• 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 (22 Dec 2022): Davis v. Lake; children not returned under Abduction Convention after finding Petitioner consented to their relocation

Case Update (22 Dec 2022): Davis v. Lake; children not returned under Abduction Convention after finding Petitioner consented to their relocation

January 5, 2023

The parties are parents to 2 children, ages 9 and 11 at the time of the district court proceeding in Virginia. Pursuant to an Anguillan custody order, the Respondent/Mother had primary residential custody, and the Petitioner/Father had routine access, which he did not fully exercise (in part, because of the pandemic). They shared joint custody. In January 2020, the Respondent told Petitioner she was going to marry and relocate the children to Lynchburg, Virginia. At trial, the Petitioner testified that he was willing to discuss the relocation, but at no point, did he agree with it. The Respondent testified that the Petitioner consented, and, provided a September 8, 2021 WhatsApp message from the Petitioner that the court concluded was support for the children’s relocation. The court ultimately concluded that the Respondent was far more credible, and the Petitioner’s testimony often conflicted with the evidence at trial. Therefore, the court declined to return the children to Anguilla.

The court did speak with the children, and had them testify, including about the primary components of the case. For instances, the 11-year-old testified “that she told her father they were going to Virginia, and when he asked when they were going, she told him to ask her mother.” The court also elicited testimony from the two children about their potential objections to returning to Anguilla, and concluded the 11-year-old had a mature objection that “seems not to be a preference ‘for one lifestyle over another,’ but an objection ‘born of rational comparison’ between the U.S. and Anguilla.” The child testified that she “likes her new life in Virginia, particularly her family, church, school, and friends…” The child apparently also testified that “she would not want to return to Anguilla with either her mother or father” and “that she likes to visit Anguilla, though she would not want to return there permanently.”

Category iconabduction,  Child Abduction,  consent,  Hague Abduction Convention,  mature child,  objection

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