• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Washington, D.C.
  • melissa@mkfamily.law
  • (202) 713-5165
  • mkfamily.law
Family Law Across Borders

Family Law Across Borders

International Family Law Resources

  • About MKFL
  • Websites
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Events
  • Contact

Case Update (2021): Radu v. Shon; right to structure alternative remedies to return a child when there is otherwise a grave risk

Case Update (2021): Radu v. Shon; right to structure alternative remedies to return a child when there is otherwise a grave risk

September 14, 2021

In September 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ordered that Mr. Radu and Ms. Shon’s two children be returned to Germany, but, because the court concluded returning the children to Mr. Radu would present a grave risk of psychological harm, the court ordered that “Shon shall retain temporary custody and care of the children until a custody determination can be made by a German court of competent jurisdiction.” Ms. Shon appealed, arguing that the court exceeded its authority, including: requiring her to move to Germany, resolving (albeit temporarily) custody of the children, setting up a situation where she was required to file a custody suit in Germany, and necessitating the German courts to resolve custody over the children.

The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on August 31, 2021, vacating and remanding to the District Court. It reaffirmed that when a court finds that there is a grave risk of harm, it must determine whether there is an alternative remedy that can safely repatriate the child, and it needs to determine “whether and how the alternative remedy is likely to be performed.” The district court vacated and remanded, requesting more supporting evidence on whether the order returning the children in Ms. Shon’s custody has a high likelihood of performance through supportive reinforcements in Germany.

The Ninth Circuit made a few points that are worth highlighting. I encourage you to read the entire opinion. First, it said that, if requiring the relocation of the abducting parent back to the child’s habitual residence can help alleviate any grave risk of harm caused by the repatriation, the court has that discretion. The court’s remand was only intended to create a fuller record to have sufficient guarantees that this remedy will be enforced in Germany. In other words, the district court has the authority to both issue an order placing a child in a parent’s (temporary) custody and requiring an adult (U.S. citizen, in this case) to relocate to a foreign country.

Second, the court referenced, a few times, the role the State Department can take in coordinating “legal safeguards or otherwise procure assistance from the foreign jurisdiction to address or resolve any issues animating the Article 13(b) grave risk of harm finding.” This is an interesting reading of what the U.S. Department of State can and will do under the Convention (Article 7), and what authority it may have to effectuate anything related to the child in a foreign jurisdiction.

Finally, the court opinion stated, “[w]e must respect that another treaty partner … is well-equipped with the proper legal mechanisms and internal processes and procedures to support alternative remedies and otherwise fulfill treaty obligations.” As the U.S. Department of State highlights in its annual compliance report, other treaty partners are not always keen in fulfilling their treaty obligations. It is also unclear as to whether the court is saying that a foreign country has an obligation under the Hague Abduction Convention to enforce a foreign custody order. [See a separate Hague Convention – the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention]

As a reminder, the entire issue of alternative remedies (or, as the 2nd Circuit calls them, ameliorative measures) is awaiting some movement by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Saada v. Golan.

Category iconabduction,  Child Abduction,  Grave Risk,  Hague Abduction Convention,  protective measures,  undertakings

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 108 others, and get a notification to our new posts right on your inbox.

We promise we’ll never spam! Only notifications of new posts.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The use of the name MK Family Law is protected as are the logo and content of this website. The information is provided by MK Family Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

© 2023 · MK Family Law · All Rights Reserved · Developed by RDK

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Attorney Advertising