It has been a while since I have been back in the States--both physically and digitally--, so I will focus today on a U.S. case involving retention and consent under the Hague Abduction Convention.
In Baxter v. Baxter, a mother with dual U.S.-Australian citizenship left Australia for Delaware with her child. The child's Aussie father consented to the removal. However, she decided to stay in the U.S. after finding and moving in with a new partner. The court below found that because he consented to the removal, the mother proved the exception in article 13 of the Convention.
The Court of Appeals however noted that though the father consented to the removal, he did not consent to the child's wrongful retention in Delaware.
Further, the appellate court admonished the trial court for finding too easily that a return would present a grave risk of pyschological harm. The trial court's decision on grave risk and the parameters set out for the exception by the appellate court contrast starkly with the New Zealand case that I noted last week.
In all, this case showcases the 3d Circuit's position on consent, acquiescence, and grave risk and offers a thorough summary of the case law surrounding these issues.