Case Update (27 July 2026): Berg v. Sandoval; 11th Circuit affirms return of child to Norway
This unpublished opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit relates to a district court order from Florida requiring the return of a minor child to Norway pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. The child was the second/youngest child of the parties, who had been diagnosed with childhood autism. There were a series of court orders from the courts in Norway. Most confirmed that the parents had joint parental responsibility, short of a consent order in 2022 where the Father granted the Mother sole parental responsibility. He argued, at trial, that he did so in order to allow the Mother to secure disability benefits for the child, not to permit her to relocate with the child. The Mother and children ultimately took up residence in Florida, and there is a custody trial scheduled in Norway for August 2026 on various requests by the parents. The Mother advised the district court that she is in the process of divorcing her new spouse in Florida, and has filed a VAWA petition for adjustment of her status in the U.S. based on her current spouse’s acts of domestic violence.
The Mother appealed the district court’s order to return the youngest child to Norway, arguing: (1) the district court disregarded a clinical evaluation about the child’s vulnerability to harm from repatriation, (2) the court made a contradictory credibility finding about why the Father stopped communicating with the child via Facetime, (3) the court failed to find a grave risk of harm, (4) the court violated international comity when it disregarded the Norwegian court’s interim order (declining to force the child to relocate and giving the Father remote access until the August 2026 custody trial), and (5) the court ignored evidence that that the Father consented to the child’s removal.
The court rejected her first argument - because the author of her expert report did not testify, it was qualified as hearsay, and properly excluded. The court also rejected her second argument, saying that the district court did not clearly err in finding the Father credible when he said he ceased Facetime with the child because the child would become agitated. The CofA concluded the Mother didn’t meet her evidentiary burden to establish a grave risk. Among other arguments, she argued that the court evaluated the child under a neurotypical standard, and didn’t consider the deprivation to the child of his “legally protected therapy” in his IEP and his scholarship. The CoA stated that the Mother “presented no evidence that the district court clearly erred in its factual findings that Norway provides comprehensive support for special needs children.” The court also noted the inevitable disruption to any child being returned, but stated that “disruption should not be considered per se detrimental.” The court rejected the Mother’s fourth argument because the Norwegian custody ruling “was a custody determination” which is unequivocally not the same as a determination under the Hague Abduction Convention. As to the final argument, the court found the trial judge’s credibility determinations to not be clear error. There were some other arguments that the court found the Mother to have waived.
The district court order returning the minor child to Norway was affirmed.
