child’s return wasn’t exercising rights of custody at the time of the removal or retention of the child. Only a party with custody rights can seek return of the child.

Rights of Custody and Rights of Access: First Hague Convention Defense

Under the first defense to child abduction claims, a parent may assert the left-behind parent has no custody or access rights to bring a petition for return.

The Hague Convention, art. 5, distinguishes between “rights of custody” and “rights of access” to a child. Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F. 3d 702 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 978, 125 S.Ct. 478, 160 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004), abrogated on other grounds by Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 4 (2014).

Rights of custody “shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence.” Id. (quoting Convention, art. 5(a)) (emphasis added by Furnes). See also Abbott v. Abbot, 560 U.S. 1, 9 (2010). On the other hand, rights of access “shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.” Furnes at 711 (quoting Hague Convention, art. 5(b)).

The Furnes court held a parent’s ne exeat right to prohibit a child from living outside of the child’s habitual residence provides the parent decision-making authority about the child’s international relocation. Such authority is a “custodial right” under the Hague Convention, and the parent may proceed with a petition for return.

Court Rulings May Establish Rights of Custody

A custody ruling from a court from the child’s habitual residence may establish a right of custody. Compare Sanchez v. Suasti, 140 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (Brazilian court’s ruling a father had a right to prohibit mother from changing children’s country of residence established “rights of custody” under the Hague Convention) with Jaksic v. Serif, Case No. CV-14-01937-PHX-NVW. (D. Arizona November 26, 2014) (Serbian dissolution judgment granted father no express right of custody or unconditional right of access to his son and father was not exercising greater rights when mother removed the child from Serbia). 

“Rights of custody” for Hague Convention analysis may arise by operation of civil law establishing parental rights and obligations. See Roque-Gomez v. Tellez-Martinez, No. 2:14-cv-398-FtM-29DNF, 2014 WL 7014547, at *6 (MD Fla. Dec. 11, 2014) (Mexican doctrine of patria potestas — parental authority/responsibility – provided each parent with rights and responsibilities regarding children, including custody and care, which created a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention). See also In re: Marriage of Morales and Meixueiro, 2024 COA 2, Case No. 22CA1867 (Colo. App. Jan 4, 2024) (a Mexican order granting mom sole physical authority and dad visitation did not extinguish his patria potestas right to exercise parental authority over the child’s well-being); Garcia v. Angarita, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (SD Fla. 2006) (discussing ne exeat and patria potestas rights father had under Colombian law).

Exercise of Rights of Custody When There’s Been No Court Order

What if there’s been no court order establishing rights of custody? The Hague Convention does not define “exercise” of rights of custody.

The US Supreme Court instructs courts to interpret “rights of custody” broadly to bring as many cases as possible under the Hague Convention. Abbott v. Abbot, 560 U.S. 1 (2010). See In re Leslie, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (SD Fla. 2005) (courts interpret “exercise” liberally).

A parent who keeps or seeks to keep any regular contact with the child has “exercised” custody rights. In Leon v. Ruiz, Case. No. MO:19-CV-00293-RCG (WD Texas March 13, 2020), a mom made no showing that dad abandoned his child, who had been staying with him immediately prior to mom’s removal of the child to the United States from Mexico. Dad was thoroughly involved in the child’s life. He went to birthday parties, her graduation from grade level K-1, and piano recitals. He paid for private school and piano lessons. Applying Mexican law within the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico, where Cancun is, the court found mom had breached dad’s rights of custody. Even with no formal custody agreement between the parents or order, under the patria potestad doctrine, both parents had joint custody rights. The involved dad exercised his.

A Parent’s Regular Involvement with the Child Is Exercise of Custody Rights

Staying Involved

As discussed above, parents who haven’t abandoned their kids, but have stayed involved, have exercised their custody rights, even when no court order has formally established them.

For example, in Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996), a German dad’s attempt to maintain a regular relationship with the 2-year old child constituted “exercise” of rights of custody under German law, which gives both parents equal de jure custody.

Once a court has found the parent left behind exercised custody rights, “it should stop – completely avoiding the question of whether the parent exercised the custody rights well or badly.” Id. at 1066. Such matters go to the merits of the custody dispute and are beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court, the job of which is to determine if a parent’s removal of a child from the child’s habitual residence or retention of the child was wrongful.

Keeping or seeking to keep regular contact with a child demonstrates a parent’s exercise of custody rights.  A parent can’t fail to ‘exercise’ those custody rights under the Hague Convention short of the parent’s having clearly and unequivocally abandoned the child. Tomynets. v. Koulik, Case No. 8:16-cv-3025-T-27AAS (MD Fla. May 26, 2017) (absent a ruling from a court in the country of habitual residence, when a parent with de jure custody rights keeps or seeks to keep regular contact with the child, the court should find the parent has “exercised” custody rights).

Case Illustrations of Exercising Custody Rights

Multiple Hague cases illustrate this point. For example, see In re Ahumada Cabrera, 323 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1312 (SD Fla. 2004); Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1359 (MD Fla. 2002) (dad exercised rights by supporting the children and visiting regularly, deciding about school, and attending to his daughter’s medical needs).

In Garcia v. Ramsis, Civil No. 4:21-CV-650-SDJ (ED Tex. January 31, 2022), the dad exercised rights of custody from his daughter’s birth until mom removed her from Spain to the United States, provided the child a home, lived with and interacted with her before mom removed her, assisted with her medical care, and provided food for her).

A similarly involved dad in Stirk v. Lopez, Case No. 8:20-cv-2894-SDM-AAS (MD Fla. March 25, 2021) exercised his custody rights by regularly visiting and financially supporting his daughter and initiating actions to secure her return from Florida to Mexico. Another father’s visiting the children 5 times a year and paying child support had exercised custody rights, in Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 394 F. 3d 338, 343-44 (5th Cir. 2004).

No Abandonment

Still other cases held a parent who kept involved with the child didn’t abandon the child. For instance, in Fernandez v. Somaru, No. 2:12-cv-262-FtM-29DNF (MD Fla. August 17, 2012), there was no evidence of any acts by a Costa Rican mom that constituted clear and unequivocal abandonment of her child, In Garcia v. Varona, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (ND GA 2011), the father sought to be a continual presence and influence in the life of the children until their wrongful removal from Seville, Spain to Atlanta, Georgia. The father in Giampaolo v. Erneta, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (ND Ga. 2004) exercised rights of custody by regular involvement with his child’s school.

Second Defense to Child Abduction Claims: The Non-Traveling Parent Consented or Acquiesced to the Move

Under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention, a court is not bound to order the return of a child if the respondent demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the person having care of the child gave prior consent to the removal or retention or later acquiesced in the removal or retention. This second Hague Convention defense to child abduction claims is the “consent or acquiescence” defense.

Proof of consent or acquiescence by a parent to a child’s residing in the foreign country rebuts a claim for wrongful removal or retention. See Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (proving acquiescence requires a showing of a formal act or statement, such as testimony or a written renunciation of rights, or a consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period).  

Second Hague Convention Defense: What Do Consent and Acquiescence Mean?

Consent refers to the left behind parent’s conduct before the alleged wrongful retention. Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F. 3d 363 (3d Cir. 2005). The parent’s conduct after the retention may inform whether the parent consented to it. See Pflucker v. Warms, Case No. 8:21-cv-1869-WFJ-JSS (MD Fla. October 6, 2021) (among other acts showing consent, mom visited Louisville, Kentucky apartment complexes less than a month before the alleged wrongful retention, a Louisville school one day prior, and, after the retention, leased a Tampa, Florida apartment, enrolled the kids in a Tampa school for 2021-2022, and worked with immigration attorneys to pull together documents to apply for permanent residency in the U.S.).

Subjective Intent of Parent Who Allegedly Consented or Acquiesced to Removal

Determining whether a petitioner consented to a child’s retention requires an inquiry into her subjective intent. Baxter, 423 F. 3d at 371. Likewise, determining a parent’s acquiescence to removal or retention is a subjective inquiry. Id.; Pesin v. Osorio Rodriguez, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (SD Fla. 1999).

Under the Hague Convention, acquiescence “requires either: evidence of an act or statement with the requisite formality, such as testimony in a judicial proceeding; a convincing written renunciation of rights; or a consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period.” See Roque-Gomez v. Tellez-Martinez, Case No. 2:14-cv-398-FtM-29DNF (MD Fla. 2014).

Consent or Acquiescence: Timing

Consent happens before the child’s removal and retention from the habitual residence. Acquiescence after removal and retention extinguishes the right of return. Aarabi v. Kerroum, No. 1:2024-cv-0293-VMC (ND Georgia February 13, 2025); Gonzalez-Caballero v. Mena, 251 F.3d 789, 794 (9th Cir. 2001); Romero v. Bahamonde, No. 1:20-CV-104 (LAG), 2020 WL 8459278, at *10 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 19, 2020), aff’d, 857 F. App’x 576 (11th Cir. 2021).

For example, a French citizen dad expressly or through conduct, agreed to mom’s retaining their two children in Illinois before he alleged she wrongfully retained them. Laing v. Fortini-Laing, Case No. 24-cv-10901 (ND Ill – Eastern Div. Feb 25, 2025). Changing one’s mind after consenting to removal or retention doesn’t revoke consent. Id. Cascio v. Pace, 992 F. Supp. 2d 856 (ND Ill. 2014); Gonzalez-Caballero v. Mena, 251 F. 3d 789 (9th Cir. 2001). Compare with Elkhaiat v. Mawashi, Case No. CV-24-02800-PHX-SPL (D Arizona March 5, 2025) (revocation of consent before removal).

No Consent or Acquiescence

In Roque-Gomez, a mom didn’t acquiesce to her son’s retention in Florida. After living with the child in Mexico for years, she demanded dad return the child to Mexico. She tried to enter the U.S. illegally to retrieve him. She sought the Mexican Central Authority’s help to get him back. See also Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (German dad did not consent and acquiesce to mom’s removal of their son to Ohio, but resolutely sought custody after she took the child to Ohio, and an isolated, inconsistent, casual statement he allegedly made to a third-party at a cocktail party was insufficient evidence of acquiescing to the removal).

Similarly, in Hamprecht v. Hamprecht, 2012 WL 1890857, Case No. 2:12–cv–125–FtM–29DNF (MD Fla. May 24, 2012)  the court found no consent or acquiescence to a son’s remaining indefinitely with mom in Florida. Dad pursued custody in Germany and an ICARA petition in Florida, where mom was wrongfully retaining the child. See also Fernandez v. Somaru, No. 2:12-cv-262-FtM-29DNF (MD Fla. 2012) (mom consented to her daughter’s visiting Florida, but not to dad’s retaining daughter in the U.S. permanently).

And, in Garcia v. Jasso Posada, 728 F. Supp. 3d 430, Case No. 3:24cv360 (ND Tex Apr 02, 2024), a dad did not acquiesce to his child’s removal to Texas from Mexico. Mom unsuccessfully argued his frequent communications with her without demanding the child’s return and continue payment of child support constituted acquiescence.

Acquiescence Through Acts Before and After Removal or Retention

Compare that outcome with the one in Pflucker v. Warms, Case No. 8:21-cv-1869-WFJ-JSS (MD Fla. October 6, 2021). A dad proved the consent and acquiescence Hague Convention defense by showing the Peruvian dentist mom acquiesced in their children’s staying in Kentucky. The parents had discussed for a long time and, prompted by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the family, decided to move to the United States. WhatsApp messages in evidence showed the parents took acts consistent with applying for permanent residency in the United States.

A similar conclusion resulted from a father’s knowing agreement to the entry of an Iowa state protective order that provided a child would remain in Iowa. Staggers v. Timmerman, 746 F. Supp. 3d 635, Case No. 3:23-cv-00083-SMR-SBJ (SD Iowa Aug 27, 2024).

Delay in Asserting Rights Can Be Acquiescence, But Deception or Concealment Must Be Considered

Concealment and Acquiescence

Delay in asserting a parent’s rights can amount to acquiescence in the child’s removal or retention. But a court must consider the removing or retaining parent’s concealment of the child before finding delay constituted acquiescence.

For example, in Garcia v. Angarita, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (SD Fla. 2006), any delay by a father, who agreed to allow his children to travel to the United States for a brief visit, in notifying the mother he objected to the children’s relocation to the United States, did not constitute acquiescence. Mom never sought his agreement. He never said or did anything that evidenced he acquiesced to relocation. She perpetrated relocation through deception. He acted to secure the return of the children.

The dad in In re Leslie, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (SD Fla. 2005) didn’t acquiesce in the removal of his son from Belize to the United States, to live with the child’s mother and her husband. There was conflicting evidence about whether the mother notified him of the move. Further, dad aggressively pursued return of the son, both in Belize and the United States.

Other Case Examples of Parent’s Not Acquiescing to Child’s Removal or Retention

Other cases illustrate this point. In In re Ahumada Cabrera, 323 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (SD Fla. 2004), mom’s retention of a child in the United States only became wrongful when dad learned of her true intention not to return, even though he earlier knew she and child were not returning on the date they were originally supposed to return. He’d agreed to let the child finish the school year. He tried to get assistance in Argentina through the Central Authority to obtaining return of the child. His efforts rebutted the mom’s defense he acquiesced to the child’s removal.

In Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (MD Fla. 2002), the court found no acquiescence by a parent to removal. The father was exercising his custody rights over the children when their mother removed them from Argentina, even though he was separated from her and on a 19-day trip to India when she fled. Dad kept in regular contact with the children and paid the family bills. Mom’s acquiescence defense to dad’s child abduction claims failed.

See also Rodriguez v. Sieler, 2012 WL 5430369 *6 (D. Mont. 2012) (dad removed children from Mexico while mom was sleeping and concealed his plan; her later efforts to negotiate a settlement about the children’s care and custody couldn’t be construed as acquiescence in his continued wrongful retention of the children).

Third Hague Convention Defense: The Child of Sufficient Age and Maturity Objects to Being Returned

A third Hague Convention defense to child abduction claims is the age and maturity defense.

If the responding parent demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and maturity at which it’s appropriate to consider the child’s views, a court may deny the other parent’s petition for return of a child. See Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention; Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F. 3d 466 (5th Cir. 2016) (the district court had the opportunity to observe and question the child and concluded she had the age and maturity for her views to be considered); England v. England, 234 F. 3d 268 (5th Cir.2000). 

Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report Gives Guidance on Hague Convention Defenses

In determining if the child objected to being returned to Mexico, the Rodriguez court drew guidance from The Elisa Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report: Hague Convention on Private International Law — recognized as the official history, commentary, and source of background on the meaning of the provisions of the Convention. Explanatory Report: Hague Conference on Private International Law, 3 Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session 426 (1980). See Silva v. Dos Santos, 68 F. 4th 1247 (11th Cir. May 26, 2023); Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 394 F. 3d 338 (5th Cir.2004); Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F. 3d 1005, 1011 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F. 3d 1247, 1252 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004)).

The age and maturity exception is rooted in a mature child’s autonomy not to be returned against her will and allows her to interpret her own interests. Her choice between two countries is a choice to continue living with the abducting parent or not. The court may give little weight to the child’s objection if the court believes the abducting parent exercised undue influence over the child. See Tsai-Yi Yang v. Fu-Chiang Tsui, 499 F. 3d 259, 279 (3d Cir. 2007); de Silva v. Pitts, 481 F. 3d 1279, 1286 (10th Cir. 2007). 

How Old Must A Child Be?

For the third defense to child abduction claims under the Hague Convention, there is no bright-line age at which a child is deemed sufficiently mature for the child’s views to be considered. Tsai-Yi Yang v. Fu-Chiang Tsui, 499 F. 3d 259 (3d Cir. 2007).

In Romero v. Bahamonde, Nos. 20-14557, 21-10378 (11th Cir. May 21, 2021), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s finding that a 14-year-old girl who provided lengthy, detailed particularized objections to being repatriated to Chile, based on her father’s verbal and physical abuse of her mother, established the age and maturity defense. See also Sadoun v. Guigui, Case No. 1:16-cv-22349-KMM (SD Fla. August 22, 2016) (14- and 12-year old boys who exhibited depth and breadth of conversation that belied their age, objected to returning to France and were of sufficient age and maturity for the court to consider their views).

More recently, in a Hague Convention state court case in Orlando, Florida, Circuit Judge Barbara Leach considered the mature child objection defense. Mom successfully asserted it to defend against dad’s petition for return of their 10-year-old daughter to her habitual residence, Peru. De La Melena v. Montezuma Panez, Case No. 6D2023-3946 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 22, 2024).

The judge heard the 10-year-old was intelligent, even-handed, self-motivated to express her feelings clearly, did well in school, had strong bonds with friends, showed no depression, did not bad mouth dad, and mom hadn’t alienated her from him. The appeals court upheld the judge’s finding that the child was mature enough to object to return.  

The Age and Maturity Defense to Child Abduction Claims: Narrow and Subject to Fact-Intensive Analysis

The age and maturity Hague Convention defense must be applied narrowly. England, 234 F. 3d at 272. Each case is fact intensive.

Courts may receive evidence of a child’s objection to being returned to the country of habitual residence in four ways:

(1) the child’s testimony in open court;

(2) interviewing the child in camera;

(3) requesting a psychological evaluation of the child; or

(4) appointing an attorney or guardian ad litem.

Tchenguiz v. Bird, No. CV 21-128-M-DWM (D. Montana January 4, 2022).

Fact Intensive Analysis: Age and Maturity Hague Convention Defense

Decisions reflect fact-intensive analysis before courts found the age and maturity exception applied or did not. For instance, in Roque-Gomez v. Tellez-Martinez, Case No. 2:14-cv-398-FtM-29DNF (MD Fla. 2014), facts showed an 11-year old child’s tendency to be untruthful and entirety of evidence showed he had not attained sufficient maturity to warrant consideration of his opinion he wanted to stay in the US.

In Morales v. Martinez, Case No. 2:14-cv-88-FtM-29CM) (MD Fla. 2014), a 12-year old child’s objection to returning to Mexico was not conclusive. The court exercised its discretion to order her return to habitual residence, to further the aims of the Hague Convention.

The appellate court in Escobar v. Flores, 183 Cal. App. 4th 737, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 596 (Cal. App. 3 Dist. 2010) affirmed the trial court’s refusal to return a 9-year-old child to Chile. The child was communicative, was under no undue influence, and demonstrated sufficient age and maturity to consider his objection to being returned to Chile. See also de Jesus Joya Rubio v. Alvarez, 526 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (finding no undue influence where child held balanced views of each parent, and neither parent disparaged the other in his presence).

On the other hand, in McElligott v. McElligott, Case No. 23-3175 (RK) (RLS)(D. NJ 2023), facts established undue influence caused a 12-year-old child to develop unbalanced views of his parents. His long stay in New Jersey and mom’s and her family’s animosity towards dad contributed to the son’s objection to being returned to Ireland.

Respecting a Mature Child’s Latitude to Author His or Her Destiny: Age and Maturity Hague Convention Defense

Finding a father established the “well settled environment” and “age and maturity” defenses to a mother’s child abduction claims, the court in Urquieta v. Bowe, Case No. 24 Civ. 1379 (PAE) (SD NY May 7, 2024), observed the two defenses ultimately respected the child’s “latitude to author his destiny.”

The child — an 11-year-old boy whose dad took him to New York City from Chile — persuaded a judge to deny his mother’s petition requesting return to Chile based on the age and maturity exception to return and “well settled” exception (discussed in the next section).

In the New York District Court judge’s 3 1/2-hour interview with the boy, he told the judge about his loneliness and unhappiness in Chile, 20 different names he had before dad took him from Chile, chaos at school, and isolation alone in his mother’s apartment. He told the judge he was so unhappy he scratched his arm enough to draw blood. The father presented evidence he noticed a dramatic shift in his son’s mood and affect, including depression and references to suicide. The boy’s genuine, specific, and concrete objections to returning to Chile and unequivocal expressed desire to stay in New York and not Chile, supported the court’s finding dad established the age and maturity exception to return.  The judge did not find dad unduly influenced the child’s views.  

De La Rosa v. Alonso

Similarly, in De La Rosa v. Alonso, Case No. 4:24-CV-00059-AGD (ED Texas Oct 30 2024), the court denied mom’s petition for return of child to his habitual residence, Mexico, from Texas. The child, who was age 14 by the final hearing and 15 when the opinion was issued, Based on a guardian ad litem report, an in-camera interview, and testimony at the hearing, the judge found the boy had attained an age and maturity at which is was appropriate to consider his views.

Further, the teenager affirmatively objected to returning to Mexico – it wasn’t merely a preference. Only an objection can trump the Hague Convention’s strong presumption favoring return to the child’s habitual residence.  Carlson v. Carlson, 651 F. Supp. 3d 516 (D.R.I. 2023); Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F. 3d 466 (5th Cir. 2016). Here, the child objected to returning to Mexico, citing better school and security in Texas. HE told the judge he often felt lonely, stressed, and anxious in Mexico, but, in the US, he was surrounded by family. There was no evidence either mom or dad unduly influenced his testimony.

Hague Convention Age and Maturity Defense: Young Children’s Views Can Sometimes Be Considered

Some very young children have developed sufficient maturity for courts to consider their views in deciding if the Hague Convention age and maturity defense applies to child abduction claims. For example, a 9-year-old child in Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (MD Fla. 2002) had reached an age of maturity such that his views should be considered. Likewise, an 8-year-old girl in. Application of Blondin v. Dubois, 78 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d sub nom. Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001), who objected to being returned to an abusive father, was “a remarkably mature” child, “probably in no small part due to the very adult proceedings and issues that she has been confronted with over the past two years.”

Applying these principles, in Lopez v. Alcala, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (MD Fla. 2008), the court found  a 7-year-old child hadn’t reached an age and maturity; a 10-year-old sister had, but her wishes were ambivalent. Similarly, the court found a 6-year-old was too young and immature for her views to be taken into account in In re D.D., 440 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (MD Fla. 2006).

Likewise, in De La Cruz v. Perez Garcia, Case No. 4D2024-0823 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec 04, 2024), a 10-year-old child’s preference to stay with mom in Florida, rather than return to Mexico, was based her having friends in Florida, her desire to attend high school in Florida, and an upcoming school trip to Orlando. The court observed:

“Such generic and near-sighted responses demonstrate minor child’s inability to maturely comprehend or appreciate the long-term impact of her decisions.”

Compare with Romero v. Bahamonde, 857 F. App’x 576 (11th Cir. 2021), where a 14-year-old could express positive feelings about life in her habitual residence and gave detailed answers showing she understood her situation.

Fourth Hague Convention Defense: The Child is Well Settled in the New Environment

A fourth defense to child abduction claims under the Hague Convention is the well settled defense (or “settled environment” or “now settled” defense).

A parent who has wrongfully removed or retained a child must return the child to the habitual residence unless the responding parent demonstrates the child is “well settled” in the new environment. Hague Convention, Article 12.

Two Elements for the Responding Parent to Prove the Settled Environment Defense

A court isn’t bound to order the child’s return if the responding parent demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence:

(a) the proceedings were commenced more than one year after the wrongful removal or retention, and (b) the child is settled in the new environment.

See Wigley v. Hares, 82 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (child had not become “settled” in his environment); In re Ahumada Cabrera, 323 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (SD Fla. 2004) (child wanted to remain in the United States and appeared to be happy and doing well, but wasn’t settled in her new environment, where mother was allegedly wrongfully retaining child, had changed the child’s schools and residences approximately 5 times in the 2½ years she’d been in the United States, and any stability she might have had was undermined by mother’s uncertain immigration status).

Applying these elements, the court in Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (MD Fla. 2002) found children removed from Argentina weren’t well settled in Florida. They had lived in 7 locations during their 18 months in the United States and had been treated for stress.

“Settled in New Environment” Hague Convention Defense: But What Does “Settled” Mean?

The Convention doesn’t define “settled” or provide guidance about what “well settled” means. Figueredo v. Del Carmen Rojas, Case No. 3:22-cv-1268-TJC-LLL (MD Fla. April 18, 2023); De La Melena v. Montezuma Panez, Case No. 6D2023-3946 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 22, 2024).

The Wigley court looked to the U.S. State Department for interpretation of “settled”:

The Convention does not provide a definition of the term “settled.” However, the U.S. State Department has declared that “nothing less than substantial evidence of the child’s significant connections to the new country is intended to suffice to meet the respondent’s burden of proof.”

Public Notice 957, Text & Legal Analysis of Hague International Child Abduction Convention, 51 Fed.Reg. 10494, 10509 (U.S. State Dep’t Mar. 26, 1986)

For a court to uphold the well settled defense, a preponderance of the evidence must show that the child has significant connections to the 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 (11th Cir. 2018). See also De Carvalho v. Carvalho Pereira, 308 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Settled Environment Defense under the Hague Convention: Factors

Factors to analyze when considering a “settled environment” defense to child abduction claims include:

• The child’s age;
• The stability and duration of the child’s residence in the new environment;
• Whether the child attends school or day care consistently or inconsistently;
• Whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area or does not;
• The child’s participation in community or extracurricular school activities, such as team sports, youth groups, or school clubs;
• The respondent’s employment and financial stability. In some circumstances, we will also consider the immigration status of the child and the respondent. In general, this consideration will be relevant only if there is an immediate, concrete threat of deportation; and
• the reasons for any delay in initiating the petition for the child’s return.

Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F. 3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012); In re B. Del C.S.B., 559 F. 3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009); In re Robinson, 983 F. Supp. 1339 (D. Colo. 1997); de Jesus Joya Rubio v. Alvarez, 526 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (SD Fla. 2021); Goderth v. Yandall-Goderth, No. 24-cv-8211 (ND Ill Jul 7, 2025).

Nothing less than substantial evidence of the child’s significant connections to the new country will be enough to meet the defending party’s burden of proof of the well-settled exception. Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494, 10,509 (March 26, 1986); Luis Alfonso V.H. v. Banessa Cristina A.Z., 512 F. Supp. 3d 633 (W.D. Va. 2021). See Moura v. Cunha, 67 F. Supp. 3d (D. Mass. December 22, 2014) (respondent presented no evidence of the child’s social networks and relationships to find she was well settled in the US).

A Holistic View Rather than a Rigid Application of Factors: Totality of Circumstances

Rather than analyzing each factor in isolation, a court considers the “totality of circumstances” to decide if a defending parent has established a Hague defense. This applies to the well-settled environment defense. See, e.g., Llorente v.  Benaye, Case No. 25-CV-22582-RAR. (SD Fla. July 31, 2025), in which, considering the totality-of-circumstances, the court found a mom established two daughters were well-settled in their new environment in Florida, The mom took the children from Spain to escape the dad’s abuse and intolerable situation, including death threats from his criminal associates after he became a police informant.

Moreover, when a court applies an excessively rigid view of the “well-settled” factors, rather than as data points in a holistic context, the court risks reversal…or getting the case back on remand. That’s what happened in Da Silva v. Da Silva, Case No. 25-1360 (1st Cir. June 30, 2025). There, the district court failed to view facts through a holistic lens. The potentially relevant factors are not a rigid balancing test that comprises seven binary factors. The factors aren’t exhaustive and aren’t mandatory. Alcala v. Hernandez, 826 F. 3d 161 (4th Cir. 2016).

The Da Silva court noted each case is different. The relevance of and weight a trial court should attribute to certain factors will vary “based on the idiosyncratic circumstances of each particular case.” Da Silva, quoting Da Costa v. De Lima, 94 F. 4th 174 (1st Cir. February 28, 2024). With that in mind, a district court must focus on its ultimate purpose: to make a holistic determination about whether the child’s significant connections demonstrating a secure, stable, and permanent life in his or her new environment. 

Further Case Reading:

See Da Silva v. Vieira, Case No. 6:20-cv-1301-Orl-37GJK (MD Fla. September 23, 2020); In re B. Del C.S.B., 559 F. 3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009); Alcala v. Hernandez, 826 F. 3d 161 (4th Cir. 2016); Hernandez v. Garcia Peña, 820 F. 3d 782 (5th Cir. 2016); Lopez v. Alcala, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (MD Fla. 2008); In re Koc, 181 F. Supp. 2d 136 (ED NY 2001); Wigley (citing In re B. Del C.S.B., 559 F. 3d 999 (9th Cir.2008)); Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F. 3d 41 (2d Cir. 2012); Litigating International Child Abduction Cases Under the Hague Convention, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Training Manual (2012) at pp. 40-41 n. 187.

Settled Environment Hague Defense Upheld

Cases that have upheld the “settled environment” Hague defense to child abduction claims include cases in which the removed or retained children had lived in a stable place while in the U.S., attended the same school, and formed relationships in the U.S.

De La Melena v. Montezuma Panez

In a Hague Convention state court case, Orange County, Florida Circuit Judge Barbara Leach considered the well settled defense and mature child objection defense. De La Melena v. Montezuma Panez, 397 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 22, 2024). Dad sought return of the parents’ 10-year-old daughter to her habitual residence, Peru.

The judge considered:

(1) the child’s age,

(2) the stability of the child’s residence,

(3) whether the child consistently attended school,

(4) the child’s participation in extracurricular or community activities,

(5) mom’s employment and financial stability,

(6) the child’s relationship with family and friends, and

(7) the immigration status of both mom and the child.

The court appointed under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.363 psychologist Miguel Firpi, who evaluated if the daughter was well settled in Orlando, was sufficiently mature to express she objected to going back to Peru, and if mom had influenced the child in objecting to return.

The judge heard daughter was intelligent, even-handed, self-motivated to express her feelings clearly, did well in school, had strong bonds with friends, showed no depression, didn’t bad-mouth dad, and mom hadn’t alienated her from him.

Trial Judge’s Findings: Mother Proved The Well Settled Defense

From the evidence, the judge found five of the above listed seven factors favored the “well settled” or “now settled” child exception, including the length and stability of Child’s residence in Florida. The remaining two factors neither favored or disfavored the exception. The child was doing well in school. She lived in a stable residence with mom, her stepfather, and her half-brother. She consistently and frequently participated in extracurricular activities. For immigration purposes, both the mother and daughter had permanent resident status, which favored the well settled child exception.

The appeals court upheld the “well settled” or “now settled” exception. See also the section above on the third defense to child abduction claims: the “mature child objection” defense, which the court also upheld.

Figueredo v. Del Carmen Rojas

In another Florida case, the well settled defense carried the day in Figueredo v. Del Carmen Rojas, Case No. 3:22-cv-1268-TJC-LLL (MD Fla. April 18, 2023). There, mom was wrong to take the 5-year-old son from Venezuela. But, by the time the court was considering her well settled defense, the nearly 8-year-old child was stable and was thriving in the United States. He lived at the same address and attended the same school since he came to the US. He had flourished in school, had close friends, was well liked, learned English, and enjoyed swimming and martial arts. Mom had legal work authorization, was an on-the-books employee, and owned a car.

The Court said:

But this case is not just about Mr. Cuenca or Ms. Rojas. C.R. is in this equation too, and he has a happy life, close friends, and settled routine in the United States. Mr. Cuenca has shown that he can readily come to the United States to visit, and he and C.R. talk via FaceTime almost daily. The Court is loath to further disrupt C.R.’s life. Although this is a close case, the Court will not order his return to Venezuela.

Immigration Status of the Parents

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the case. Figueredo v. Rojas, Case No. 23-12566 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024). After the District Court concluded mom could stay, because the child had become settled in Jacksonville, Florida, dad asked the Eleventh Circuit to find the child’s and mom’s immigration status should compel reversal. The court disagreed. 

Immigration status is only one factor to determine if a child is settled in the new country. The District Court had included in its consideration of the totality of circumstances the child’s and mom’s uncertain immigration status. It acted within its discretion to decide the child was well settled in Florida, even though mom’s application for asylum in the US from Venezuela was pending while she had authorization to stay and work in the US. 

In the context of a child’s individual circumstances, a court will consider whether the child and parent are “present illegally, whether they have a feasible path to permanent legal residence, and whether they are currently embroiled in removal proceedings” when deciding the ultimate issue of the well settled defense.

As with the other suggested factors, Courts looking at the totality of the circumstances may consider immigration status factor as one relevant data point, to which they may give varying weight. Da Silva v. de Aredes, 953 F.3d 67, 75 (1st Cir. 2020); Da Costa v. De Lima, 94 F. 4th 174 (1st Cir. February 28, 2024). 

Totality of Circumstances Analysis Applied: Well-Settled Defense

Examining the totality of circumstances and a parent’s assertion of the well-settled defense to the other parent’s child abduction claim, in Aguirre v. Villatoro, Case No. 1:23-cv-302 (PTG/JFA) (Eastern District Virginia December 20, 2024), the court found a child’s lack of immigration status presented no bar to finding him settled in Virginia. Alcala v. Hernandez, 826 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2016). See also Cuenca v. Rojas, 99 F. 4th 1344 (11th Cir. 2024).

 “If a child is functionally settled, such that ordering his or her return would be harmfully disruptive, it would be odd to nevertheless order that [the child’s life be] disrupt[ed] based on a formal categorization.” Alcala, 826 F.3d at 173. “`[I]mmigration status is neither dispositive nor subject to categorical rules,’ but should instead be considered in the totality of the child’s circumstances.” Id. at 174 (quoting Hernandez v. Garcia Pena, 820 F.3d 782, 788 (5th Cir. 2016)).

Aguirre v. Villatoro, Case No. 1:23-cv-302 (PTG/JFA) (Eastern District Virginia December 20, 2024)

Sabbagh v. Aponte

Similarly, a Venezuelan mother who wrongfully took the children to the US successfully asserted the well settled defense in Sabbagh v. Aponte, Case No. 1:23-cv-20581-PAS (SD Fla. June 2, 2023). She established:

• She had a steady job. 
• Her family provides emotional and financial support.
• Her family provided the children stable housing. 
• The children were enrolled in school and extracurricular activities. 
• The children were learning English quickly.
• She had been the one constant in the children’s lives.
• If the children were to return to Venezuela, they would return to a familiar town but to a foreign living situation — a house they never lived in with a stepmother they never met while physically separated from their mother.
• The father, who successfully kept his worlds separate when the children lived in Venezuela, would assume full-time custodial parenting responsibilities, something he had never done. 
• The father was not skilled at emotionally connecting with the children. 
• Granting the Father’s petition for return would not restore the status quo for the children, as is intended by the Convention.

The court expressed its frustration about the parents’ inability to resolve their custody issues:

This is a distressing case. Given the undisputed opinion of the parties’ joint expert witness [Note: Miami psychologist Miguel A. Firpi], it is frustrating that two competent adults who obviously love their wonderful and well-settled Children cannot work out a rational plan so that the Children can continue to have a relationship with their Father while not separating them from their Mother, that the Father insists that he does not want to do. Further, while it is unquestionable that Venezuela is the appropriate forum to address the custody dispute between the parents, neither party has made an effort to do so. This Court is not authorized to make that determination. The parents’ refusal or inability to reach a custody resolution, even when urged by the Court at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, reflects that the parents cannot put their Children’s interests before their individual motivations.

Sabbagh v. Aponte (emphasis added).

Da Costa v. De Lima

The United State First Circuit Court of Appeal faced “the repercussions of divorce in a global society,” after dad accused mom of absconding with their son from his habitual residence (Brazil) after the parents divorced there. Da Costa v. De Lima, 94 F. 4th 174 (1st Cir. February 28, 2024) (upholding mom’s well settled defense).

Mom successfully defended dad’s Hague petition for return, because she and the 6-year-old boy were well settled in Martha’s Vineyard. US immigration officials first removed the mom and son. Then they reentered the US without proper documentation. She enrolled him in elementary school, he participated in swim lessons, went to mass, and attended bible study. He had spent over half his life in Martha’s Vineyard. At age 6, he could form meaningful connections with his new environment; he had developed strong relationships with family in the United States; he had bonded with teachers and classmates; and he was making substantial progress in learning English.

Other Well-Settled Children Who Had Been Removed

Similarly, in Roque-Gomez v. Tellez-Martinez, Case No. 2:14-cv-398-FtM-29DNF (MD Fla. December 11, 2014), the court denied return of child to Mexico. The child had lived in Florida for 7 of 11 years of his life in stable living arrangement with his dad and new family in a suitable residence. He had his own room, attended school regularly, and made new friends. Dad, a day laborer, had lived in the US since 1999, married a US citizen, filed US income taxes, and had taken steps to secure a permanent US visa.

Similarly, the father in Tavaras v. Morales, 22 F. Supp. 3d 219 (S.D. NY 2014) proved the settled environment Hague Convention defense to a child abduction claim by the mother. He showed his 8-year-old daughter had been in the U.S. 15 months, was doing well in public school. She had close friends in New York, lived in a stable household with him and her grandmother. She frequently visited other family members in Manhattan. The daughter stated she’d rather live in New York with her father rather than in Spain with her mother.

Stable New Home and School

Another parent’s well settled Hague Convention defense allowed a child to stay in New York in In re Lozano, 809 F.Supp.2d 197 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). The child, age 5, had become close to family members she’d been living with in NY for 16 months. She was in a stable school environment. She had friends and was participating in activities). A later US Supreme Court decision affirmed the order denying repatriation to the United Kingdom. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224, 1236, 188 L.Ed. 2d. 200 (2014) (rejecting the doctrine of equitable tolling of the 1-year period within which to bring a wrongful retention petition).

Other children were well settled in stable homes and flourishing in school, justifying applying the settled environment defense. For example, in Aguirre v. Villatoro, Case No. 1:23-cv-302 (PTG/JFA) (Eastern District Virginia December 20, 2024), an 8-year-old boy had demonstrated significant connections to his new environment. He was happy and adjusted, attending school consistently, and participating in extracurricular activities like taekwondo five days a week. The child was part of a stable, close-knit family unit with dad, his partner, and his half siblings.

And, in Castillo v. Castillo, 597 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D. Del. 2009), an 11-year old child had 1 residence and 1 school since arriving in the United States when she was 9, received attendance awards, had improved grades, fluency in English, and had many friends at school. See also Silvestri v. Oliva, 403 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D.N.J. 2005) (children had lived in the same town in NJ for 2½ years, attended the same school system, were doing well in school, were fluent in English, and had relationships with friends at school).

Settled Environment Hague Convention Defense Unsuccessful

In contrast, when children lived in various places and attended multiple schools since being brought to the U.S., courts have rejected the settled environment defense to child abduction claims.  For example, in Wigley v. Hares, 82 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), a 10-year old son hadn’t become settled in his environment. Although he lived in the same home for 4 years, he hadn’t attended school or been properly home schooled, hadn’t participated in activities, and had limited access to friends and family members. Plus, his mom was an undocumented illegal alien and unemployed.

Similarly, the court rejected the settled environment Hague defense in In re Filipczak, 838 F. Supp. 2d 174 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). There, the kids were 3 and 4 years old. They lived in a domestic violence shelter in Chicago, then in Manhattan, and then with the mother’s fiancé in Connecticut and had gone to multiple schools.

Immigration Status: Settled Environment Defense to Child Abduction Claims

Some courts consider immigration status in the “settled environment” analysis, even if deportation is not imminent. See Da Silva v. Vieira, Case No. 6:20-cv-1301-Orl-37GJK (MD Fla. September 23, 2020) (Brazilian children had overstayed their tourist visas and, although they had applied for asylum in the United States, their applications had not been approved nor was there indication the applications had merit).

See also In re Koc, 181 F. Supp. 2d 136 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Lopez v. Alcala, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (MD Fla. 2008)(finding that the children’s “residence in this country is not stable because neither [the abducting parent] nor the children have legal alien status and, as such, are subject to deportation at anytime”); Giampaolo v. Erneta, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (ND Ga. 2004) (although 11-year old child had regularly attended school, participated in activities, and made friends in the U.S., she had lived in 3 homes, attended 3 schools, the mother and child were illegally in the U.S., and they would be living with the mother’s husband, a convicted felon under the Georgia Family Violence Act).

Seven Factors: Useful Aids Guide a Holistic Analysis of the Well-Settled Defense

These principles played out in a Hague Convention case in which mom’s and a young child’s immigration status was precarious.

Brito Guevara v. Castro: Well-Settled Defense Failed

The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s finding a child whose mom took her at age 3 from Venezuela to Texas was well-settled. Based on a finding the child was well-settled, the district court denied the dad’s petition for return.  The Fifth Circuit, applying de novo review and a holistic analysis of the well-settled factors, ordered the child’s return. Brito Guevara v. Castro, No. 24-10520 (5th Cir. June 2, 2025).

Background Facts of Castro

Dad had relocated from Venezuela to Spain for a new job two years after the couple split up. The child’s mother awaited an asylum interview.  She presented no evidence her asylum claim for herself and the daughter were likely to succeed. The child was in school and had extended family on the mom’s side in the US, but most of her extended family remained in Venezuela. After moving multiple times, she was living with her mother and the mother’s boyfriend. The boyfriend lacked lawful permanent resident status. None of the child’s relatives in the US were US citizens. Mom had changed jobs four times. When dad tried to visit his daughter in the US, he was denied a visa.

The Court of Appeals Takes a Fresh, Holistic Look at Immigration Status and the other Well-Settled Factors

Discussing seven factors to assess if a child is settled under The Hague, the Fifth Circuit, reviewing the District Court’s determinations de novo, concluded the child, now age 7, was not settled.  Precedent, the Court said, treats balancing the factors under the well-settled defense as a legal conclusion, subject to de novo review. Hernandez v. Pena, 820 F. 3d 782 (5th Cir. 2016). 

The well-settled inquiry is primarily legal, rather than factual, in character:

We do not engage in a mathematical tallying of how the evidence aligns with each of the seven factors. Rather, the well-settled factors are a judicially crafted framework designed to inform a legal judgment: Is the child well-settled? None of the factors is dispositive. We do not conduct a ‘head-to-head weighing’ of the factors favoring one party versus the other. Our review is holistic and guided—but not dictated—by the factors. Our task is to assess whether, taken together, the evidence supports the district court’s legal conclusion. (Citations omitted) 

The factors are “useful aids.” They guide a court’s legal judgment, but don’t dictate it. 

“The factors we consult in applying that standard are just that—factors—not formulas that impose a duty of evidentiary calibration. They remain useful aids—but they are tools of our own making, crafted not to precisely quantify the weight of each piece of evidence, but to ‘generate guidance for … future courts’ wrestling with the well-settled defense.”

Further, precedent does not require a court to assess each factor in “hermetic isolation.” 

“A holistic inquiry necessarily contemplates how various aspects of a child’s life—legal status included—interact to shape her connection to a new environment.” The uncertainty about the mother and child’s immigration status permeated every aspect of their life in the United States, “rendering it fundamentally unstable.”

Interplay of Immigration Status, Grave Risk of Harm, and Well-Settled Defense to Child Abduction Claims

In Brito Guevara v. Castro, the majority found important the district court’s having found no evidence the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned to Venezuela. That finding undercut any suggestion that the mother’s asylum claim on the daughter’s behalf would succeed. To satisfy the statutory requirements for asylum, a person must establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. But no grave risk of harm if the child were to be returned to Venezuela strongly suggested she would face no persecution there.

Concealment and Inequitable Conduct: Interplay with the Hague Settled Environment Defense

A court may also consider the active measures the person who removed the child has undertaken to conceal the child’s whereabouts, and the prospect that the abducting parent could be prosecuted for violations of law based on the concealment. Lops v. Lops, 140 F. 3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998); Wigley v. Hares, 82 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

But the concealment or other misconduct must have a bearing on the child’s being settled or not. Thus, the father in Da Costa v. De Lima, 94 F. 4th 174 (1st Cir . 2024) argued unsuccessfully that the District Court ignored the mother’s misconduct when it accepted her Hague Convention Defense their son was well settled in Martha’s Vineyard. He alleged she forged a signature on the son’s passport, secretly fled with the son to the US, and concealed his location.

Is a Parent’s Concealment or Misconduct Connected to the Child’s Being Settled?

The Circuit Court found this suggestion of little consequence to whether the child was settled in the new environment. Where such a suggestion has prevailed, courts have connected the misconduct of the removing parent to the child’s being settled. Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (MD Fla. 2002) (the children were not settled when their mom “took active and consistent steps to prevent contact between the children and their father”); Wigley v. Hares, 82 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (mom kept the child out of all activities, sports, and church to avoid detection by dad).

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court, resolving a split among Federal Circuit Courts, held the 1-year period in Article 12, after which a parent may assert the “well settled” defense, is not subject to equitable tolling. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224, 188 L.Ed. 2d. 200 (2014). But the parent’s inequitable conduct would weigh heavily in favor of returning a child even if she became settled. Id. See also Romero v. Bahamonde, Nos. 20-14557, 21-10378 (11th Cir. May 21, 2021) (finding the retaining parent’s well settled defense applied).

Fifth Hague Defense: Grave Risk of Physical or Psychological Harm if the Child is Returned

Widespread in Hague Convention cases is the defense to child abduction claims known as the “grave risk of harm” defense. Indeed, the US Supreme Court has referred to the “grave risk” defense to return of a child as the Convention’s prime exception. Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (February 25, 2020); Silva v. Dos Santos, 68 F. 4th 1247 (11th Cir. May 26, 2023).

A court is not bound to order the return of a child if the responding parent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence grave risk the child’s return would “expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”  Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention; Monasky.

Grave Risk of Harm Defense to Child Abduction Claims: What Is Clear and Convincing Evidence?

A parent defending a petition for return of a child with the grave risk of harm Hague defense must prove it by “clear and convincing” evidence. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(A); In re the Application of Kelly, Case No. 3:25-cv-247-SI (D. Oregon April 25, 2025); Golan v. Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880, Case No. 20-1034 (2022); Bindslev v. Silva, Case Nos. 24-11896, 24-12592 (11th Cir. Jan 10, 2025).

But what does “clear and convincing evidence” mean?

The Court summarized the clear and convincing standard in Colon v. Mejia Montufar, 470 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (SD Fla. 2020):

“Clear and convincing evidence is a `demanding but not insatiable’ standard, requiring proof that a claim is highly probable.'” Nejad v. Attorney Gen., State of Ga., 830 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “`[H]ighly probable’ is a standard that requires `more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'” Id.(citation omitted); see Ward v. Hall, 592 F.3d 1144 (11th Cir. 2010). Moreover, “[o]nly evidence directly establishing the existence of a grave risk … is material to the court’s determination.” Gomez, 812 F.3d at 1012 (citation omitted).

A responding parent meets this clear and convincing standard when evidence offered “instantly tilts the evidentiary scales” for finding grave risk of harm, when weighed against the evidence the other parent offers in opposition. Yuriiovych v. Hryhorivna, Case No. CV 24-78-BU-DWM (D. Montana December 23, 2024) (following Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 US 310 (1984) and Mondaca-Vega v. Lynch, 808 F. 3d 413 (9th Cir. 2015).

One Witness’s Testimony Can Satisfy the Burden to Prove “Grave Risk” by Clear and Convincing Evidence

Even with no independent corroboration by another witness of a defending parent’s testimony, a factfinder’s believing a single witness’s testimony can satisfy the burden to prove a fact by clear and convincing evidence.

This principle played out in Silva v. Dos Santos, 68 F. 4th 1247 (11th Cir. May 26, 2023). There, the district judge could have found a Brazilian father’s “noncredible denials and non-denial denials” corroborated the mother’s testimony about abuse. In resolving a mother’s “grave risk of harm” defense to the father’s petition for return of their daughter under the Convention, the district court expressly disbelieved his testimony. Still, that didn’t mean the mother’s testimony about his prolonged alleged abuse and grave risk to the daughter if the court ordered return to Brazil was uncorroborated.

Indeed, discredited or false explanations may be substantive evidence to corroborate a fact. United States v. Eley, 723 F. 2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Brown, 53 F. 3d 312 (11th Cir. 1995); McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971); United States v. Margarita Garcia, 906 F. 3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2018); Swaters v. Osmus, 568 F. 3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2009).

More Terminology: What Does “Grave Risk” Mean?

In evaluating the Hague grave risk of harm defense, there’s no clear definition of “grave risk.” Luis Ischiu v. Gomez Garcia, 274 F. Supp. 3d 339 (DC MD August 14, 2017). The removing parent must show the risk to the child is “grave, not merely serious.” Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060, 1068 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494-01, 10510 (Mar. 26, 1986)).

Even with no clear definition of “grave risk,” courts describe two situations that present “grave risk of harm” to a child: (1) “returning the child to a zone of war, famine, or disease,” and (2) evidence of “serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional dependence.” Baran v. Beaty, 526 F. 3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996)); Gil-Leyva v. Leslie, Case No. 17-cv-01406-KLM (D. Colo. April 17, 2018).

In contrast, a child’s strained relationship with a left-behind parent is insufficient to be a grave risk of harm. That is, where a child might be happiest is a custody determination for the court in child’s country of habitual residence, not a “grave risk” consideration.

Sometimes Judges Must Act as Nostradamus

In assessing grave risk and if ameliorative measures would mitigate such risk, justifying a child’s return, the Hague Convention often forces judges to become clairvoyant.

In terms of “grave risk,” the Convention forces a court to act as Nostradamus in predicting the future of harm that a child is likely to be subjected to if the Convention and its implementing statutes are followed. While not demanding certainty, the Convention requires a court to assess the existing conditions in a child’s country of habitual residence as well as any circumstances that may change and therefore inflict serious or injury or death upon the child. But the existence of a dangerous condition by itself is insufficient; rather, a court must also determine the probability of the untoward event impacting the child upon his or her return. It is only when it is proved with clear and convincing evidence that there is danger to the child, in other words, the unacceptable combination of the changing circumstances and the probability of an untoward event, that the standard for grave risk under the Convention is satisfied. 

Yuriiovych v. Hryhorivna, Case No. CV 24-78-BU-DWM (D. Montana December 23, 2024).

Grave Risk Examples from the US State Department

The US State Department gives examples to illustrate the principles underlying the grave risk exception.

• Not grave risk: situations in which money at home is scarce or educational opportunities are limited.
• Grave risk: a parent’s sexual abuse of a child where the court’s denying a petition for return under the Convention would protect the child from being returned to an intolerable situation.

See US State Department, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (Mar. 26, 1986).

The Hague defenses to returning a child to the habitual residence, including the “grave risk of harm” exception, are prospective, not retrospective. See Sierra v. Tapasco, Case No. 4:15-CV-00640 (SD Tex. September 28, 2016)(past acts of domestic abuse or drug activity in home are insufficient to show grave risk of harm); Sanchez v. R.G.L.,761 F. 3d 495, 509 (5th Cir. 2014).

War and the Grave Risk of Harm Defense

Before 2022 and the Ukraine War

Prior to the Ukraine war in February 2022, courts had not extensively explored applying the “grave risk of harm” defense under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention to returning children to war zones. Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) suggested that returning a child to areas of “war, famine or disease” might constitute grave risk, but this was not consistently applied.

For instance, Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F. 3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) held that regional violence in Israel (suicide bombers)did not automatically make Israel a “zone of war.” The court in Rodriguez v. Sieler, 2012 WL 5430369, at *8 (D. Mont. Nov. 7, 2012) rejected the grave risk defense where a dad argued generalized cartel violence in Mexico equated to a grave risk of harm.

After February 2022 and the Ukraine War

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, courts have been compelled to address the grave risk of harm defense more frequently. That has led to diverse interpretations. Still, key principles have emerged:

Need for Specific Evidence:

The mere existence of war does not automatically invoke Article 13(b). Specific proof of risk to the individual child is required, not just a general state of war. Kosenkov v. Kosenkova, 2024 ONSC 3807 (Ontario Sup. Ct. July 3, 2024); In re Z & X, 2023 EWHC 602, ¶ 24 (Fam. Mar. 17, 2023); and I.F. & J.G., 2023 IEHC 495, ¶ 8.31 (July 25, 2023). Thus, when habitual residence is in a war zone, courts must examine the facts and circumstances rather than apply a broad brush.

Localized Risk Evaluation:

Courts must assess the risks in the specific location to which the child would return. They must examining conditions in particular cities or regions in the country of the child’s habitual residence. Tereshchenko v. Karimi, 102 F. 4th 111 (2d Cir. May 16, 2024). In Kosenkov, the dad refused return to Kharkiv due to its strategic vulnerability. In Tereshchenko, the dad identified L’viv as posing a grave risk due to recent missile incidents. Conversely, in M v. F, 2024 EWHC 1689 (Fam. July 1, 2024), the court permitted return of a 5-year-old to Kyiv based on the city’s resilience against the conflict. The presence of strategic targets or the functioning of local services, like schools and courts, are significant factors. Q & R, 2022 EWHC 2961, ¶ 50 (Sept. 21, 2022); Salame v. Tescari, 29 F. 4th 763 (6th Cir. 2022).

Temporal Scope of Risk:

The risk assessment should focus on the period until the courts in the country of habitual residence can adjudicate custody. Re N, 2024 EWHC 871 (Fam. Apr. 17, 2024). The concern is the immediate danger the child might face if returned to the habitual residence. In re ICJ, 13 F. 4th 753 (9th Cir. 2021).

Grave Risk of Harm Defense – The Ukraine War – Yuriiovych v. Hryhorivna

A mom who took a child from Odesa, Ukraine to Montana established the grave risk of harm defense to return of the child by clear and convincing evidence. Yet the court ordered return of the child to a different city in the Ukraine: Chernivtsi. Yuriiovych v. Hryhorivna, Case No. CV 24-78-BU-DWM (D. Montana December 23, 2024).

The judge found, after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Odesa presented a grave risk due to its strategic importance, resulting in frequent Russian missile and drone attacks. The documented civilian casualties and the city’s status as a high-risk zone for schools underscored mom’s argument that returning the child to Odesa would expose the child to grave physical harm.

The court had to balance the immediate physical dangers posed by the war in Ukraine and the Convention’s policy of returning children to their country of habitual residence for custody decisions. 

Discretion to Consider Ameliorative Measures: Grave Risk of Harm Defense

Once a trial court has found return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm, the court isn’t required to examine all possible “ameliorative measures” before denying a petition for return. Golan v. Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880, Case No. 20-1034 (2022).  Ameliorative measures are steps that could lessen risk of grave harm to a child if the court ordered return.

By providing a court “is not bound” to order return upon making a grave risk finding, Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention lifts the return requirement. That leaves a trial court discretion to grant or deny return. Golan.

In Golan, the United States Supreme Court rejected an abusive Italian dad’s argument the Hague Convention implicitly requires a court, when determining if the grave risk of harm defense applies, to consider if any ameliorative measures are available.

Whether or not there’s a grave risk of harm is different from whether ameliorative measures could mitigate the risk, although the questions often overlap. See Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F. 3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007).

Keeping the Children Safe After Return: Ameliorative Measures

Consideration of ameliorative measures must prioritize the child’s physical and psychological safety. A court may decline to consider imposing ameliorative measures when it’s clear they wouldn’t work because the risk is so grave. Sexual abuse of a child is an example of an intolerable situation. Further, a court may decline to consider imposing ameliorative measures where it reasonably expects they won’t be followed. Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F. 3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000). 

On the other hand, the district court in Radu v. Shon, 62 F. 4th 1165 (9th Cir. March 13, 2023) ordered children returned to Germany from the US, where their mom had taken them. But the return order included ameliorative measures to mitigate risk of harm. See also Yuriiovych v. Hryhorivna, Case No. CV 24-78-BU-DWM (D. Montana December 23, 2024), discussed above.

Ameliorative Measures: Return to Safer Area

Acting as Nostradamus, the Yuriiovych court determined, if the child were returned to Chernivtsi, in western Ukraine, the grave risk of harm to the child would be ameliorated. This region had seen less direct conflict, with no reported civilian deaths from missile strikes. The court took testimony that life in Chernivtsi maintained a degree of normalcy, with operational schools, shelters, and other social services. Plus, the child’s father committed to relocate to Chernivtsi. Further, he agreed to secure housing, arrange for the child’s education, and manage any psychological effects to the child of the war environment.

Ameliorative Measures: Questions of Foreign Law

In Radu, the district court granted the German dad’s petition for return, but found there was a grave risk of psychological harm to the children if they returned to Germany in his custody. So, the court also found the grave risk would be mitigated if the children returned to Germany in mom’s temporary custody. Thus, the court ordered mom to return with the children and retain custody until the German courts could resolve the merits of the underlying custody dispute. 

The 9th Circuit remanded for the district court to determine if the US District Court’s order would be enforceable in Germany. Mom presented an expert German attorney. He testified Germany would not enforce the order because it didn’t recognize ameliorative measures. Further, he testified, a German court could take up to six months to decide custody. And, because the children were not German citizens, neither parent could initiate German custody proceedings or obtain foreign protective measures.

Foreign Law: State Department and Official Foreign Central Authorities

International comity requires American courts to consider carefully a foreign country’s views about what is own laws mean. Still, deference has limits. Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1865, 201 L. Ed. 2d 225 (2018). 

To gain understanding in Hague Convention child abduction cases about the laws and procedures of another country, the United States Department of State and foreign Central Authorities are proper and useful resources when evaluating a foreign legal landscape. See Convention Art. 7. Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999); Radu v. Shon, 11 F.4th 1080 (9th Cir. 2021) [Radu I], vacated,___ U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2861, 213 L.Ed.2d 1086 (2022), in light of Golan v. Saada, ___ U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 1880, 213 L.Ed.2d 203 (2022). Formal notice of a court’s intent to research foreign law is not required. G&G Prods. LLC v. Rusic, 902 F. 3d 940 (9th Cir. 2018).

Expert Testimony

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, interpretation of foreign law “must be treated as a ruling on a question of law.” The court may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. Further, the court has an independent obligation to adequately ascertain relevant foreign law.  de Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 838 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2016). To fulfill the court’s obligation, it may conduct its own research and consider relevant material it finds.

The basic way for proving foreign law is through expert testimony. Universe Sales Co., Ltd. v. Silver Castle, Ltd., 182 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999). Expert opinions on foreign law may include interpretations of foreign law and of relevant foreign judicial or administrative orders. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F. 3d 355 (2d Cir. 2013).

---

So…how have courts weighed testimony about domestic violence and abuse in analyzing the grave risk of harm defense under the Hague Convention?

Grave Risk of Harm Defense to Child Abduction Claims Upheld: Abuse

Sustained abuse by a parent and probability that severe potential harm will materialize can establish the grave risk of harm defense under the Hague Convention.

For example, for years, a Chilean father abused the children’s mother, beating her so severely that she miscarried and breaking her ribs and nose. When she finally escaped the abuse, which the children witnessed, the father left them and their mother homeless and hungry. In the children’s presence, when they were with him, he abused drugs, including in their presence. 

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the credibility determinations and fact findings by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which accepted the mother’s grave risk of harm defense and denied the abusive father’s petition to return the children to Chile. Romero v. Bahamonde, Nos. 20-14557, 21-10378 (11th Cir. May 21, 2021).

Moreno v. Escamilla: Grave Risk of Harm Defense Upheld

After a mother of three children abducted them to the US and sought asylum, a Mexican father petitioned for their return to Mexico. Moreno v. Escamilla, Case No. 23 CV 15736 (ND Illinois Nov 12, 2024).

The US District Court (ND Illinois), denying return, upheld mom’s grave risk of harm defense. Evidence showed severe spousal abuse and credible threats dad made that he would have a drug cartel hurt or kill mom. Testimony from the children, mother, and a guardian ad litem supported the court’s decision.

The court determined returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. Further, a pediatrician who met with each child once diagnosed each child with psychological conditions – including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and separation anxiety disorder. The doctor concluded the children’s psychological issues would get worse if the court ordered them to return to Mexico.

Port St. Lucie Florida Grave Risk Case: Wigley v. Hares

The trial court found a mother proved grave risk of harm in denying an abusive father’s petition to return the child to St. Kitts from Port St. Lucie, Florida. In Wigley v. Hares, 82 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the Fourth District Court of Appeal determined that testimony the child would be upset and would be psychologically harmed by returning him would not meet the grave harm test. However, the mother’s testimony about threats and abuse by the child’s father provided clear and convincing evidence that return would place the child at risk of grave harm.

Likewise, in Acosta v. Acosta, 725 F. 3d 868 (8th Cir. 2013), the court upheld the district court’s finding that a suicidal and abusive father’s sustained, uncontrolled rage, and his inability to cope with the prospect of losing custody, would expose children to a grave risk of harm if they returned to Peru.

Grave Risk Hague Convention Defense: Threats to Harm the Child

The Eleventh Circuit has found the standard for the grave risk defense met “where the father had verbally and physically abused the mother in the child’s presence, and threatened to harm the child, but did not physically abuse the child.” Baran v. Beaty, 526 F. 3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008).

In a similar case, the Sixth Circuit found grave risk of harm. See Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F. 3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007). Evidence showed the father’s physical abuse involved “repeated beatings, hair pulling, ear pulling, and belt-whipping” and psychological abuse included “profane outbursts and abuse of the children’s mother in their presence.” Simcox, 511 F. 3d at 608-09. See also Gomez v Fuenmayor, 812 F. 3d 1005 (11^th Cir. 2016)(a pattern of death threats and violence against a father, including a shooting, established a grave risk of harm even though the threats were not specifically directed against the child).

Another abusive father who petitioned for return of his children met a similar fate. In Sadoun v. Guigui, Case No. 1:16-cv-22349-KMM (SD Fla. August 22, 2016), the father physically abused his children. Overwhelming evidence established he psychologically abused them and their mother—at whom he hurled “obscene epithets” in the children’s presence.

Further, evidence established other indicia of domestic violence and his reckless disregard for his family’s safety when he drove drunk. The Court concluded: “[I]t would be irresponsible to think the risk to the children less than grave,” quoting Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F. 3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005). Thus, through clear and convincing evidence, the mother established returning the children to France would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

What to Do When a Parent’s Denials Are Not Credible?

A Brazilian father sought return of a child from the US. In support of the mother’s “grave risk of harm” defense to dad’s child abduction claim, she alone testified that he physically abused her in their daughter’s presence and emotionally abused their daughter. Silva v. Dos Santos, 68 F. 4th 1247 (11th Cir. May 26, 2023). This testimony could be clear and convincing evidence returning the daughter to Brazil would place her at grave risk of harm. The mother alleged and testified:

• the physical abuse began during her pregnancy and continued almost daily;
• the father pushed her grandmother down when she asked him to leave, causing her to fall and break two ribs;
• he fed the family’s kitten to a pit bull and, as the kitten was dying, set it on fire; and
• The shared intimate photos of her on social media.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal held the district judge could have found the father’s “noncredible denials and non-denial denials” corroborated the mother’s testimony about abuse. But the district court was under the misimpression the rule that a criminal defendant’s statements, if a jury disbelieves them, may be considered as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt didn’t apply in the civil context. United States v. Brown, 53 F. 3d 312 (11th Cir. 1995). The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case for the district court to decide if it would give weight to the father’s denials and treat them as corroborating mom’s testimony.

Grave Risk of Harm Defense to Child Abduction Claims Unsuccessful: Abuse

In contrast, in Marquez v. Castillo, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (MD Fla. December 5, 2014), a mother, who wrongfully removed her son from Mexico, failed to show by clear and convincing evidence a grave risk of harm to the child if he were returned to Mexico. Her assertions of fear for her life, the child’s father’s home being in a dangerous neighborhood with active drug activity, and the father’s being “very controlling” and not allowing her to leave the home without an escort, were too vague and generalized, rather than clear and convincing evidence necessary to support the Hague grave risk of harm defense.  

Similar conclusory testimony about violence and an expert’s subjective, self-designed “Danger Assessment,” purporting to predict danger of a mother’s being killed if she had to return to Jamaica with her kids, fell short of her burden of proving the grave risk of harm defense by clear and convincing evidence. Reid v. Remekie, Case No. 25-cv-0904 (RER) (JRC) (ED NY June 26, 2025).

The Grave Risk of Harm Defense is Narrow

In Morales v. Martinez, Case No. 2:14-cv-88-FtM-29CM) (MD Fla. 2014), the court rejected the narrow “grave risk of harm” Hague defense to child abduction claims. The defense requires alleged physical or psychological harm to be “a great deal more than minimal,” “severe potential harm to the child,” and “greater than what is normally expected when taking a child away from one parent and passing the child to another parent.” (Internal citations omitted).

The child’s mother presented no evidence the father ever physically harmed the child, or the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm if returned to Mexico. Although the mother testified she was subjected to abuse and mistreatment, she failed to substantiate her testimony or prove the child was subjected to the same abuse. 

The grave risk Hague defense failed to carry the day in Lopez v. Alcala, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (MD Fla. 2008). Clear and convincing evidence did not establish such a grave risk that two children would be harmed, if returned to their dad in Mexico.

Another mom’s grave risk defense met a similar fate in Garcia v. Ramsis, Civil No. 4:21-CV-650-SDJ (ED Tex. January 31, 2022). She failed to connect risk of spousal abuse to her to eminent possible grave risk to the child if the child were returned to Spain, which would need to consider such allegations in custody proceedings on the merits there.

Yet another responding mom failed to establish the Hague grave risk of harm defense in In re D.D., 440 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1298-99 (MD Fla. 2006). There was no credible evidence the dad had ever physically or psychologically harmed the child and the child’s living conditions in France evidenced no intolerable conditions. 

Abuse Is Only Relevant to the Grave Risk Hague Defense If It Seriously Endangers the Child

Abuse is only relevant under Article 13(b) if it seriously endangers the child. That wasn’t the case in In re RVB, 29 F. Supp. 3d 243 (ED NY 2014). There, the mother failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence a grave risk of harm to a daughter if she were returned to Columbia. Mom alleged domestic violence that happened years prior to the parents’ divorce and that the 8-year-old child liked America “much much better.” These allegations were insufficient.

Grave Risk of Harm Defense to Child Abduction Claims: Parent’s Drug Abuse

Drug use may present grave risk of harm, supporting the Hague defense to a petition by a parent claiming wrongful child abduction for return of a child. 

After a court determines if alleged drug use occurred, it must consider how such conduct, if confirmed, would affect the child if the court were to order return of the child to the habitual residence. Mlynarski v. Pawezka, 931 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Mass. 2013), aff’d, No. 13-1361, 2013 WL 7899192 (1st Cir. May 8, 2013) (grave risk not found where dad had a “susceptibility to taking psychoactive substances” and occasionally smoked marijuana). The grave risk of harm defense did not succeed in Velonzy Ex. Rel. RV v. Velonzy, No. 20 Civ. 6659 (GBD) (SD NY July 22, 2021) (past drug use was not in the children’s presence and did not rise to the level that put them in grave risk of harm).

Extreme Drug Abuse

An extreme example of a parent’s rampant drug abuse while her son was sleeping upstairs at home or was at school illustrates conduct justifying the court’s accepting the Hague grave risk of harm defense. Wertz v. Wertz, Case No. 7:18cv00061 (WD Virginia March 30, 2018). Dad removed an 8-year-old son from his habitual residence in Canada to Virginia. Mom petitioned for return of her 8-year-old son to Canada under the Hague Convention and ICARA. 

Dad alleged, and mom admitted, she used cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, marijuana over 20 years and prescription drugs, including Dilaudid, Ritalin, Percocet, OxyContin, Ativan, Adderall, morphine, methadone, diazepam, benzodiazepine, suboxone, amphetamine, and ketamine. Mom sold Ritalin and marijuana on the street. She engaged in prostitution to support her drug habit and exposed her children to men to dangerous convicts. Further, mom had a relationship with a domestic abuser charged with sexual abuse of the child.

“…the evidence establishes Petitioner’s unrelenting addiction transcends every other aspect of her life, without regard to the consequences to her child. The petitioner in this case has a staggering history of drug abuse…. The severity of Petitioner’s drug use and the effects it has had on L.E.W. are unlike anything the court has come across in other Hague Convention cases. The evidence documents the substantial likelihood of ongoing substance abuse.”  

The court concluded unconditional return to mom’s custody in Canada would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. 

When a court finds grave risk of harm, the court may order return of the child to his habitual residence with conditions known as “undertakings.” These conditions to mitigate risk to the child are enforceable. They allow courts to evaluate placement options and legal safeguards in the habitual residence to keep the child safe while courts there determine custody on the merits. Wertz; Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F. 3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000); Luis Ischiu, 274 F. Supp. 3d at 354-55; Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F. 3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005).

Grave Risk of Harm Defense to Claims of Child Abduction: Intolerable Situation

Under the Hague Convention, a parent may establish the grave risk of harm defense to a parent’s child abduction claim by showing clear and convincing evidence the child’s return would place the child in an “intolerable situation.”  

Hague Convention Grave Risk of Harm Defense: When May a Court Find an Intolerable Situation?

Courts have applied the “intolerable situation” Hague Defense in limited circumstances.

1. When courts of the child’s country of habitual residence can’t make decisions regarding custody rights and protect the child. Pliego v. Hayes, 843 F. 3d 226 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing “intolerable situation”). 
2. When the child’s habitual residence has no adequate treatment facilities for a child with a serious medical condition. Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F. 3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014) (an autistic child faced a grave risk of harm if returned to Italy because there were no adequate treatment facilities there). 
3. When the child would be returned “to a zone of war, famine, or disease.” Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F. 3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996); Yuriiovych v. Hryhorivna, Case No. CV 24-78-BU-DWM (D. Montana December 23, 2024). 
4. When a custodial parent has sexually abused the child. Hague International Child Abduction Convention, Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494-01, 10510 (Mar. 26, 1986); Golan v. Saada, 142 S.Ct. 1880, Case No. 20-1034 (US Supreme Court Jun 15, 2022). 

The exception did not apply in De Lucia v. Castillo, Case No. 3:19-CV-7 (CDL) (MD Georgia April 29, 2019) (concluding mother who moved the children from Italy to Georgia failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence grave risk of harm that returning the children to Italy would place them in an intolerable situation). 

A Challenging Political Climate or Liking One Country Better Doesn’t Establish Grave Risk of Harm Hague Convention Defense

To establish a grave risk of harm defense to a child abduction claim, a parent can’t rely on general regional violence. Instead, there must be clear and convincing evidence of a specific risk of harm to the child. Generalized and unsupported assertions the habitual residence is dangerous don’t establish grave risk of harm. See Da Silva v. Vieira, Case No. 6:20-cv-1301-Orl-37GJK (MD Fla. September 23, 2020).

Other cases consistently reject generalized concerns about political unrest or dangerous conditions in the country of habitual residence and require clear and convincing specific evidence to support the Hague grave risk of harm defense. See, e.g., Figueredo v. Del Carmen Rojas, Case No. 3:22-cv-1268-TJC-LLL (MD Fla. April 18, 2023)(mother’s evidence of economic and humanitarian upheaval in Venezuela was insufficient to deny a return order under Article 13(b)); Salame v. Tescari, 29 F. 4th 763 (6th Cir. 2022); Rishmawy v. Vergara, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-35 (SD GA May 21, 2021) (father’s personal belief Honduras is generally so dangerous the child should not be returned there, even with evidence of past gun violence the mother’s family experienced, without evidence she or the child had been the target of violence or threats, did not meet the standard for showing a grave risk of harm).

General Evidence of Economic and Civil Disorder

In Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (MD Fla. 2002), the court ordered children be returned to Argentina, despite testimony by a professor of political science and international studies that Argentina was in a state of economic and civil disorder, posing a risk of harm to the children if they were returned. 

See also Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F. 3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (general regional violence in Israel did not establish a “zone of war”). Living conditions marked by poverty, sociopolitical unrest, or community violence don’t show grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation. Vazquez v. Estrada, 3:10-CV-2519-BF, (ND Tex. Jan. 19, 2011) (evidence that the community where the parent lived is dangerous due to surge in cartel activity didn’t establish it was a “zone of war”).

Drugs and Crime: Generalized Dangerous of Country of Habitual Residence Doesn’t Establish the Grave Risk Hague Defense

Likewise, the dad in De La Riva v. Soto, 183 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (MD Fla. 2016) claimed fear returning his son to Mexico because of crime and drug cartels. The Court concluded that a U.S. Department of State travel advisory and the father’s testimony about generalized “dangerousness” of Mexico fell short of directly establishing by clear and convincing evidence that his son would face grave risk of harm contemplated by the Hague Convention if he were to return to Mexico. 

The court denied another father’s “grave risk” defense in Tavarez v. Jarrett, 252 F. Supp. 3d 629, 640-41 (SD Tex. May 16, 2017) and ordered him to return the child to Mexico. The father had alleged Mexico’s health care was inadequate, and there was a higher risk of disease and crime rate where the mother sought the child’s return.   Similarly, a mom failed to show grave danger if a child were returned to Mexico because of high crime in Mexico City. See Sierra v. Tapasco, Case No. 4:15-CV-00640 (SD Tex. September 28, 2016).

Generalized Risk of Violence: Protests and Political Climate

A father unsuccessfully asserted Hong Kong’s political climate created a grave risk of harm to his son and daughter in Chung Chui Wan v. Debolt, No. 20-cv-3233 (CD Ill. May 3, 2021). Dad argued China’s passing on June 30, 2020, and implementing the National Security Law for Hong Kong in response to large-scale protests in Hong Kong, would put the children in a “psychological war unleashed” and force them to live in fear of expressing their fears, stifle their speech, and psychologically traumatize them. But the harms the father described were hypothetical and generalized, rather than particular to the children. Generalized risk of violence in a country is insufficient to establish the grave risk of harm defense. Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F. 3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Grave Risk of Harm: Intolerable Situation – Past Gang Threats

In Colon v. Mejia Montufar, 470 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (SD Fla. 2020), a mom’s evidence fell short that returning her 12-year-old son to Guatemala would place him in an intolerable situation. In March 2019, MS-13 gang members in Guatemala went to her child’s school twice and threatened to kill him and her if he didn’t join the gang and sell drugs. The child’s half-brother was forced to join MS-13. The Guatemalan police told the mom they could do nothing because she couldn’t identify the men. The mother fled to Florida.

The court concluded the past threats didn’t indicate probability of future violence or harm. There was no clear and convincing evidence MS-13 members were highly probable to harm or forcibly recruit siblings of other gang members, or the men had a continued interest in recruiting the child. See also Salguero v. Argueta, 256 F. Supp. 3d 630 (ED NC 2017) (past threats were insufficient to apply the “grave risk” exception, where the parent offered no evidence MS-13 gang members had targeted, harassed, or threatened the child in the 18 months since their initial threat).

Similarly, in Rodriguez v. Noriega, Case No. 23-cv-3911 (ECT/JFD) (D. Minn. May 6, 2024), past alleged gang threats and kidnappings to mom’s family in Sinaloa, Mexico, but with no evidence of threats or harm to the child, and no evidence mom and the child would be targeted if they returned, were insufficient to establish the grave risk of harm defense to her child abduction claims.

Hague Convention Compliance Reports – Country-by-Country Statistics

Detailed country-by-country information on procedures if a child has been moved to another country is available at U.S. Department of State website. The U.S. Department of State Office of Children’s Issues submitted to Congress a Compliance Report dated April 2025 summarizing compliance in 2024 by treaty members. The Report identifies 15 countries the Department cited as demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance in 2024 with fulfilling their obligations under the Hague Convention to return children: Argentina, The Bahamas, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt, Honduras, India, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Later, the Department submitted its Action Report on International Child Abduction.

The Action Report illustrates assertions parties, or judicial or governmental authorities called upon to assist with return of children, may raise. Such statistics may assist in establishing the “grave risk of harm” Hague Convention defense. But a parent doesn’t need to prove that the child’s country of habitual residence is unable or unwilling to protect the child from the grave risk of harm that would accompany the child’s return. Gomez v Fuenmayor, 812 F. 3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016) (district court was not required to find the habitual residence, Venezuela, was unable to protect the child from a proven grave risk of harm); De Lucia v. Castillo, Case No. 3:19-CV-7 (CDL) (MD Georgia April 29, 2019) (the court doesn’t have to find the home country can’t protect the child from a grave risk of harm).

Sixth Hague Defense: Fundamental Principles Relating to the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Do Not Permit Return of the Child 

A sixth and final defense to child abduction claims under the Hague Convention is the human rights defense.

Under Article 20 of the Hague Convention, a court is not bound to order the return of a child if the travelling parent demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that return of the child would not be permitted by fundamental principles of the country of habitual residence relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The defense is directed to concerns about harms arising from returning a child to a country when “human rights concerns, most likely defined within the parameters of other international agreements, would prohibit return.” Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F. Supp. 2d 284 (D. P.R. 2003).

The Article 20 Hague defense is rarely invoked and, when it is, rarely succeeds.

The father who lost on his grave risk of harm defense in Chung Chui Wan v. Debolt, No. 20-cv-3233 (C.D. Ill. May 3, 2021) (see earlier discussion about that defense) failed to establish the Article 20 defense.

The court cited Uzoh v. Uzoh, 2012 WL 1565345, at *7 (N.D. Ill. 2012), in which the court observed the Article 20 Hague defense has never been asserted in a published in the United States. See also Garbolino, James, Fed. Jud. Ctr., The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges 85 n. 332 (2012); Souratgar v. Fair, 720 F. 3d 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (denying Article 20 defense, noting it has yet to be used by a federal court to deny a petition for repatriation); Walker v. Kitt, 900 F. Supp. 2d 849 (ND Ill. 2012) (mother utterly failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that return of child to Israel would “shock the conscience.”) 

The International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) cited Walker v. Kitt :

To invoke Article 20 to refuse to return a child for anything less than gross violations of human rights would seriously cripple the purpose and effectivity of the Convention.
Walker v. Kitt, 900 F. Supp. 2d 849, 864 (ND Ill. 2012)

See International Academy of Family Lawyers, Amicus Brief, G. v. G., Case No. UKSC 2020/0191, In the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (January 17, 2021).

Unsuccessful Article 20 Defense to Child Abduction Claims

A dad had initial success with the Article 20 defense to a mom’s child abduction claims against him in a Texas Hague case, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Galaviz v. Reyes, 95 F. 4th 246 (5th Cir. March 7, 2024). Dad’s novel argument was his two children he was keeping in El Paso were not getting free education in Mexico, their habitual residence. He contended education was a fundamental human right, and ordering the kids to be returned to Mexico would violate this fundamental right.

The children had special needs. The school in Mexico made mom be present every day, but she could not be and also work to support the family. This inability, dad argued, denied the children the fundamental right to education. Yet, he presented no clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to Mexico “would utterly shock the conscience of the court or offend all notions of due process.” 

Mixed Questions of Law and Fact – Standard of Review

Regarding applying the Article 20 exception to the facts, the Galaviz court first determined the standard of review to apply to mixed questions of law and fact.  All mixed questions of law and fact are not all alike. Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719 (February 25, 2020); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Management LLC v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387, 138 S.Ct. 960, 200 L.Ed.2d 218 (2018).

History guided the court, as did the State Department’s Legal Analysis of the Convention, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (March 26, 1986). To placate negotiating countries divided over whether a public policy exception should be included in the Hague Convention Defenses to child abduction claims, and to prevent negotiations from collapsing, the drafters included a provision that later became Article 20. But a responding party could invoke it only on rare occasions when returning a child would “utterly shock the conscience of the court or offend all notions of due process.”

For interpretation on Article 20, the Legal Analysis relied on (1) The Elisa Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report: Hague Convention on Private International Law and (2) an article by the Chairman of the Commission on the Hague Conference of Private International Law that drafted the Convention, A.E. Anton, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, 30 INT’L & COMPAR. L.Q. 537 (1981).

The Fifth Circuit concluded that:

determining whether “the fundamental principles of the requested State [here, the United States] relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms” would not permit return of a child entails primarily legal work. Accordingly, we review the district court’s findings of fact regarding Reyes’ invocation of Article 20 for clear error, bearing in mind that the heightened clear-and-convincing-evidence burden applies, and we review de novo whether the circumstances permit a United States court to decline to return a child under Article 20.

Article 20 Hague Convention Defense to Child Abduction Claims: Failed Assertion

The Galaviz result is consistent with failed Article 20 defenses in other Hague cases. See Castro v. Martinez, 872 F. Supp. 2d 546 (WD Tex. 2012) (declining to apply the exception where the respondent alleged that corruption in Mexico would prevent a fair determination of child custody upon the child’s return); Aly v. Aden, 2013 WL 593420 Civil No. 12-1960 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. 2013) (the same allegations the court found to be insufficient to establish the grave risk of harm defense could not establish the “fundamental humanitarian rights” defense). See also Weiner, Merle H., Strengthening Article 20, 38 U.S.F.L. Rev. 701 n. 71 (2004).

The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a mother’s broad assertion that a country’s (Singapore) Syariah courts (which, she claimed would inevitably grant custody to the child’s father) are incompatible with principles, “relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms” of the United States. Souratgar v. Fair, 720 F. 3d 96 (2d Cir. 2013). Despite political sympathies to which the mother’s general assertions might give rise, the court declined to rule categorically that the mere presence of a Syariah Court in a foreign state, whose accession to the Convention the United States has recognized, per se violates due process. Souratgar, 720 F. 3d at 108. The court affirmed the grant of the father’s petition for his son’s repatriation to Singapore. Id. at 109.

Hague Convention Defense – Article 20: Foreign Countries

Spain

Decisions from other countries under Article 20 are rare. In one case, recognizing the defense, a Spanish Court denied a father’s petition for return of a child to Israel from Spain. The child and mother were Spanish citizens. The court found that return would be contrary to principles of Spanish law concerning protecting human rights and basic liberties.

Following the parties’ divorce and mother’s taking the child to Spain, the father applied for, and an Israeli court granted him, sole custody upon a finding that the mother was ‘Moredet,” a status under Jewish law meaning she was a ‘rebellious wife.’ The Spanish court determined this finding would cause the absolute negation of the mother’s parental rights and status in the Israeli community and declined to return the child. In Re S., Auto de 21 abril de 1997, Audiencia Provincial Barcelona, Sección 1a. See also Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F. 3d 249, 261-63 n.28 (3d Cir.2008) (criticizing a Spanish court’s using Article 20 to justify denial of repatriation and its construing an agreement not to take child out of the United States without both parents’ consent as violating fundamental rights under the Spanish Constitution for citizens to travel and choose their place of residence).

Costa Rica

The court in Costa Rica applied the Article 20 human rights defense to a dad’s child abduction claims against a mom in L.R.C., a favor de I.C.R., y E.C.R., contra el Juzgado de Niñez y Adolescencia y El Tribunal de Familia, INCADAT Ref. HC/E/CR 1320, Exp: 13-003521-0007-CO, Res. No. 006644-2013, Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Costa Rica (May 17, 2013).  

Dad petitioned for return of two daughters, born in 2001 and 2006 in the U.S., where they were raised, went to school, and developed a social network. In July 2011, they entered Costa Rica and started school there. In November 2011, the father requested the mother’s voluntary return of the girls to the US, which the Costa Rican Central Authority promoted. The mother refused.  

A Costa Rican court ordered their return. Mom appealed unsuccessfully. She filed a petition for habeas corpus. The court granted the petition and ordered the girls not to be returned to the United States. In reaching its decision to refuse return, the Constitutional Division found compelling that the children had developed significant relationships in Costa Rica at school, with their family, and with their social network, and forcing them to leave the country against their wishes would harm them. 

Israel

An Israeli mother established the Article 20 human rights defense to the father’s claim she wrongfully abducted her three children from Israel and fled to Canada. The court found return to Israel would violate Canada’s fundamental principles relating to protecting the mother’s and children’s human rights, and their fundamental freedoms to live free from serious risk of persecution.

The parents married in 2009 in Israel and had their children there. They separated. Mom got a protection order from the Israeli Family Court and began divorce proceedings in the Sharia Court. That court gave temporary guardianship to dad and ordered that mom’s rights of custody terminate. She took the children to her parents’ home.

The next day a grenade exploded outside their house. Two days later, she left Israel with the 3 children and grandparents. They moved to Canada, which granted the mother and children refugee status, because they’d face persecution in Israel. This refugee status put the burden on the father, which he failed to meet, to rebut a presumption against “non-refoulement” (forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to face persecution). Therefore, the presumption protected mom and children for the purposes of applying the Hague Convention Article 20 defense. Sabeahat v. Sabihat, 2020 ONSC 2784, FS-18-0099 (May 7, 2020). 

Searchable Hague Convention Decisions: INCADAT

As the court in Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F. 3d 466, 477 n. 44 (5th Cir. 2016) noted, the Hague Conference on Private International Law maintains a database of decisions concerning the Convention “to promote mutual understanding, consistent interpretation and thereby the effective operation of the … Convention.” International Child Abduction Database (INCADAT), Hague Conference on Private International Law. The database is searchable by keyword and Hague Convention article (e.g., “Article 20”). Search the database by specific Hague defenses to child abduction claims.

Opportunity for Collaborative Resolution or Mediation

Child abduction cases under the Hague Convention are complex and fact intensive. The collaborative process or mediation may be difficult in such cases, yet still superior to (1) Hague proceedings to resolve return to habitual residence claims and defenses and (2) if return is ordered, full custody proceedings in the country of the child’s habitual residence.

 As the Aarabi court noted:

Child abduction cases are always emotional, and the Court can understand why Mr. Aarabi was justifiably distraught by the separation from his child and accusations about his past conduct. Unfortunately, emotions ran high in this case and led to personal attacks on Ms. Kerroum’s character, her culture, her religion, and her family that pushed the bounds of zealous advocacy. While cases under the Convention end with an order in favor of one parent, it is naive to think that the Parties’ dispute ends here. The Parties face a custody dispute in Morocco and likely will have to co-parent in some respect going forward. The resentment bred by scorched-earth tactics will only hinder this cooperation and does not serve I.A. in any respect.

Aarabi v. Kerroum, No. 1:2024-cv-0293-VMC (ND Georgia February 13, 2025) (Emphasis added).

For information about mediation in the international context, see:

• US Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Using Mediation.
• The European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction
• Geoff Wilson, International Academy of Family Lawyers, Overview of Mediation Dispute Resolution in Child Abduction Cases (YouTube video, March 10, 2014)
• Geoff Wilson, HopgoodGanim, Overview of Mediation Dispute Resolution in Child Abduction Cases, IAML Hague Symposium Bueno Aires 2013.
• Melissa A. Kucinski, Culture in International Parental Kidnapping Mediations, 9 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. Iss. 3 (2009), available at https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol9/iss3/5
• Melissa A. Kucinski, Mediating International Child Abductions, ABA, 2020 Family Advocate, Vol. 43, p. 33

For more about the Collaborative Process, read:

When Clients Retain Their Power: The Collaborative Law Process

Harness Collaborative Contract Power!

Include Allied Professionals in the Collaborative Process

Comparison Cost of Collaborative Divorce to Cost of Litigation

Conclusion

Proving defenses to child abduction claims under the Hague Convention requires analysis and development of all evidence and testimony that may support or defeat defenses to claims of wrongful abduction or retention. This article provides a framework for such analysis of the defenses the responding parent may raise.

Last updated: August 26, 2025