Case Update (26 March 2026): Stanley v. Stanley; divorce negotiations did not prove consent to an international relocation of their child

Petitioner Father, an Australian citizen, and Respondent Mother, a UK and US citizen are the parents of one child, PS, born in 2020 in Australia. The parties met in 2015, at which time the Respondent moved to Australia. She brought her child from a prior relationship to Australia with her, and relinquished this child, AS, to Petitioner’s care. That child is now age 15, and has lived with Petitioner for the past ten years. The parties married in 2019 in Australia. The younger child, PS, lived his entire life in Australia, but for a visit to the USA when he was 18 months old. The child is involved in activities, and has family in Australia. Both parties testified to past drug use, but both persuaded the court they were sober. In May 2025, “in large part due to work stress”, the Petitioner made some statements reflecting suicidal ideation. When the Petitioner did not go to a checkup that the Respondent scheduled for him, she called the police, resulting in his being placed in psychiatric observation for a weekend, and having his firearms confiscated. He didn’t renew his gun license, and his firearms were taken away. Respondent further reported to the psychiatrist that there had been no domestic violence, and his suicidal thoughts were only recent. This was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, and on September 15, 2025, after an argument, the parties began discussing their dissolution of marriage, and the possibility that Respondent and PS would relocate to the USA. Respondent retained an Australian family lawyer. On September 18, 2025, the parties and their mothers met to discuss certain immediate issues related to their separation. During that meeting, Respondent raised the issue of moving PS to the USA. The following day, she assured Petitioner, via text message, that she would never move to the USA without his consent or a court order. A few days later, she proposed that she and the youngest child move to the USA. During negotiations, there were discussions about PS and Respondent relocating to the USA, but no agreement was finalized. On September 29, 2025, Respondent and PS flew to the USA.

Upon learning of their departure, Petitioner contacted the police, and pursued custody in the Australian court, which has not reached a decision, with the Australian court determining it lacks jurisdiction over PS because he is no longer in Australia. The Petitioner then pursued the child’s return to Australia using the Hague Abduction Convention. The parties stipulated to Petitioner’s case-in-chief. Based on the prior negotiations that may have resulted in an agreement that PS could relocate to the USA, the Respondent argued that Petitioner consented to the relocation. However, Respondent’s surreptitious conduct in removing the child belies this argument. Respondent also argued that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of harm, however, the court found that Petitioner’s behavior was not abuse and was not directed at or impacted the child. Further, the Petitioner has no diagnosed personality disorder, never acted on his suicidal ideation, he relinquished his firearms, and the evidence established he is an engaged and devoted father to PS.

The court therefore orders the return of the minor child to Australia.