The mature child’s objection exception to the Hague Abduction
Convention employs very loose language that provides a trial court with great
discretion.
In a hotly-contested case that I won in the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on Friday the trial judge found that
a child who had just turned twelve was of sufficient age and maturity for his
views to be considered and then ruled that his objections to being returned to
Greece were objectively valid reasons.
In sharp contrast, a New Jersey federal judge ruled last
month that the exception would not apply to two children, aged 15 and 12, both
of whom stated that they would prefer to remain in the United States. De La Vera v. Holguin, 2014 WL 4979854
(D.N.J. 2014).
The difference was that the in the
New York case the child was found to be an “unusually mature child” while in
the New Jersey case only one child provided any specific reasons for her
preference o remain in the United States.
Moreover, in the New York case we
proffered expert testimony from a psychologist with unusually solid credentials
in child development to refute claims that the child’s views were unduly
influenced by his mother, whereas apparently no expert was called in the New
Jersey case.
Finally the New Jersey court was
greatly concerned about the fact that, by the time of trial, the children had
already been in the United States for almost two years, stating that, “It is
understandable and predictable that they have a far closer connection with
their mother, with whom they have lived for this extended period, than with
their father. But all of this is, at least in significant part, a direct result
of their wrongful retention here by Respondent.” In contrast, in my New York
case we adduced evidence that the child had expressed his wishes to remain in
the United States as soon as he arrived here.