Case Update (22 June 2026): Boa-Bonsu v. Owusu; 8-year-old objects to return to Finland; reviewed for clear-error

This is an appeal of a district court order denying the return of a child to Finland under the Hague Abduction Convention. The appeal focuses on the Mother’s argument that the child was mature and objected to return. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the salient details of what happened at trial.

The child, age 8 at the time of the trial, was deposed pre-trial, and then interviewed by the court in-camera. During the deposition, the child admitted to a normal childhood with activities and dozens of friends in Finland. He did not remember the Finnish language and didn’t want to return as he would have to restart kindergarten. “[H]e denied there being any other reason he did not want to return.” His half-brother, who was in Finland, was liked and missed by the child. The child had antipathy towards Finland due to an incident when he was age 6 where the Father broke the Mother’s car window and he, the 6-year-old, had to call the police. He reflected his journey to the USA, through Mexico, and having to leave his phone (which his Father gave him) behind because it was a tracking device and “strangers or robbers could” find him. He reflected, among other things, that his Father was “kind of a bully to his mom.” He took a break during his deposition, and when he was re-examined, he admitted that he and his Mother, during the break, “‘talked about his father and some other stuff,’ including reasons he was ‘scared of’ his father.” He said he was scared to share those concerns earlier in the deposition, and his Mother had told him to explain the concerns. He also admitted, during the deposition, to giving a thumbs-up to his Mother, saying “she looked pretty mad” and he wanted her approval for his answers.

During his in-camera interview, the child stated, “I do not want to go back. I don’t even know how to speak Finnish anymore.” He told the court his reasons for not wanting to return were two-fold: (1) not wanting to restart his education at the kindergarten level, and (2) not wanting his future sibling (who would be in the USA) to be lonely without him. He later added that he “felt… pretty bad things” about going back to Finland because he did not think his Father would care for him if “he’s been alcoholic.”

When the district court denied the 8-year-old child’s return it noted that the child was “attentive”, “well-behaved”, “observant”, and “articulate.” The child apparently meaningfully engaged with the questions and confirmed the importance of the truth and that he was, indeed, telling the truth. It found the child to be mature and to have expressed a clear objection to returning to Finland on three separate particularized grounds: (1) he no longer speaks the language and was embarrassed to restart kindergarten, (2) his Mother is pregnant with his sibling, and (3) he has concerns of not being taken care of by his Father, based upon his belief that his Father was an “alcoholic.” The court then found that the evidence of the Mother’s coaching “was weak and that inconsistencies between [the child’s] deposition and in-camera interview were ‘not as stark or dispositive as [Father] asserted.’”

Applying a clear-error standard of review, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected the Father’s arguments, including that the child’s objection was a natural consequence of his abduction, which would reduce this exception to a “nullity.”

These cases are extremely complicated. The way a child communicates is impacted by so many things, including trauma, health, education, influence of others (not just parents, and not just negative influences), among other things. The U.S. Uniform Law Commission adopted a new uniform act in July 2025 that will help state court judges assess whether an in-camera interview should be done, and if so, how to protect all those involved. Oklahoma is the first U.S. state to enact this important legislation.

One judge did dissent, arguing that the child stated a preference for the USA, and not an objection to returning to Finland.