Case Update (23 Jan 2025): Hale v. Hale; Trial Court made no findings of risk of abduction and therefore travel restrictions are reversed

The parties are a recently divorced couple living in Texas. The Mother was born in Russia, and emigrated with a son from a prior relationship to the USA where she married the Father. They bought a house, and soon thereafter, they had a child together. After ten years of marriage, they both counter-petitioned for divorce in Texas. In Father’s petition, Father alleged a fear of parental child abduction, and asked the court to put in place abduction prevention measures. The trial court never ultimately made any findings as to whether the Mother (or, for that matter, the Father) presented a risk of abduction, and therefore, the measures it put in place (limiting travel to only non-Hague countries, and requiring a bond for any travel to Russia) must be reversed.

The Court of Appeals of Texas, referring to the Texas statute that addresses concerns of parental child abduction, outlined the 2-step process that must happen to mitigate a potential child abduction. The first step requires affirmative findings of any risk after weighing the factors in the statute. The second step requires the court to evaluate the risk it found, and determine whether to take any preventive measures, described in the Texas statute, to mitigate that risk. The court failed to take step one. Further, on appeal, the Court of Appeals, in weighing the factors in the statute, concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that the Mother was a risk of abducting the child.

The Texas child abduction prevention statute was actually in place prior to the Uniform Law Commission adopting the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act, and the drafting committee for UCAPA reviewed the Texas statute in its drafting process. The Texas statute is similar to UCAPA, and provides a list of factors that a court must consider before finding a risk of abduction. Those factors range from behavior akin to a prior abduction, threats of abduction, financial connections in the USA, planning activities (like quitting a job), a history of domestic violence, and a history of violating orders, among other things. When reviewing these various factors on appeal, the Court of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence at trial that the Mother presented such a risk. At most, there was a period of time when the Father kept the child longer than verbally agreed, and then the Mother kept the child longer than verbally agreed, but the Court of Appeals noted that there were only “informal agreements” that were defining their respective parental rights at that time, and therefore no one was violating any agreement or court order.

Therefore, the abduction prevention measures are reversed.