United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1997).
- Docket Number
- 298, Docket 96-1181
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 1997-03-26
- Name of Court
- United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
- Opinion by
- Newman, Jon O
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Macht, Timothy
- Counsel for Respondent
- Counsel for Court
- Rossbacher, Henry H
- Requesting State
- United States of America
- Requested State
- Egypt
- Procedural History
-
Procedural History: Respondent/Father was convicted in the United States District Court of international parental kidnapping in violation of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA). Respondent/Father appealed and attempted to assert Hague Convention defenses.
- Summary of Facts
-
Petitioner/Mother and Respondent/Father married in Egypt where they had a child. Respondent/Father moved to the United States to seek employment, while Petitioner/Mother and Child followed 2 years later. They had two more children while in the United States. Petitioner/Mother and Respondent/Father argued frequently over his bigamous marriage to another woman, Petitioner/Mothers decision to work outside the home, and her decision to apply for welfare. Respondent/Father regularly abused Petitioner/Mother both verbally and physically. Respondent/Father later moved into a friends apartment but the couple remained married. Respondent/Father visited the children about once a week. Although the couple no longer lived together, Respondent/Father continued to abuse Petitioner/Mother when he saw her. He began to try to persuade her to move back to Egypt with him. Petitioner/Mother eventually told Respondent/Father that neither she nor the children would return to Egypt. Respondent/Father threatened to kill Petitioner/Mother for refusing but she would not change her mind. One night after eating dinner with the family, Respondent/Father took the children after Petitioner/Mother left the house to do some shopping. The next morning, Petitioner/Mother learned that Respondent/Father had taken the children to Egypt.
- Defenses Raised
-
Hague Article 13b: Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country.
Hague Article 20: Return of the child would violate principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 3(a), 6, 7, 12, 13, 13(a), 19, 20
- Cases Considered
- Brache v. County of Westchester, 654 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1981).; Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1995).; Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,, 508 U.S. 520 (1993); Plaintiff v. Defendant, 494 U.S. 872 (190); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 107 (1972); In re Michael B, 604 N.E.2d 112 (N.Y. 1992); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983); Mezo v. Elmergawi, 855 F.Supp. 59 E.D.N.Y. 1994).; Mohsen v. Mohsen, 715 F.Supp. 1063 (D.Wyo. 1989).; Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 417 (1974); Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Dir., 450 U.S. 707 (1981); United States v. Abrar, 58 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 1995).; United States v. Grisanti, 4 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1993).; United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1997).; United States v. Meeks, 25 F.3d 1117 (2d Cir. 1994).; United States v. PapadakIs, 802 F.2d 618 (2d Cir. 1986).; United States v. Paskow, 11 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993).; United States v. Soto-Olivas, 44 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 1995).; United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990).; Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Order Affirmed (for appellate cases)
- Posted
- 2006-09-08
Why this Project?
We are a team of individuals from various professional backgrounds who are dedicated to creating a comprehensive resource that will enable mothers, domestic violence advocates, attorneys and judges to better prepare themselves for Hague Convention cases in the United States' legal system.
