Case Update (7 Aug 2026): Pletkus v. Saletis; unproven allegations of sexual abuse did not demonstrate child would be exposed to harm upon return
The parties are the divorced parents of one 5-year-old daughter, who has been the subject of ongoing proceedings in her habitual residence of Lithuania for years. By court order, the minor child had access to her Father on a few weekdays and alternating weekends. The Mother testified that, a few months after the order, she observed a change in the child’s emotional and behavioral functioning. The Mother also testified that she observed certain physical changes to the child, all leading her to believe the Father was sexually abusing the child. The did not immediately report any of the alleged conduct to law enforcement. She did not remove the child from contact with the Father. She, instead, spoke directly to the Father, who denied abuse.
The Mother sought assistance from various entities, including interviews of the child, and an evaluation. In the evaluation, a psychologist could not confirm, nor exclude, that the child had been sexually abused. The parents met with specialist at a Mediation Center to implement communication procedures between them. The specialists concluded that the Mother’s emotional state affected the child’s emotions and behaviors. These specialists also observed a relaxed, social child when with her Father. The Mother then filed complaints against the Father with the regional prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor terminated the pretrial investigation, finding that no objective data of any criminal acts. In June 2025, the Mother and child traveled to the USA for a family visit, to last no more than two weeks by court order, but she stayed. In April 2026, the Father filed his request to seek the child’s return to Lithuania pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. After various stipulations, the only issue before the court was the Mother’s argument that returning the child would expose her to a grave risk of harm.
The Mother presented a forensic expert, who had a partial interview with the child, and also could not reach a conclusion as to whether the child had been sexually abused. The expert concluded that the child would be exposed to a grave risk based on “the foreseeable psychological consequences of compelling her return to the environment associated with those trauma responses” that the forensic had observed (anxiety when discussing the Father). The court reviewed all the records from the Lithuanian proceedings. The Lithuanian social worker involved with the family also testified.
The court concluded the Mother did not meet her clear and convincing burden to demonstrate the child would be exposed to a grave risk of harm if returned to Lithuania. The court noted that “if proven”, sexual abuse is an intolerable situation. But, the court here noted that a large part of its conclusion is that there is an absence of evidence that the Petitioner Father ever sexually abused the child. The most reliable evidence came from Lithuania, and no one in Lithuania concluded that sexual abuse happened. The forensic expert in the U.S. didn’t conclude sexual abuse happened. The court gave “only slight to some weight” to the Respondent’s testimony, finding her testimony was undermined by the fact that when she first discovered the child’s symptoms, she never took the child to a doctor for an exam, and did not remove the child from contact with the Petitioner or report the alleged conduct to law enforcement. Overall, the court believed that the child is a five year old who is subject to suggestibility, memory limitations, dependence on caregivers, loyalty conflicts, and exposure to adult conflicts. The child was highly vulnerable to manipulation with tendencies to repeat expressions and mirror emotional stress.
Finally, the court concluded that the extensive proceedings and support in Lithuania indicate a system capable of protecting the child if she was, in fact, subject to serious threats of harm.
