Case Update (30 April 2025): Armand v. Armand; parent’s corporal punishment and domineering parent was not a grave risk of harm
The parties are U.S. citizen parents of two children who have lived much of the past 8 years in France. On or around April 4, 2024, the Respondent Mother removed the children from France without the Petitioner Father’s consent. He filed a petition for their return under the Abduction Convention just over 3 months later in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri. The three key issues at trial, where only both parties, each self-represented, testified, were: habitual residence, grave risk of harm, and mature child’s objection. The court quickly dispensed with the final issue, concluding that the Mother did not present any evidence as to the children’s objections - they were not in court, and there was no expert witness or other who could have provided evidence to the court as to whether they objected or whether they were mature.
The Mother separately argued that the children were habitually resident in the United States, but the court also quickly dispensed with this argument, citing that the point in time when the court must determine where a child is habitually resident is the date immediately before any removal or retention became wrongful. Therefore, on April 4, 2024, the children had been in France continuously for more than three years, and had lived there 7 out of the last 8 years. They were living legally in France on long-term visas, spoke French and English, attended school in France, had friends, played sports, and participated in extracurricular activities. Based on the Monasky v. Taglieri totality-of-the-circumstances, the children were habitually resident in France.
The Mother finally argued that returning the children to France would expose them to a grave risk of harm. She based this argument on the Father’s past discipline of the children, his unstable living situation, his past abuse of her in front of the children, and his anger management issues. The court noted that any potential harm must be severe and there must be a probability that harm will materialize upon the children’s return. The Respondent testified that, on one occasion, the Petitioner shoved a melon into one child’s mouth and had hit the children on their heads with a wooden spoon as discipline for eating with their mouths open. The court found that this “relatively minor” corporal punishment did not “rise to a level of severity such that it presents a grave risk of harm.” The Responsent also testified as to the Petitioner Father’s domineering parenting style, yelling at the children and insulting them based on their appearance. She testified that the children are scared of him, but it was uncorroborated testimony, and the children did not testify and there was no expert witness regarding the effect of the Father’s actions on the children. The court concluded this was not sufficiently severe. The Respondent also described one occasion when the Petitioner was angry and aggressive and slapped a phone out of her hand, resulting in her being struck across the face, which did not leave a mark and did not require medical attention. But, the court concluded that a grave risk is made out by “either physical abuse that occurred over a long period of time or that involved more serious injuries”. Finally, a few complaints made against the Petitioner in Florida about 10 years ago, while demonstrating that the Petitioner may have a threatening and aggressive behavior, is “not of such a serious nature” that they establish a grave risk.
The children are ordered returned to France.
