UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AMALIN HAZBUN ESCAF, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-1487

ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-01-1926-A)

Argued: October 29, 2002

Decided: December 11, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

COUNSEL: Isidoro Rodriguez, THE RODRIGUEZ LAW FIRM,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Patrick Hanley Stiehm, STIEHM

LAW OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stephen J. Cullen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Towson, Maryland,

for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

This case is brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil

Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No.

11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (Hague Convention). Isidoro Rodriguez

appeals the district court’s order requiring (pursuant to the Hague

Convention) the return of his thirteen-year-old son, Isidoro, to Colombia, Isidoro’s country of habitual residence and the residence of his

mother. We affirm. 

I.

Amalin Hazbun Escaf (Hazbun), a Colombian citizen, married Isidoro Rodriguez (Rodriguez), a U.S. citizen, in Colombia in 1988.

They lived in Barranquilla, Colombia after the marriage. In 1989 the

couple had a son, Isidoro Rodriguez Hazbun (Isidoro), and Isidoro has

joint Colombian-U.S. citizenship. Hazbun and Rodriguez divorced in

1997, and both continued to live in Barranquilla. Rodriguez claims

that he and Hazbun had an initial oral agreement providing that Isidoro would split his time evenly between his parents; Hazbun disputes this. In August 1997 a Colombian family court approved a

different custody agreement entered into between Hazbun and Rodriguez. The court-approved agreement provided that Isidoro would live

primarily with his mother, but would spend every other weekend with

his father. 

Rodriguez returned to the United States in January 2000, taking up

residence in Virginia. Later in 2000 Isidoro spent summer and Christmas vacations with Rodriguez in the United States. After Isidoro

returned to the United States for a visit during the summer of 2001,

Rodriguez filed (in Isidoro’s name) a petition for a change of custody

in the Fairfax County, Virginia, Juvenile and Domestic Relations

Court. Rodriguez then sent a facsimile transmission to Hazbun, telling

2 ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ
her that Isidoro would be staying in the United States and would not

be returning to Colombia. Included in the transmission to Hazbun was

(1) a letter from Isidoro to his mother, saying that he wanted to stay

with his father and (2) a copy of the petition for change of custody.

In August 2001 Hazbun filed a Hague Convention Return Application with the Colombian Civil Authority, seeking Isidoro’s return to

Colombia under the Hague Convention. In December 2001 Hazbun

sued Rodriguez in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia,

asking for an order requiring Isidoro’s immediate return to Colombia

under the Hague Convention and its implementing legislation, 42

U.S.C.A. § 11601 et seq. (West 1995 & Supp. 2002). 

Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss Hazbun’s complaint, raising

several issues that were thoroughly considered by the district court.

First, the district court rejected Rodriguez’s argument that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction was proper

under 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603(a). Second, the district court rejected

Rodriguez’s argument that Isidoro was an indispensable party in the

federal lawsuit and that the failure to join him was grounds for dismissal. Because a Hague Convention proceeding deals with the rights

of those claiming custody, Hazbun and Rodriguez in this case, the

court determined that it could afford complete relief to the parties

without joining Isidoro. The court thus concluded that Isidoro was not

an indispensable party, although the court was careful to note that his

rights and wishes could be taken in account. Third, the district court

rejected Rodriguez’s arguments that it should abstain from deciding

the Hague Convention case while a state custody proceeding was

pending. The court determined that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37

(1971), did not require it to abstain. The court noted that Younger

calls for federal courts to abstain from decision when (1) a concurrent

state proceeding is pending, (2) an important state interest is implicated, and (3) the parties may seek review of their federal claims in

state court. The court concluded that Rodriguez’s argument failed on

the second Younger requirement because Hague Convention cases

implicate only the international movement of children, which is a federal, rather than a state, interest. The district court also declined to

abstain based on Colorado River Water Conservation District v.

United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), which applies only when ongoing

federal and state proceedings are parallel. Because the federal and

ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ 3
state proceedings here do not involve the same parties and issues, the

court concluded that they are not parallel and that Colorado River

does not apply. 

After denying Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss, the district court held

a bench trial to determine whether Isidoro had been "wrongfully

removed or retained in" the United States, a country that is a party to

the Hague Convention. In its final opinion, which set forth findings

of fact and conclusions of law, the district court found that Colombia

was Isidoro’s habitual residence and that he had been wrongfully

retained in the United States. The court then considered and rejected

possible defenses to Hazbun’s claim that Isidoro should be returned

to Colombia. First, the district court determined that Rodriguez had

not presented clear and convincing evidence that Isidoro would be at

grave risk if he returned to Colombia. Second, the court determined

that Isidoro — who said that his preference was to remain in the

United States for now, but that later he wanted to spend equal time

in the United States and Colombia — was not of a sufficient age and

maturity for his views to be given conclusive weight. The district

court ultimately concluded that the Hague Convention and 42

U.S.C.A. § 11603 et seq. required that Isidoro be returned to Colombia forthwith, and an order to that effect was entered. After Rodriguez

was unsuccessful in his efforts in this court and in the Supreme Court

to obtain a stay pending appeal, Isidoro was returned to Colombia on

June 11, 2002, pursuant to the district court’s order. 

II.

Rodriguez appeals, challenging the district court’s decision that Isidoro is not an indispensable party, its refusal to abstain, and its determination that Rodriguez did not establish a defense under the Hague

Convention. Rodriguez also asserts that the proceedings in district

court violated his parental rights and Isidoro’s due process rights. 

The district court noted that this case arises from "an exceptionally

difficult situation" for Isidoro and for the parties. We agree. Accordingly, we have carefully considered the briefs, the joint appendix, and

the oral arguments. We conclude that the proceedings in district court

did not violate either Rodriguez’s or Isidoro’s rights. As to the other

issues, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hazbun

4 ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ
v. Rodriguez, 191 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Va. 2002) (opinion denying

motions to dismiss); Hazbun v. Rodriguez, 200 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D.

Va. 2002) (memorandum opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law). 

AFFIRMED

ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ 5