Background
This case involves a dispute between two couples over the custody of a minor child, A.D. The Deravils, A.D.’s grandaunt and granduncle, sought her return to Martinique under the Hague Convention after she was retained in the United States by her parents, the Jean-Louises. The district court denied the petition, finding that A.D. objected to repatriation and was sufficiently mature to have her views considered.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error. The court determined that A.D., who was thirteen at the time of the interview, was mature enough to have her views considered. The court found that A.D. provided a particularized objection to returning to Martinique, citing feelings of unsafety and a lack of belonging. The court rejected the argument that a stricter standard of review applies, noting that the preponderance of the evidence standard remains the burden of proof.
We are no rubber stamp for the district court, but we are also not a court of first impression when it comes to factual findings.
Deravil v. Jean, 25-3636 (6th Cir. 2026)
The dissent
The majority, like the lower court, commits an error of law in failing to apply the stricter standard adopted by three of our sister circuits when the maturity exception is the sole basis for denying return.
Griffin
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the deference appellate courts give to district courts’ factual findings in Hague Convention cases regarding child maturity and objection. It clarifies that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the age-and-maturity exception and that a stricter standard of review is not currently recognized in the Sixth Circuit.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download