Case Update (26 June 2025): Reid v. Remekie; respondent did not meet the threshold of a grave risk of harm; children ordered returned to Jamaica

The parties are parents to two children, both born in New York. Their father is a Jamaican citizen. Their mother is a dual U.S.-Jamaican citizen, having secured her Jamaican citizenship during their relationship.

The first issue was whether Jamaica was the children’s habitual residence. The mother was accused of abducting the two children from Jamaica on or about January 24, 2025. The court concluded that the children were habitually resident in New York as of December 2023, despite the mother and children having resided in Jamaica in summer 2023. Up until December 2023, however, the Respondent mother and children had always returned to New York after being in Jamaica. There were email exchanges between the parties in December 2023 discussing the possibility of the mother and children moving “permanently” to Jamaica in January 2024. It was then that the Respondent mother argued she never intended to change the children’s habitual residence when they moved to Jamaica in early 2024. She claimed that, despite ongoing discussions, they never had an agreement that Jamaica would become the children’s habitual residence. Further, there were alternative plans, and her plan to move to Jamaica was, in her mind, contingent on her getting a job in Jamaica or a remote job by early 2024. If she got no job, there was a lack of clarity and certainly no agreement as to where the mother and children would reside. She also argued that she took a leave of absence from her New York school, where she was a social worker, instead of resigning. She went back to that very position in January/February 2025 when she returned to New York. Further, she said she was coerced into letting the children remain in Jamaica for January through June 2024, in part because the petitioner father had hidden the children’s passports, so she could not leave. She produced an email she sent to the U.S. Embassy and Department of State on April 24, 2024 asking for help recovering the passports, and characterizing her relationship with the father as abusive. The father countered with arguments that the mother always wanted to relocate to Jamaica, dreamed of starting a business there, developed business proposals, and applied for a taxpayer registration number. She assisted in a house purchase for the family, and contributed to its decor. She participated in shipping several barrels of the children’s belongings to Jamaica, and hiring two nannies to assist with childcare. The father argued he did not hide the children’s passports - but kept them in a safe for safekeeping, and that the mother never asked him for the passports until May 2024. Coupled with the the fact that when the father moved the passports back to the house in or around June 2024, and the mother and children remained in Jamaica through January 2025, the court concluded Jamaica was the children’s habitual residence. During the latter half of 2024, the mother and children traveled to the USA, but returned to Jamaica. The children also had indicia of acclimitization in Jamaica.

As to the mother’s argument that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm, the court was not persuaded. Mother described certain disputes the parties had, including three physical altercations. She further had an expert testify about the expert’s self-designed Danger Assessment to predict whether there was danger of being killed if the respondent Mother returned to the situation. The court concluded that the expert’s assessment was incorrectly and subjectively scored. The court weighed the respondent’s testimony, and found that her testimony about any violence was conclusory. While the court credited her allegations of emotional and physical abuse, they were insufficient to reach the standard of clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk of harm. She gave no testimony that would indicate the children were fearful of their father. The father’s expert observed the children with both parents and found the children to be comfortable with both and not in danger. The mother further repeatedly referred to the petitioner as a “great father.”