Case Update (27 Oct 2026): Speedie v. Speedie; W.D. Washington denies return to Canada, finding grave risk from abuse within the family and declining extensive undertakings
The parties married in British Columbia in 2017 and have two children, L.S. (born 2018) and I.S. (born 2024). Both children were born in Washington and are dual Canadian and US citizens. The family lived in Canada, most recently on an off-grid property in Ta Ta Creek, British Columbia, although the Mother and children spent several winters with her parents in Washington. In June 2025, after what the court found to be years of violent and abusive conduct by the Father, the Mother fled to Washington with the children. She later obtained a domestic violence protection order there. On August 6, 2025, she emailed the Father that the children would not be returned. The Father filed his Hague Abduction Convention petition in January 2026, and the court held a three-day evidentiary hearing in June 2026. The court found that Canada was the children’s habitual residence and that the Father had rights of custody under British Columbia law. It also found that the five months of “space” he gave the Mother after she left did not amount to abandonment. The Father therefore established his prima facie case.
The Mother raised only one defense, grave risk of harm under Article 13(b), which she had to prove by clear and convincing evidence. The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s statement in Colchester v. Lazaro that a grave risk can be shown where the petitioning parent has abused, threatened to abuse, or inspired fear in the children. Spousal violence can also establish grave risk, particularly when it happens in front of the child. The court also applied the Simcox v. Simcox spectrum, which places credible evidence of sexual abuse, death threats, or similarly serious abuse at the clearly grave end. The court found the Mother and her teenage daughter credible and the Father not credible. It found various abusive acts towards the children, both the children at issue, and the parties’ children from before their marriage. The court distinguished the Father’s reliance on Whallon v. Lynn because the respondent in that case did not allege abuse of the child at issue. The court held that abuse within the family can contribute to a grave risk finding, even though abuse confined to private interactions between the parents may not be enough on its own. The Father’s drinking, suicidal ideation, and threats to the Mother added to the court’s conclusion.
The Father proposed that the Mother and children return to Canada and live in a cottage on his mother’s property while he started custody proceedings in British Columbia. He supported this with a detailed five-part set of undertakings. Citing Golan v. Saada, the court noted that it was not required to consider ameliorative measures once it found a grave risk, and it could decline measures that are unworkable or that draw it into custody questions. It found the paternal grandmother lacked insight into her son’s behavior and doubted she could keep the children safe. The court also adopted the First Circuit’s reasoning in Danaipour v. McLarey. Undertakings work best to preserve the status quo before the removal, which is not the goal when that status quo was abusive. Extensive undertakings also pull the court into the merits of custody and dilute the force of the Article 13(b) exception. Undertakings are meant to be a modest bridge that lets a child go home safely. When a court must build an elaborate structure of conditions just to make a return safe, with no assurance the foreign court will enforce them, the Hague court is effectively deciding custody. If enough undertakings can always overcome a grave risk finding, the treaty’s narrow exceptions lose their meaning, and the treaty itself is diluted. The court declined to impose ameliorative measures and denied the petition.
