Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
Armand v. Armand No. 4:24-CV-974 HEA
INCADAT reference
HC/E/US 1622
Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division
First Instance
Henry Edward Autrey, United States District Judge
States involved
FRANCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Decision
30 April 2025
Final
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Return ordered
-
Cohen v. Cohen, 858 F.3d 1150, 1154 (8th Cir. 2017); Guzzo v. Hansen, No. 4:22-CV-15 PLC, 2022 WL 3081159; Acosta v. Acosta, 725 F.3d 868, 875 (8th Cir. 2013); Rodriguez v. Molina, 96 F.4th 1079, 183 (8th Cir. 2024); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204, 218 (1st Cir. 2000); Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 509 (9th Cir. 2010); Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000)
-
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
Facts
The parties are both US citizens. They married in 2009 in Florida and had two children born in 2010 and 2012.
The family lived in France from 2016-2019. The children were enrolled in local school and are proficient in French. During this time the mother traveled to the UK and the Netherlands for studies and to the USA for work, while the children remained with the father in France who described himself as a ‘stay-at-home dad’.
Between August 2019 and October 2020, the family returned to the United States. The family returned to France in October 2020. The children had friends and took part in extra-curricular activities.
In April 2024 the mother took the children to the US without informing the father.
The father filed an application under the 1980 Convention for the return of the children to France.
The mother argued the returning the children to France would expose them to a grave risk of harm due to the father’s psychological abuse, unstable living conditions and treatment of the mother.
Ruling
Return ordered.
Grounds
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
In order for the Article 13(1)(b) exception to be made out, the Respondent must show that the grave risk is highly probable and the harm must be more than minimal.
The Court found that the corporal punishment described in this case was relatively minor and there was no evidence of abuse or neglect. Similarly, the abuse towards the mother did not rise to a level of severity such as is requited to invoke the Article 13(1)(b) exception.
The mother also provided no evidence that the children were scared of the father.
Finally, the Court held that the fact that Petitioner has less income and currently lives with his neighbor was not relevant to the grave risk defense.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
The mother indicated that the children objected to returning to France however the children were not present at the hearing and offered no other testimony. No expert witnesses certified the children’s maturity. Therefore the mother presented insufficient evidence from which the Court could conclude that the children were sufficiently mature and that they objected to returning.