Case Update (22 Dec 2022): Davis v. Lake; children not returned under Abduction Convention after finding Petitioner consented to their relocation

The parties are parents to 2 children, ages 9 and 11 at the time of the district court proceeding in Virginia. Pursuant to an Anguillan custody order, the Respondent/Mother had primary residential custody, and the Petitioner/Father had routine access, which he did not fully exercise (in part, because of the pandemic). They shared joint custody. In January 2020, the Respondent told Petitioner she was going to marry and relocate the children to Lynchburg, Virginia. At trial, the Petitioner testified that he was willing to discuss the relocation, but at no point, did he agree with it. The Respondent testified that the Petitioner consented, and, provided a September 8, 2021 WhatsApp message from the Petitioner that the court concluded was support for the children's relocation. The court ultimately concluded that the Respondent was far more credible, and the Petitioner's testimony often conflicted with the evidence at trial. Therefore, the court declined to return the children to Anguilla.

The court did speak with the children, and had them testify, including about the primary components of the case. For instances, the 11-year-old testified "that she told her father they were going to Virginia, and when he asked when they were going, she told him to ask her mother." The court also elicited testimony from the two children about their potential objections to returning to Anguilla, and concluded the 11-year-old had a mature objection that "seems not to be a preference 'for one lifestyle over another,' but an objection 'born of rational comparison' between the U.S. and Anguilla." The child testified that she "likes her new life in Virginia, particularly her family, church, school, and friends..." The child apparently also testified that "she would not want to return to Anguilla with either her mother or father" and "that she likes to visit Anguilla, though she would not want to return there permanently."

Melissa Kucinski

Melissa Kucinski works with family lawyers to strategically resolve their clients’ complex international cases.  A fellow of the AAML, the IAFL, and chair of international family law committees in the American Bar and New York State Bar Associations, Melissa is a respected colleague to have on any legal team.  A former consultant for the Hague Conference on Private International Law, member of the Uniform Law Commission’s Joint Editorial Board on Uniform Family Laws, and member of the U.S. Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law, Melissa maintains a robust network to help her clients in international disputes.

https://mkfamily.law/
Previous
Previous

Case Update (29 Dec 2022): Gyger v. Clement; 2nd appeal on Mother's attempt to register and enforce Swiss child support order in NC

Next
Next

Case Update (31 Oct 2022): Jindrich v. Weihele; German treatment of U.S. military retirement benefits in German divorce