Affachao Abdon Samey, a French citizen, petitioned the district court for the return of his daughter to France under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. The child had traveled from France to Lancaster, South Carolina, in June 2022 to visit relatives of her mother, Prisca Aguégué. Following Prisca's death from leukemia in September 2023, Samey sought the child's return, alleging wrongful retention by the child's aunt, uncle, and grandmother. The district court conducted a bench trial and denied the petition, finding that Samey failed to prove wrongful retention and that the respondents had met their burden of proving the child was well-settled and faced a grave risk of harm if returned. Samey appealed, challenging the factual findings regarding abuse and the court's refusal to exercise discretion to order a return.
The Fourth Circuit applied de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the child faced a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention. The court noted that while Samey argued the allegations of abuse were manufactured and the forensic interview was unreliable, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court's credibility determinations. The appellate court found no definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been committed regarding the evidence of sexual and physical abuse. The court also addressed Samey's argument that the district court should have considered whether French law enforcement or family friends could mitigate the risk. The court held that the district court did not err by not explicitly addressing the availability of family friends, as the court had already considered the adequacy of French law enforcement and found it insufficient to mitigate the proven risk of abuse. Furthermore, the court affirmed the district court's refusal to exercise discretion to order a return under Article 18. The district court had weighed equitable factors, including the child's interest in returning and the need for contact with the father, before concluding that return was not appropriate. The court emphasized that Hague Convention proceedings are solely determinations of venue and that findings of grave risk do not constitute a determination on the merits of custody issues.
The order denying the return of the child to France remains in effect. Custody determinations will now be resolved under the laws of the child's current location in the United States. The decision leaves open the possibility that custody disputes will be litigated in U.S. courts, as the Hague Convention proceedings did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying custody claims.