Case Update (11 Aug 2025): Boa-Bonsu v. Owusu; estoppel is not a permitted defense under the Abduction Convention

In this case, the Petitioner is seeking a child’s return under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. In the Respondent’s Answer to the Petition, she argued the defense of “estoppel”. She asserted, “Petitioner is estopped from asserting claims under the Hague Convention due to prior conduct that misled Respondent into believing the [child’s] removal was permitted.” Petitioner moved to strike this defense as legally insufficient. Petitioner contended that estoppel is an improper defense because the Hague Abduction Convention provides “an exclusive set of narrowly defined defenses that do not include estoppel.” This is, according to the court, true. “The Hague Convention provides for limited defenses, and courts hold that estoppel is not among them.” Respondent argued, however, that estoppel should be permitted as a defense because (1) it is “closely related to the recognized defense of consent and acquiescence under Article 13 of the Hague Convention; (2) courts allow equitable defenses to proceed in Hague Convention actions; (3) it is fact-dependent and cannot be stricken at the pleading stage; and (4) it is not prejudicial.” However, the Respondent provided no support for these arguments, and, she separately raised the other defenses that are available under the Convention, so any factual arguments (related to consent, particularly) may be pursued under the proper defenses already raised.

The Motion to Strike is granted. The equitable estoppel argument is stricken.