On August 22, 2022, the district court again ordered the parties’ 2 minor children returned to Germany, and did so without a further evidentiary hearing. Ms. Shon, the Respondent, appeals, and seeks a stay of the order requiring the return of the children. In arguing that she is likely to prevail on appeal, she argues, among other things, that it was error for the district court to not hold an additional evidentiary hearing, to let her child psychology expert to testify again following her August 26, 2020 testimony, and to engage in ex parte inquisitorial evidence gathering with the U.S. executive branch. Further, she argued that the district court engaged in speculation that its return order is enforceable in Germany, that it did not properly assess whether Petitioner would comply voluntarily with the court’s ameliorative measures, it did not order Petitioner to confirm there are no criminal proceedings against Respondent in Germany, and it erred in finding that Petitioner was more credible than Respondent, among other arguments.
The district court rejected Ms. Shon’s arguments, and found a stay inappropriate, and it unlikely she would succeed on appeal. The court, however, granted her alternative request to temporarily stay its return order until the Court of Appeals rules on a timely filed motion to stay. Ms. Shon was ordered to notify the district court within 2 business days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of a motion for a stay.