Download full text
EN
Case Law Search
New searchCASE
Case Name
Deravil v. Jean, No. 25-3636 (6th Cir. May 8, 2026)
INCADAT reference
HC/E/US 1761
Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appellate Court
McKeague, Griffin and Thapar, Circuit Judges
States involved
FRANCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Decision
21 April 2026
Final
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
Appeal dismissed, return refused
International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA)
Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996); Selame v. Tescari, 29 F.4th 763 (6th Cir. 2022); Moreno v. Zank, 895 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2018); Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020); Custodio v. Samillan, 842 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2016); Tsai-Yi Yang v. Fu-Chiang Tsui, 499 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2007); de Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2007); Neumann v. Neumann, 310 F. Supp. 3d 823 (E.D. Mich. 2018); Olson v. Olson, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (M.D. Tenn. 2013); Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2016)
-
SYNOPSIS
Synopsis available in
EN
1 child wrongfully retained at age 13 – Child lived in Haiti until 2015 and then in Martinique until 2023 – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main issue: Article 13(2) the child objected to returning to Martinique and was of an age and degree of maturity that her views should be taken into account.
SUMMARY
Summary available in
EN
Facts
The child was born in Haiti in 2012 and lived there until 2015. In 2015 the child moved to Martinique with her great-aunt and great-uncle and lived there for eight years. In that time she did not see her biological parents but had monthly phone calls with them.
The parents moved to different countries before settling in the USA in 2021. In 2023 the child went to spend the summer with the parents but did not return to Martinique as planned.
The great-aunt and great-uncle filed an application under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for the return of the child to Martinique.
The parents argued that the great-aunt and great-uncle had originally wrongfully removed the child in 2015 and that the child objected to returning.
The District Court refused to order the return of the child. She was of an age and degree of maturity for her views to be taken into account and opposed returning to Martinique.
The great-aunt and great-uncle appealed the decision.
Ruling
Appeal dismissed, return refused.
Grounds
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)
At 13 the child was of an age and degree of maturity for her views to be taken into account. The exception requites maturity, not fully developed adult-like behaviour and the grandaunt and granduncle were not able to point to any evidence, beyond the court transcript, showing that the child lacked the proper degree of maturity.
The child did not want to return to Martinique as she did not feel safe there and claimed she had been physically punished and threatened by her greataunt and greatuncle.
In the assessment of a child's maturity and the nature of the child's objection, an appellate court reviewing a transcript is not in the same position as the trial judge who observed the child directly.