Case Update (21 April 2026): Deravil v. Jean-Louis; mature child exception reviewed for clear error on appeal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court decision denying a grand-uncle’s and grand-aunt’s request to return their grand-niece to Martinique using the Hague Abduction Convention. The reason for the denial was the age-and-maturity exception.
The child at issue is approximately 14 years old at the time of this decision. She was born in Haiti, but, around 2015, the Petitioners took her to Martinique where they would live for the next 8 years. During this time, the Respondents also left Haiti, and eventually settled in Ohio in 2021. In 2023, the Petitioners arranged for the child to visit the Respondents in the USA for the summer. When it became clear the Respondents were not going to return the child, having maintained that the Petitioners originally kidnapped the child from them in 2015, the Petitioners attempted to sneak the child back to Martinique, but were intercepted in Florida. The Respondents requested that the child be interviewed in camera during the trial, and nearly a year after the Petitioners filed their petition, the district court interviewed the child. “The interview consisted of the district court asking A.D. a series of questions focused on her time in Martinique with the [Petitioners] and her subsequent experience in the United States. A Haitian-Creole interpreter was present for the interview, but A.D. did not end up needing assistance.” The CofA noted that despite the Petitioners originally objecting to the child’s in camera interview, and having had the opportunity at various points in the evidentiary hearing “to present evidence undermining the application of the age-and-maturity exception” they chose not to do so. They also never requested a separate hearing to address this exception. The district court concluded that Petitioners had demonstrated their prima facie case, but that the child would not be returned based on the age-and-maturity exception. The appeal followed. On appeal, the CofA reviewed the factual findings of the district court for clear-error. There are two distinct factual findings: (1) whether the child is mature enough for their wishes to be given weight, and (2) whether the child actually objected to repatriation (a mere preference does not suffice).
The district court concluded that the 13-year-old (at the time of the interview) was sufficiently mature. It’s analysis considered: her demeanor, whether she understood the difference between a truth and lie, her ability to recall and narrate, and whether she grasped the purpose and significance of the proceedings. As the CofA stated, “it would be improper to require much more from a 13-year-old; the exception requires maturity, not fully developed adult-like behavior.” It is not unusual for a 13-year-old to have initial reticence and use one-word responses. This 13-year-old was “nervous at first and did not quite grasp the significance of the Hague Convention proceedings” which led her to have trouble recalling when she started school in Ohio or being confused by some of the court’s questions, among other things. She ultimately became more confident and comfortable and settled into the interview. The CofA noted that the district court judge, wanting to ensure the child felt comfortable “interacted with her in a manner similar to the way he interacts with his granddaughters.” To bolster the judge’s finding of maturity, health care professionals describe the child as having age-appropriate attention.
The CofA appeals then noted that a mature child must object to return. There are no magic words to indicate an objection. The district court should “look to the substance of a child’s statements” and the child must “provide particularized reasons as to why returning to his or her country of habitual residence is unacceptable.” This particular child advised the judge, in camera, that she did not feel safe in Martinique and did not belong there. She discussed specific instances of being hit with a stick, and seeing another child threatened with a machete. There were some moments where the child failed to “succinctly summarize her objection to repatriation” and when the court asked to her to “put some meat on the bones”, she would reply “no.” The district court, however, interacted with her, and “found additional meaning from her answers.” The CofA then found that the district court’s conclusions were supported by the record.
Overall, the CofA noted that they are limited in reviewing a transcript, and not seeing the child’s body language or hearing their tone. They have an incomplete picture. District courts are best situated to make factual findings. Therefore, the district court, here, did not clearly err.
The Petitioners did reference other courts that have stated, in their opinions, that when a refusal to return a child is based solely on this one exception, they should apply a stricter standard. But, it appeared no one really articulated what that stricter standard is - it isn’t a higher burden of proof or a different appellate review. The CofA noted it is more “a rote observation than as a rule to be applied in considering a child’s testimony.” A judge dissented on this particular point, arguing the stricter standard requires a greater scrutiny of the evidence, i.e., “that the district court probe deeply enough to distinguish the child’s genuine independent judgment from the predictable byproduct of a lengthy wrongful retention.” A child’s own statements may be susceptible to the environment and influences around them. This judge also found the child’s inconsistency indicative of a lack of maturity. They were bothered by the fact that the child had lived in Ohio for 2 years before being interviewed, and that, itself, could influence them, even if there was no coaching.
