Case Update (5 March 2025): In re Marriage of Wang; Court of Appeals affirms restricting visitation to USA for parent in China
Both parents were born, raised, and educated in China, but attended graduate school in the USA. They married in 2008 in Iowa, and have two children. In early 2019, the Husband was approached about teaching at a university in China. The Husband relocated to China in summer 2019, and the Mother stayed in Iowa with the children. Their relationship began to deteriorate. In May 2021, Wife took the children to visit her parents and Husband in China, and extended her summer trip through the end of the year. In early 2022, she intended to return to Iowa, but, during an argument between the parties, the Husband took the children’s passports, travel documents, and birth certificates from Wife. He later refused to return them, preventing the Wife and children from leaving China at that time. It took the Wife “six or seven months” to reorder all the documents and return to Iowa with the children. During this interim period, she lived with her parents, and the Husband never visited, although he spoke with the children by phone. Shortly after the travel documents were taken by the Husband, the Wife petitioned an Iowa court to dissolve their marriage, and the Husband filed a competing lawsuit in China, which was ultimately dismissed. At a final hearing in December 2023, the Iowa court gave the Wife sole legal and physical custody and limited the Husband’s visitation with the children to the United States only. Husband appealed, wanting the children to spend summer vacations in China to see him and his extended family.
The Iowa Court of Appeals specifically stated that it is important for a child to experience their dual heritage and build meaningful relationships with a parent who resides outside of the USA. But, the competing interest is that “there may be ‘problems securing the return [of a child] from a foreign country …’.” The Court noted the virtues of the Hague Abduction Convention, but also noted that China is not a party. The Court looked at other states’ approaches in restricting a child’s travel outside of the USA. Michigan, for example, prohibits a court from authorizing parenting time in nonsignatory countries unless both parents give written consent. (Mich. Comp. Law 722.27a(10)(2024)). Other states have a more holistic approach (citing cases in NJ, AK, NH, WI, and WA). In Iowa, caselaw has elaborated on factors for the court to consider when permitting international travel - the other country’s signatory status under the Abduction Convention, the parent’s domicile, reasons for visiting, the child’s safety, the age of the child, the parents’ relationship, the viability of monetary bonds or other return measures, and the “character and integrity of the parent seeking out-of-country visitation as gleaned from past comments and conduct.”
In this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the travel restrictions - only U.S. located visitation - was supported by the record and the children’s best interests. The trial court is affirmed.
