The parties are parents to a 13-year-old son, who was born in the United States. His parents separated and divorced in Rhode Island, and agreed to share joint custody, with his primary residence in Germany with his mother. In 2015, mother and child moved to Germany. The child spent a lot of time in the United States visiting with his father, and his father traveled to Germany, as well. In 2021, the child expressed an interest to relocate permanently to Rhode Island and live with his father. On that basis, the parents agreed he would move there in summer 2022, but before summer commenced, the child changed his mind. He traveled to spend the summer with his father, but when it came time to return to Germany in August 2022, he refused to board the plane. His mother then filed a request to return him under the Hague Abduction Convention, as well as a modification action in the Rhode Island family court. The only issue was whether the child was mature and objected to returning to Germany.

The court held an in-camera interview with the child and his court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem. The GAL testified, as did a social worker and one of the child’s teachers. The child acknowledged that he had gone back and forth about a relocation, but that he had finally made a decision and wanted to remain in Rhode Island. The court found that he understood decision-making and its complications. It was also significant that, despite the mother’s current assertions that the child is not mature, she found the child mature in 2021 to warrant a presumptive relocation at that time, in accordance with his views.

The court spent time exploring whether the child was stating a preference or was objecting to returning. In concluding that the child had a particularized objection, the court indicated that his desire to remain in the United States was “assertive, unequivocal, and consistent” to everyone – both parents, the GAL, the social worker, and the court. It was so strong that he actually refused to get on the plane to return to Germany. The child’s primary concern about returning was that he had concerns over his schooling in Germany. He articulated that the day was long and did not permit him opportunities for other activities, which would contribute to his happiness and growth. He particularly wanted the opportunity to play basketball. He further objected to his living arrangements, which the mother has not indicated would change, specifically that he sleeps in the same bedroom as her, in a twin bed pushed up against hers. “Finally, he has expressed that a return to Germany would show his views are not listened to and not respected.” The court denied the mother’s request to return the child to Germany.