Dr. Hil Rizvi appeals a trial court order dismissing his complaint against a Massachusetts social service agency, a Maryland social service agency, and two separate Swiss governmental agencies.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on September 25, 2020.

Rizvi is the father of two daughters who reside in Switzerland.  They were taken to Switzerland by their mother, Rizvi’s estranged wife.  One of his two daughters received treatment, first in Maryland, and now in Switzerland, for an eating disorder.  Dr. Rizvi disagrees with the treatment.  This daughter did temporarily reside with Dr. Rizvi in Massachusetts in 2016, but pursuant to an emergency temporary custody order, the child was returned to Switzerland in the custody of her mother.

This federal lawsuit was filed by Dr. Rizvi who alleges that the four governmental agencies violated his parental rights.  He further argued that the Maryland and Massachusetts agencies colluded to raise allegations of child abuse against Dr. Rizvi because he disagreed with the child’s medical treatment.

Dr. Rizvi’s suit was dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction over the Swiss agencies under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the two U.S. agencies were entitled to sovereign  immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.  The other element was that Dr. Rizvi sought to have his petition in the federal court treated as a return petition of his children under the Hague Abduction Convention.  It appears from the opinion that he previously requested the children’s return under this treaty in Switzerland.  The Third Circuit felt it appropriate to elaborate on why a return petition cannot proceed.  Specifically, pursuant to ICARA, the petition “must be filed with a court having jurisdiction where the child in question is located” (i.e., Switzerland).