Blondin v. Dubois – Child Custody – International Law
Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved an international child custody dispute.
FACTS: H and W met in the summer of 1990 and began living together in France but never wed. A daughter was born in 1991 and a son in 1995. W testified that H physically abused her while the children were in her arms. She testified that H had twisted an electrical cord around her neck and threatened to kill her.
W left the home and went to live in a battered women’s shelter but later returned to H. The cycle repeated itself several times. Eventually W took the children from France to the United States. W concedes that she wrongfully removed the children from France and forged H’s signature to obtain passports for the children. W contends that she did this to protect the children from a physically abusive environment. H denies that he has abused the children.
H sought a court order in France to order the children’s return to France under the Hague Convention. The court held an immediate evidentiary hearing under the Hague Convention and it was determined that in fact H was abusive and hit the children. The older child testified that both parents beat her but that H did so more than W.
H’s Hague petition was denied on the grounds that the children would face a grave risk if returned to H’s custody and that H would be unable to support the children. H appealed. The French authorities were contacted and assured the U.S court that measures would be taken to assure the children’s safety if returned while a French court determined custody.
ISSUE: Must a court consider protective measures in the foreign country if it is determined that there is a grave risk to a child to be returned to that country under the Hague Convention?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A court must consider protective measures in the foreign country if it is determined that there is a grave risk to a child to be returned to that country under the Hague Convention.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The Convention requires that any debate on the custody rights issue should take place before the competent authorities in the country of the child’s habitual residence prior to removal. It is therefore important that a court considering an exception under Article 13(b) take into account any ameliorative measures by the parents and authorities that can reduce whatever risk might otherwise be associated with a child’s repatriation.
We are required to trust the court of the home country to issue whatever orders may be necessary to safeguard the children who come before it. Granting H’s petition would not as a legal matter entail turning the children over to his custody. Other arrangements could be made pending the custody adjudication. On remand the district court must consider the protection that can be provided by the French authorities prior to a determination of custody in this matter. We do not disturb the finding that the return of the children to H would pose a grave harm to their safety.
DISPOSITION: Reversed in part and remanded for further consideration.