Yves Aubert, a father, appealed a district court decision denying his petition for the return of his two daughters to Norway under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. While that primary appeal regarding the return of the children was pending before the Seventh Circuit, the district court denied Aubert's subsequent request to reinstate regular visitation with his daughters. The district court had concluded that filing the initial notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to issue or modify any injunction-like relief, including visitation orders. Aubert challenged this denial, arguing that the district court retained the authority to manage interim relief to protect the children's well-being while the appellate court considered the merits of the return petition.
The Seventh Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, rejected the district court's conclusion that the filing of a notice of appeal stripped it of jurisdiction to manage interim equitable relief. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) explicitly permits a district court to suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms that secure the opposing party's rights while an appeal is pending. This authority is reinforced by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C), which requires a party seeking such relief to first move in the district court. The court cited precedent establishing that these rules allow district courts to correct technical defects or adjust terms of injunctions to align with the spirit of the original order without altering the fundamental issues on appeal. Furthermore, the court analyzed the Hague Convention statutes, specifically 22 U.S.C. § 9004(a), which grants courts the power to issue provisional remedies before the final disposition of a petition. The court reasoned that a final disposition has not yet occurred while the appeal is pending, meaning the district court retains jurisdiction to issue provisional remedies like visitation rights to protect the children's well-being. The court noted that the contrary position would leave district courts powerless to take important action in the best interests of children during the often slow appellate process.
The district court's order denying visitation is reversed, and the district court is immediately authorized to exercise jurisdiction over Aubert's motion for interim visitation or a renewed motion. This decision clarifies that district courts can manage the welfare of children involved in Hague Convention cases during the appellate process, ensuring that interim relief is not stalled by the pendency of an appeal on the merits. The court's mandate issued immediately, allowing the district court to act without delay.