Case Update (7 Aug 2026): Armand v. Armand; remand to interview children results in no return
The parties are parents of two children who were removed from France, and taken to Missouri, by their Mother. The children’s Father sought their return using the Hague Abduction Convention, and on April 30, 2025, the District Court ordered them returned. The Mother appealed, and the Sixth Circuit, on March 9, 2026, vacated and remanded the return order, finding that the District Court erred when it failed to address the Mother’s request to hear from the children as part of her argument that they were mature and objected to their return. The children had returned to France with their Mother in or around June 2025, and have been living there ever since. Since the Sixth Circuit remand, the District Court, on May 26, 2026, interviewed the children on Zoom while they were in France. The court made note that their Mother was not in the same room as them.
“Whether a child has reached a sufficient degree of maturity is a ‘fact-intensive determination’ that should be based, at least in part, on the Court’s personal observations of the child.” “Further, ‘[i]f a child is found to be mature, the reasons the child objects to being returned are immaterial.’” The court further noted that if returning a child is the sole reason for a non-return order, then “[a] stricter standard [] applies…”.
After the children’s interview, where the oldest is age 15, turning age 16 on August 9, 2026, and the youngest is age 13, turning 14 on October 23, 2026, the court noted that it was impressed “by their poise and composure.” They were “intelligent, well-spoken, and appear to be very self-aware. Each of them spoke English fluently and present as native speakers.” The court assessed their demeanor, and considered their performance in school, outside activities, and their parents’ depictions of them. After all considerations, the court found them “mature for their respective ages.”
The daughter objected to being in France due to the French education system, having had to give up a scholarship to an elite private school in Missouri, having the perception that she will have more difficulty matriculating at a U.S. university while being in France, not being comfortable to be around her father, not wanting to know that he can “just take a car ride and reach her”, and her inability to see her extended family and support system in St. Louis. The son likewise did not like the school system in France, misses his friends in Missouri, and wanted to play soccer, which he was able to do in Missouri, but cannot do in France because his only transportation option was having his father drive him, which he is not comfortable with. The court concluded both children had objections - not mere preferences - to being in France. The Father argued they were unduly influenced, but the court refused to find any undue influence. “There is no evidence that Respondent has expressed her unfavorable opinions of Petitioner in [either child’s] presence, or that she has spoken ill of Petitioner to the children.” “During their interviews, neither teenager gave any indication that Respondent had spoken negatively about Petitioner to him or her.”
The Petitioner Father’s request to return the children is denied.
