Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004)
- Docket Number
- 03-2439
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2004-10-12
- Name of Court
- United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
- Opinion by
- Lynch, Sandra L
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Cullen, Stephen J
- Counsel for Respondent
- Rutkowski, Heba
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Sweden
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
Petitioner/Father sued Respondent/Mother after she took their two daughters from Sweden to the United States, to have them returned to Sweden under the Hague Convention and ICARA. District Court ordered the childrens return to Sweden for a full investigation of Respondent/Mothers claims of sexual abuse by Petitioner/Father. Respondent/Mother appealed, and the court reversed and remanded. On remand, the District Court ruled for Respondent/Mother. Petitioner/Father appealed this decision.
- Summary of Facts
-
See Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002). The court issued a full sexual abuse evaluation and determined that, by clear and convincing evidence, the younger daughter had been sexually abused by Petitioner/Father. The court concluded that returning the children to Sweden would create a grave risk of psychological harm and an intolerable situation for them. The court denied the request for the children to be sent back to Sweden.
- Defenses Raised
-
Hague Article 13b: Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country Hague Article 13b: The court should find that the child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take into account the childs views, and the child objects to return to the requesting state Hague Article 20: Return of the child would violate principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 13(b)
- Cases Considered
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 2001; Colasanto v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 100 F.3d 203 1996; Danaipour v. McLarey, 183 F.Supp.2d 311 2002; Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 2002; Davignon v. Clemmey, 322 F.3d 1 2003; Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 1990; Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941 1988; Olesen v. Class, 164 F.3d 1096 1985; United States v. Belfany, 956 F.2d 575 1992; United States v. Edward J., 224 F.3d 1216 2000; United States v. George, 960 F.2d 97 1992; United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 1985; United States v. Yazzie, 59 F.3d 807 1995; Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 2000
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Order Denial Affirmed
- Posted
- 2006-09-15
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.
