During the hearing, Dr. Mpafe raised the "grave risk of harm defense". She argued that Therese would be exposed to physical harm because there is friction between Therese and her stepmother, Cynthia Ngassa, and Therese reported to her mother than she had been "beaten" by her stepmother. The Court found that there was scant evidence, much less the clear and convincing proof that is required, that Therese's stepmother beat her..Dr. Mpafe reported generally that Therese complained about being "beaten," but offered no specifics. Nor did she offer an evaluation from a child psychiatrist, child psychologist, or other mental health professional expressing the opinion that Therese had been beaten while living with her father in Italy. In addition, Dr. Mpafe conceded that, although she regularly spoke to Therese during the nine months during which Therese was living with her father and stepmother in Italy, Therese did not report the alleged "beating" to Dr. Mpafe until after Dr. Mpafe took Therese to the United States. Dr. Ngassa, a medical doctor, denied under oath that there was any physical abuse of Therese. He also stated that he had not observed any marks or bruises on his daughter. Dr. Ngassa also testified that Therese was happy while residing with him in Italy. Although Therese's stepmother, Ms. Ngassa, admitted during testimony that she occasionally spanked Therese and her siblings, she said that she did so as part of the normal discipline of the children. She explained that she "smacked" them on their bottoms with a rubber flip-flop. She never spanked the children, including Therese, on their bare skin, and never to a degree to cause real pain. The court held that this form of discipline does not constitute a grave risk of physical harm under the Convention. It concluded that Dr. Mpafe had not proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a grave risk that Therese's return to Italy would expose Therese to physical or psychological harm.

Under the Convention, the Court may refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate for the Court to take account of the child's views. Dr. Mpafe moved for the Court to interview Therese. The Court denied the motion. In the Court's view, a seven-year-old child has not attained the requisite age and degree of maturity. Moreover, the evidence of the alleged "beating" can only be characterized as scant. There was therefore, no pressing reason for the Court to speak directly to the child.

Dr. Mpafe also requested the Cout to order Therese to be examined by a psychiatrist or other professional. The Court denied the denied the request because there was only scant evidence of the alleged "beating" and a psychiatric evaluation, therefore, would not be helpful. And Dr. Mpafe had a full opportunity to develop psychiatric evidence prior to the hearing but failed to do so.

Dr. Mpafe contended that she was not notified of the Italian custody proceedings. She argues that the custody order was, therefore, issued in violation of her procedural due process rights, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although Dr. Mpafe claimed that she never received notice, at the hearing before this Court, Dr. Ngassa introduced into evidence a signed return receipt from the Italian postal service showing that papers pertaining to the Italian custody suit were delivered to Dr. Mpafe's Maryland address. The Court was satisfied that under Italian law, Dr. Mpafe had the right to petition the Italian court at any time to amend the custody decree. Dr. Mpafe, therefore, could at any time, petition the Italian court for custody or to increase her visitation rights. She could also bring to the attention of the Italian court any concerns she has about how Dr. Ngassa and his wife treat Therese. These available options satisfied the procedural due process concerns.

The Court rejected the notion that Cameroon was Therese's habitual residence. Therese will be eight years old in August 2007. She lived the majority of her life (five years and two months) in Italy. Moreover, she lived continuously in Italy as part of her father's household for nine months prior to her removal to the United States. The courts in Cameroon and Italy ordered that the child's domicile was in Italy. The Court found, therefore, that Italy was Therese's habitual residence at the time she was removed and granted the petition for the return of the child to Italy.