Case Update (11 Sept 2026): Rottenhoffer v. Rottenhoffer; Respondent failed to prove risk of harm if child returned to Hungary

The Petitioner Father, a Hungarian citizen, sought the return of the parties’ child (born in July 2020 in Hungary) from Virginia. The parties had been living separate and apart since May 2023 in Hungary after a physical altercation, which occurred in front of the child, and resulted in a 30-day Hungarian protective order against Petitioner. The U.S. District Court here concluded that abuse did likely occur, but that it ceased after the parties separated (around spring 2023). The Court also found that the Respondent may have instigated some of the physical altercations and that she did not allege that Petitioner ever physically abused the child. By early 2024, the Respondent “obtained a temporary Hungarian custody order” that provided her with slightly more time than the Petitioner. Also, in early 2024, the Guardianship Authority in Hungary conducted a child protection hearing, and issued a decision ordering the parents to participate in psychological counseling and to refrain from aggression toward one another. The parents seemingly had significant distrust and conflict among themselves, but both cared for and loved the child. In 2025, the Petitioner unsuccessfully tried to block the child’s international travel with Respondent in court, and refused to participate in renewing the child’s U.S. passport.

On June 27, 2025, Respondent and child traveled to the USA, without first notifying Petitioner, on 1-way tickets. Thereafter, she “has consistently asserted that the travel … was not a pre-planned permanent move…”, despite her having sold her furniture, personal belongings, ended her lease, and left her job. The parties apparently debated, back and forth, whether the child should return on a U.S. passport (which Respondent insisted on) or on a temporary Hungarian travel document (which Petitioner insisted on). Therefore, still in dispute, in August 2025, the Petitioner sought the child’s return using the Hague Abduction Convention. At trial, the Petitioner testified that it was not until December 2025 that she “firmly decided to stay in the United States”, arguing she feared returning to Hungary as the Petitioner had filed for supervised visitation in their courts, among other things. A February 2026 Hungarian appellate court ordered the Respondent to return the child to Petitioner within 30 days at his address in Hungary, which did not happen. The appellate court, however, declined to order only supervised visitation.

The U.S. District Court concluded that the Petitioner made out a case of wrongful retention, beginning either on July 16, 2025 (when the Respondent rejected his proposal to return to Hungary with the child on a temporary Hungarian passport) or on September 19, 2025 (when the Respondent advised the U.S. Central Authority that she would remain in the USA unless the Petitioner “capitulated to her passport renewal demands”).

In addressing the Respondent’s testimony as to physical abuse between the parties, the court noted that spousal abuse can be a grave risk where facts reveal a “degree of severity and repetition” that presents a grave risk of future harm to the child. It noted that federal courts have often considered whether a victim “demonstrates that the abuser has an overall ‘propensity for violence’, as can be evidenced by physical assaults of other people, death threats, aggressive conduct while under the influence of alcohol or other substances, or other acts suggesting that the transfer of violence toward a child is likely in the future." The District Court, here, found it hard to believe there was a risk of harm, crediting the Respondent’s consistent assertion that she genuinely intended to return the child in July 2025, which undercut her contention that returning the child would expose the child to a risk of harm. Further, the evidence demonstrated that any physical abuse ended when cohabitation ended in Fall 2023. Respondent’s expert, while helpful, was not persuasive, with the Court noting that it “did not find all of his conclusions to be convincing as they were grounded in a somewhat one-sided view of the relevant facts.”

The child was ordered returned to Hungary.