The Hague Domestic Violence Project—In re Walsh, 31 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D. Mass. 1998)

In re Walsh, 31 F. Supp. 2d 200 (D. Mass. 1998)

Docket Number: 98-11638-WGY
Published: Yes
Decision Date: 1998-12-18
Name of Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Opinion by: Young, William G
Counsel for Petitioner: Merrill, E C
Counsel for Respondent: Barbar, Thomas J; Corraro, Anne M
Counsel for Court
Requesting State: Ireland
Requested State: United States of America
Procedural History: The Petitioner/father filed a Hague petition for the return of his children to Ireland. The District Court held that the evidence did not establish that the return of the children would expose them to grave threat of physical or psychological harm, and the father was entitled to return of the children that the mother abducted.
Summary of Facts: In 1988, the Petitioner/father met the Respondent/mother in Ireland. At that time the Respondent/mother lived in Massachusetts and the Petitioner/father spent most of his time in Ireland and England. The couple first child, a daughter, was in Boston in 1989. They later married in 1992. There were numerous incidents of domestic violence against the Respondent/mother. In addition, the Petitioner/father was charged with assault with the intent to murder a next door neighbor in Massachusetts, so in 1994 he fled to Ireland. The Respondent/mother pregnant with their second child followed. There were facts that the Petitioner/father was strict with the children, had once spanked their son, who had been born in 1994. The Respondent/mother cited numerous examples of violent behavior by the Petitioner/father toward the Respondent/mother and their children. Namely, he would punish their daughter with a smack on the back, he went on a violent rage, and pushed the Respondent/mother and their daughter on the floor, he pulled the Respondent/mothers hair so violently that she was hospitalized with severe neck injuries, and he tore up the daughters passport. In May of 1997, after a violent incident with the Petitioner/father and his eldest son from a previous marriage, in which the Petitioner/father involved their daughter, the Respondent/mother interposed herself into altercation pleading for the Petitioner/father to leave their daughter out of it. The Petitioner/father then took the Respondent/mother upstairs and beginning shouting, when the Respondent/mothers sister came to intervene, the Petitioner/father assaulted her. Subsequently, the Respondent/mother fled to the Petitioner/fathers brothers home for protection. She declined to press charges, but sought an attorney and obtained a protective order and the Petitioner/father was force agreed to leave the marital home, allowing the Respondent/mother to rejoin their children. However, the protective order was inadequate to keep the Petitioner/father away from the Respondent/mother. The Petitioner/father would break into the Respondent/mothers new residence. In November 1997, the Respondent/mother left Ireland, with the children, for Massachusetts. A child psychologist testified that the daughter was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, probable sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and probable child neglect. Their daughter stated that she did wish to return to Ireland or to have anything to do with her father.
Defenses Raised: Hague Article 13(b): Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country
Statutes Considered (ICARA): 11601(b)(4), 11603(e)(1)(A), 11603(e)(2)(A), 11605
Articles Considered (Hague Convention): 3, 13(b), 20
Cases Considered: Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985); Blondin v. DuBois, 19 F.Supp.2d 123 (S.D.N.Y.1998); C v. C, 1 F.L.R. 403 (Eng.C.A.1989); Cf. Re HB, 1 F.L.R. 392 (Eng.Fam.1996); Custody of Vaughn, 664 N.E.2d 434 (1996); In re A, 1 F.L.R. 365 (Eng.C.A.1998); In re BAD, 113 M (Ir. H.Ct.1997); In re Ves, 559 SP (Ir. H.Ct.1996); Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir.1995); Frederich v. Frederich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir.1996); K v. K, 3 F.C.R. 207 (Eng.Fam.1997); LAING and the Central Authority, 21 Fam.L.R. (Austl.1996); MacMillan v. MacMillan, S.L.T. 350 (Scot Ex.Div.1998); Murray v. A.C.T., Appeal No.EA 51 (Austl. October 6,1993); N. v. N., 1 F.L.R. 107 (Eng.Fam.1994); Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374 (8th Cir.1995); O'Leary v. Attorney Gen, I.R.102 (Ir.H.Ct.1990); Panazatou v. Pantzatos, Conn.Super Ct.Apr. 29, 1997 (Interim Memorandum of Decision); Panazatou v. Pantzatos, 1997 WL 614519 (Conn.Super.Sept.24, 1997); PF v. MF, 1992 Ir.S.C. 390 (Ir.1992); Re:K, 2 F.L.R. 550 (Eng.C.A.1995); Re: O, 2 F.L.R. 349 (Eng.Fam.1994); Rechsteiner v. Kendell, 80 A.C.W.S. 3d 1195 (Ont.Fam.1998); Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8th Cir.1995); Steffen F. v. Severina P., 966 F.Supp. 922 (D.Ariz.1997); Thompson v. Thompson, 119 D.L.R. 4th 253 (Can.Sup.1994); Turner v. Frowein, 1998 Conn.Super Ct. June 25, 1998
Judicial Outcome or Order: Return Ordered
Posted: 2005-08-11

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.