|
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.
|
