Case Update (31 Oct 2025): Abouelmagd v. Semeniuk; children returned to Canada from New York

The parties are parents to 3 children, and were residing in Canada since 2022 on a temporary immigration status. During their time in Canada, the family had ongoing issues, resulting in the parties calling the police for various issues, including the Petitioner allegedly hitting the Respondent and the Respondent “hog-tying” the parties’ son. The Respondent had been told to leave the residence for a few days. When she returned on July 25, 2024, she insisted the family leave Canada for the USA to renew the children’s Ukrainian passports. She said she received a letter from Canadian immigration that their temporary status was concluding and they were expected to leave the country. She said that there was a two -year wait at the Ukrainian consulate in Canada. The Petitioner, who felt he had no viable alternative, agreed, and the family left Canada on July 28, 2024 on one-way tickets. Upon arriving in Seattle, they found that the wait time at the consulate was too long there, as well. The family then traveled to New York on August 3, 2024. The family stayed in temporary housing, and the Petitioner stated that he believed the family’s trip was intended to last 2 to 3 months, depending on the wait time for an appointment. Only upon arriving in New York, the Respondent Mother insisted the family apply for refugee status. Petitioner disagreed, and, on August 4, 2024, he called the NYPD due to the Respondent’s past threats to take the children and not return them. Two days later, he then called CPS and alleged Respondent was abusing the children. Three more days later, he contacted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and advised them that the Respondent had sent false information from his phone to the social worker in Canada about the family’s whereabouts. On August 11, 2024, he again called CPS alleging the Respondent was abusing the children. On August 12, 2024, the Petitioner returned to Canada, concerned his visa would expire. He did not bring the children, upon the belief that he could not because the Respondent had the children’s passports and refused to turn them over. On August 21, 2024, the Respondent obtained a temporary order of protection from the New York State Family Court in Queens County. On September 3, 2024, the Respondent filed for divorce from Petitioner in a Ukrainian court. The divorce was granted on November 12, 2024, but made no determination as to the custody despite the Respondent’s request that she be granted custody. On November 4, 2024, the Father filed an application for return of the parties’ three children to Canada with the British Columbia Central Authority. The Petitioner has filed for permanent residency in Canada. The Respondent has sought asylum for her and the three children in the USA.

Upon concluding that the Petitioner had established a prima facie case, the district court looked at the Respondent’s argued exceptions. The court found no grave risk of harm. It further concluded that Canada was equipped to properly address the purported findings from a social worker, and that the Canadian authorities had indicated awareness and sensitivity to the parties’ case. Further, the Respondent’s argument that separating her and the children was a grave risk was a non-stater because “the possible loss of access by a parent to the child does not constitute a grave risk of harm per se for Article 13(b) purposes.” The children’s “lack of legal status” and “no access to healthcare in Canada” were also non-starters, as the Petitioner has health insurance and applied for permanent residency as a pathway to citizenship for the entire family in Canada. As to the Respondent’s argument that the children were settled in New York, the court concluded that the wrongful retention began on August 9, 2024, the date that the Petitioner texted the RCMP that Respondent was threatening to take the children and not return them. He ultimately filed the lawsuit to seek the children’s return on August 7, 2025, so he was within the one year, and this argument was unavailable. The Respondent also argued Article 20 - that returning the children would deny them access to education in their religious training, a lack of healthcare, and exposure to danger. But, the court concluded this was not proven, particularly given the children’s education and situation before their time in New York. The court found that Petitioner never acquiesced or consented to the children’s permanent relocation to the USA. While the Respondent argued the age and maturity exception, she presented no evidence to support that the children were mature enough to object outside of her influence.

Finally, the Respondent argued that the court was divested of jurisdiction under the Abduction Convention because of a prior issued order from the NY Family Court. The court rejected this argument outright.