Background
The petitioner, Bismark Boa-Bonsu, sought the return of his son B.B. from the United States to Finland under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The child’s mother, Deborah Owusu, had removed B.B. from Finland in violation of the father’s custody rights. The district court denied the return petition, finding that the age and maturity exception applied because the child objected to returning.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error. The court determined that the child, who was eight years old, was sufficiently mature to have his views considered. The court found that the child’s statements constituted particularized objections to return rather than a mere preference to stay in the United States. The court also rejected the argument that the child’s views were the product of undue influence by the mother.
Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, if a court finds that a child was wrongfully removed from the child’s country of habitual residence, the court ordinarily must order the child’s return.
Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666, 669 (2022)
The dissent
I agree with the majority that the district court didn’t clearly err with respect to B.B.’s maturity. But I think the district court clearly erred in finding that B.B. objected.
Nalbandian
What it means going forward
The decision affirms the denial of the return petition, allowing the child to remain in the United States with the mother. It reinforces the deference appellate courts give to district courts’ factual findings regarding a child’s maturity and objections in Hague Convention cases.