Case Update (15 Jan 2026): Watt v. White; Abduction Convention petition resolved on summary judgment motion
The parties are unmarried parents to one child, born in Jamaica in 2014, and who is the subject of a January 2022 Jamaican custody order, granting the Petitioner Father rights of visitation and putting in place a prohibition on either parent removing the child from Jamaica without the other parent’s written consent. Petitioner Father shared that the Respondent Mother interfered with his access, so, for sixteen months after the January 2022 order, he returned to the Jamaican courts four times to seek increasingly specific enforcement orders to address this behavior. “Those efforts culminated in a May 5, 2023, court order specifying the exact time and location at which Petitioner was to pick up [the Child] on Fridays.”
The court received evidence that later that May, the Respondent removed the child from school to frustrate the court-ordered access. Petitioner reported this to the Jamaican law enforcement, “who searched Respondent’s residence and workplace on multiple occasions.” He also returned to the Jamaican family court. The Respondent allegedly failed to appear, and the court issued an arrest warrant. Ultimately, the Jamaican Family Court referred the petition to immigration authorities, who informed Petitioner that the Respondent had taken the child out of Jamaica, which, apparently, violated the Jamaican Family Court orders.
On March 13, 2025, the Petitioner filed his petition to return the child to Jamaica in the U.S. District Court for the WD of North Carolina. Initial efforts by the U.S. Marshals to serve her were unsuccessful. On March 25, 2025, the Petitioner moved to transfer the case to South Carolina, having received information from the U.S. Central Authority that the Respondent was physically present there. Personal service was ultimately accomplished on April 17, 2025. The Respondent did not appear at the initial status hearing, did not file an Answer, and the clerk of court ultimately entered a default against her on June 2, 2025, at the Petitioner’s request.
The following day, Respondent filed an unsworn document, which was docketed as an Answer, but that the court found to not comply with the FRCP, was unsupported by admissible evidence, and did not assert any cognizable defense under the Abduction Convention. It made “generalized references to the child’s best interests and to alleged misconduct by Petitioner…”. It also did “not meaningfully dispute the material facts relevant to a Hague Convention claim…”. The court appointed counsel for Respondent, who later sought to withdraw, explaining that they were unable to to communicate with or obtain necessary direction from their client.
It was thereafter that the Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, a Motion for Default Judgment. Respondent has not responded. The court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, deciding to actually receive evidence and reach legal conclusions on the merits. The court, in weighing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Respondent (nonmoving party), concluded that there was an absence of a genuine issue of material fact, warranting the granting of a summary judgment under Rule 56. The child is ordered returned to Jamaica.
