Case Update (16 Oct 2026): Pletkus v. Saletis; 11th Circuit affirms return to Lithuania, finding district court applied correct grave risk standard when weighing unproven abuse allegations
I previously summarized the district court’s decision in this case here. In short, the Mother conceded she wrongfully retained the parties’ five-year-old daughter in the USA after a two-week family visit, and argued only that returning the child to Lithuania would expose her to a grave risk of harm because the Father had sexually abused her. The district court ordered the child’s return, finding the Mother did not prove her defense by clear and convincing evidence. The 11th Circuit denied the Mother’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, and the child returned to Lithuania on August 20, 2026. The return did not moot the appeal.
On appeal, the Mother did not challenge any of the district court’s factual findings as clearly erroneous. Instead, she argued the district court applied the wrong legal standard by focusing on whether the Father had previously abused the child, rather than on the prospective risk of harm the child would face upon return. She relied on her forensic expert, who testified that her grave risk opinion did not depend on whether abuse could be proven, but on the child’s present trauma-related responses when asked about the Father. The 11th Circuit rejected this argument. The court explained that weighing historical abuse allegations is a proper way to assess present and future risk, and that the district court did not ignore the expert’s prospective opinion. Rather, it acknowledged the opinion and gave record-supported reasons for assigning it less weight, including that the expert terminated the child’s interview early, never interviewed the Father or other witnesses, had no independent data showing the Father was a danger, and could not exclude the Mother’s influence on the child. Those were evidentiary determinations, not a misstatement of the law, and the appellate court would not reweigh the evidence.
The 11th Circuit also rejected the Mother’s argument that the district court was bound to accept her expert’s opinion because she was the only testifying expert and the Father offered no competing 2026 psychological assessment. The fact finder is under no obligation to accept an expert’s opinion. Finally, the court rejected the Mother’s argument that the district court improperly required her to prove Lithuania could not protect the child, noting that the district court’s finding on Lithuania’s ability to protect the child was separate from its rejection of the grave risk defense. The return order was affirmed.
