In Lynch v Mendez Lynch, 220 F.Supp.2d 1347, ( M.D. Florida, 2002) the father instituted proceedings under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), seeking the return of his minor children taken from Argentina by their mother. The District Court held that the father's general consent for the children to leave Argentina, given pursuant to Argentina law to facilitate vacation travel, did not bar Hague Convention proceedings. The father was exercising his custodial rights at time the children were removed; Argentina was the habitual residence of children; the father had not consented to the continued residence of the children in United States; the nine year old child's wish to remain in the United States was not conclusive; the one year period for seeking return of children was tolled by the wife's nondisclosure of their whereabouts; the children were not well-settled in the United States; and the children would not be exposed to excessive risk of harm by their return to Argentina. The father did not consent to mother's removal of minor children from Argentina, so as to preclude proceedings to compel the return of the children under the Hague Convention, when he signed a general authorization for mother to take the children out of Argentina, in order to comply with Argentina law. The authorization was given to facilitate family vacation travel, and there was no vacation intent behind the movement of the children to United States. The Father was exercising his custody rights over the minor children at time mother removed them from Argentina, as required to compel return of children under Hague Convention even though the father was separated from mother and was on 19-day trip to India when mother acted. The father remained in regular contact with children, and paid family bills. The Habitual residence of minor children was Argentina, for purposes of the father's proceeding to compel their return of the children to that country, despite the claim of mother that the children were habituated to United States. On the date the mother first expressed an intent to remain in the United States she and the children were moving from lodging to lodging, subsisting on charity, and the children had not started school. The father did not consent to their continued residence in the United States, by allowing mother to complete abuse class and acquiescing in the enrollment of the children in school; the father had consistently insisted upon their return, and had so informed the children's teachers. The nine year-old child would be returned to Argentina, despite his wish to remain in the United States. His wishes were not conclusive, as he had been in United States for three years and his reluctance to return to Argentina was based on a lack of memory of life in that country, rather than desire to be away from his father. The one year period for the commencement of a proceeding, under the Hague Convention to return children allegedly wrongfully removed from Argentina, was tolled during the interval wife concealed the location of herself and the children. The Children, removed from Argentina by their mother, were not well settled in new environment, so as to preclude their return under the Hague Convention. While the children were in school and doing well, they had lived in seven different locations during their two year period in the United States, and had been treated for stress. The Children would be returned to Argentina despite the testimony of a professor that the country was in state of economic and civil disorder, posing risk of harm to children if they returned; there was also testimony that area where the children would live was peaceful, and that the children would be returning to their former home and would have the benefit of schools equivalent to those presently attended.