|
In Application of Falls v. Downe, 871 F. Supp. 100 (D. Mass.,
1994), the petitioner Veronika Elisabeth Falls sought an order,
requiring the respondent to return their two-year-old child Patrick
Falls to her. The court concluded that Patrick Falls was not a
"habitual resident" of Germany at the time of the alleged wrongful
retention by the father. Given this, neither the Convention nor ICARA
applied and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Falls and Downie met each other in Germany when he was stationed
there in the Army, and she was working as a cook at a United States Army
base. On November 11, 1992, the parties' son, Patrick, was born.
Downie had been separated from his American wife since August of 1990
and a divorce was pending in the United States. It was the parties' plan
that, once the divorce was final, they would get married.
Falls and Downie decided that Downie should return to the United
States and attempt to find work as a police officer in his home
community in Western Massachusetts. Just before Downie's departure, when
the arrangements for Patrick's day care unexpectedly fell through, both
parties agreed that Downie would take Patrick with him to the United
States, where both he and the boy would live with his parents.
The decision by Falls to permit Downie to take Patrick to the United
States was entirely voluntary. Moreover, Falls understood when Downie
left with Patrick that he and their child would be staying in the United
States for an indefinite period of time. Although the couple had not
married, they considered themselves a family. The plan was that Falls
would maintain close contact with Downie and her son over the next few
months, then come to the United States in June of 1994 for her maternity
leave after the birth of her child, marry Downie and begin residing
indefinitely in the United States.
Downie left Germany in January of 1994 with Patrick and moved in with
his parents in Amherst, Massachusetts. He was able to obtain part-time
work as a police officer, but could not find a full-time job. In
February of 1994, Falls suffered a miscarriage.
Patrick settled down in Amherst, Massachusetts, living at his
grandparents' three-bedroom home. He was cared for by, and developed a
close relationship with, his father. In addition, he developed a close
relationship with his grandparents, who took care of him when his father
was at work.
In August of 1994, Falls came to the United States and stayed with
Downie and his parents in Amherst. Petitioner raised the issue of
returning with Patrick to Germany several times during the August visit,
but at this time the respondent Downie refused to permit Patrick to
leave. His reason for this, as stated at the hearing, was that Patrick
had become used to the environment in his grandparents' home, and he did
not think the disruption of a removal to Germany was in the boy's best
interest. At this point, due to the passage of time and the child's
young age, Patrick barely knew his mother.
On August 30, 1994, Falls returned to Germany, leaving Patrick with
Downie against her will. In Germany, she obtained an order from the
Court, holding that she was entitled to custody of Patrick. Under German
law the mother has sole custodial rights over an illegitimate child.
The Court found that first time that the conduct of the respondent in
this case could conceivably be characterized as "wrongful," would be in
August of 1994 when Falls asked to take Patrick back to Germany and
Downie refused to let him go. It noted that in In determining habitual
residency, 'the court must look back in time, not forward ... future
plans are irrelevant to our inquiry.' Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d
1396, 1401 (6th Cir.1993). 'To determine the habitual residence, the
court must focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past
experience, not future intentions.' Friedrich, at 1401. Slagenweit v.
Slagenweit, 841 F.Supp. 264, 268 (N.D.Iowa 1993). What is required is
that there be a "degree of settled purpose." Id. at 268, quoting In re
Bates, No. CA 122.2-89 High Court of Justice, Family Division Court,
Royal Court of Justice, United Kingdom 1989. The Court found that as of
August 1994, the twenty-one-month old boy had been living in the United
States, with the agreement of his mother, and with the prospect of an
indefinite continuance of residence, for eight months. He had become
completely accustomed to life in this country with his father and
grandparents; he barely knew his mother. "It simply defies common sense
to suggest under these circumstances that Patrick was, as of that date,
a "habitual" resident of Germany." In every significant respect, the boy
had by August 1994 settled with the consent of his mother indefinitely
in this country.
|