Grave Risk Defense | Child’s Objection to Return | Role of Trial Court
In this case, after being left in the father’s care for two years, a child was removed from Brazil by his maternal aunt and taken to Massachusetts to live with his mother.
In this case, the First Circuit reviewed whether a mature child’s objection to return was sufficient for the district court to deny the mother’s request for his return to Venezuela.
Article 13 establishes a defense to return when the left-behind parent has consented or acquiesced to the removal or retention of the child. Consent or acquiescence, however, must be clearly established.
The Danaipour cases deal with the responsibilities of trial courts to hear and rule on defenses to return as opposed to relying upon the courts or services of the habitual residence to inquire into allegations of abuse.
The Federal Judicial Center prepared this report to assist the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to evaluate reported problems with and potential amendments to Rules 28 and 32 on the content and cover of briefs.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Civil Justice Advisory Group for the District of New Hampshire
August 16, 1996
The results of a survey of attorneys designed to assess the effects of the local changes implemented under the district's Expense and Delay Reduction Plan.
Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, Civil Justice Advisory Group for the District of Puerto Rico, Gilberto Giebolini
April 28, 1995
Chief U.S. District Judge Carmen C. Cerezo transmits her district's Expense and Delay Reduction Plan to Administrative office director L. Ralph Mecham.