Case Update (14 Aug 2025): Dhooge v. Pronker; Child returned from Arkansas to Netherlands under Abduction Convention

The parties are parents to one child, born in January 2011 in the Netherlands. The parties divorced in February 2014, and incorporated a parenting plan into their divorce order in the Netherlands. They shared parental authority, and the Petitioner Father had certain access to the child, initially on Fridays and Saturdays. At the end of 2020, the Respondent Mother allegedly “increasingly failed to keep the court-ordered visitation appointments” so the Father sought court intervention. The Dutch court involved the Salvation Army that provided supervision over the visitation, starting July 2021. The visitation was extended several times, and in August 2023, the visitation order was modified to give the Father contact with his son for three hours every three weeks. The Dutch judge extended the supervision order for six months, but contact between the son and Father had not been re-established, and the court declined to continue mandating intervention. The Dutch judge also noted that the supervision provided by the Salvation Army should end “carefully, potentially allowing future contact” when the child was ready. During this time, the Father gave Mother permission to travel with the child to the USA for vacation, and signed a consent form for travel from between July 1 and August 31, 2024. In October 2024, the Father learned the son had not returned from the last trip to the USA. In or around August 2024, the child stopped responding to the Father entirely. The Father petitioned the U.S. District Court for the child’s return to the Netherlands.

The district court concluded that the Father retained joint parental responsibility and therefore had a right of custody that he was attempting to exercise. The Mother argued that the child should not be returned for two reasons. The first was that returning the child would expose the child to physical or psychological harm because the Father and son had a strained relationship “and that [the son] did not feel comfortable with his father.” The U.S. District Court, however, concluded that the Dutch court was fully aware of this, had involved the Salvation Army (social services) for several years, and had put forth an effort to improve their relationship. Under the prevailing Dutch custody order, the child was not required to be in his father’s physical custody, and the child was to direct when he would have contact with the Father. Therefore, there was no grave risk. The second argument the Mother made was that the child was mature and objected. The child spoke with the court, and indicated a preference to stay in the USA with his mother. The district court, however, noted that when the child was questioned, he did not know his current address, including the city where he lived, despite having lived there for almost a year. The child said he would prefer to stay in the USA because “he did not like it at his father’s house; he did not like his father telling him that he’s not allowed to miss his mom or to have friends over; he did not like his father sending him pictures of his half siblings, which his father knew he missed, or of the fishing boat that he liked to be on.” The child did claim that the father had hit him one or two times, but not within the last five years, although no other witness introduced this potential claim, therefore the court found the child’s testimony not credible, and concluded he was not mature.

The child was ordered returned to the Netherlands.