Case Update (4 Sept 2026): Jung Wook v. Jasmine; Younger Child Ordered Returned; Older Child Not Returned

The parties are parents to two (2) dual-citizen children, both born in South Korea (ROK), the first in 2014 and the second in 2019. The father, in ROK (and an ROK citizen) sought the return of the children from California from the Mother (an American citizen). The parties, while living in ROK, separated, with the Mother leaving the marital residence around 2020. She then moved back, alone, to the USA around May 2021. Around July 2021, both children started residing in the USA with her, with the youngest child returning to ROK in December 2021 and the older child returning in June 2022. In December 2024, both children visited the USA briefly, and Mother has, since her relocation, visited the children in ROK on multiple occasions. She also visited the children in Taiwan on multiple occasions. On or around July 18, 2025, the Mother traveled to ROK and “removed both children” while the “Father was away on a church retreat”, using a visit to Disneyland in Tokyo as a pretext. A Court ordered the younger child to ROK for 2 months in Summer 2026, after which the child returned to the USA, and has been there ever since. On October 13, 2025, the Orange County DA filed a petition under the Hague Abduction Convention in Orange County Superior Court. Respondent Mother removed the case from Superior Court to the U.S. District Court. On January 28, 2026, the children were appointed a Guardian ad Litem. An 11-day evidentiary hearing followed.

The court was persuaded that ROK was the children’s habitual residence at the time they were removed, and rejected the Mother’s contentions that the Father had retained immigration counsel to sort out his return to the USA, the parties communicated about “eventually raising the children” in the USA, and the children studied English. The court found that the parents shared joint parental responsibility under the law in ROK, and the Father was exercising his rights under the law at the time of removal.

The key issue that came to light during the 11-day evidentiary hearing, particularly through the Guardian ad Litem, was the Father’s discipline of the older child. He admitted striking the child “with a stick - resulting in bruising and marks that Father covered with bandages.” He “further kept [her] from going to school and told [her] that when she returned to school, not to tell anyone about the incident”. When the child misbehaved “she was made to kneel as punishment” and the court also found that the child was “likely hit by a coat hanger during one of the instances” when she was kneeling, and that the Father also “made contact” with her head with one of her metal leg braces. This information primarily appeared to come from the GAL. The court found this behavior “deeply alarming” alongside the “Father’s conduct concealing injury”. The child was also interviewed by the court, and said “she did not believe her Father was going to change his behavior towards her if she misbehaved in the future.” The court then found that there was no evidence of similar behavior towards the younger child, and when the younger child spent 2 months in ROK in summer 2026, there was no allegation of any type of physical abuse of that child by the Father. The court found the Father “admitted physical abuse” and “avoidance of mandated reporters” and concluded that this meant the older child would not “be able to safely live with Father without risk of grave danger.” It didn’t find the same to the younger, and ordered the younger child returned.

The Father, presenting ameliorative measures, testified that he voluntarily enrolled in a batterer intervention program in LA, completed about half of the hours as of the end of trial, has undergone parenting classes, personal therapy, and courses in parenting. He said he would submit to the appointment of a GAL in ROK, therapy for the children and a psychologist to communicate with the GAL, a separate and safe apartment for the Mother to live in ROK when visiting, holiday travel for the children to the USA, and an order that the Mother would not be arrested for removing the children. The Mother’s expert testified that the Father’s behavior would “make safeguards dependent on reporting and voluntary compliance less reliable.” The court, finding the expert’s testimony to have weight, concluded the ameliorative measures were insufficient.