F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 9 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief J udg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1276 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Do ck et No . 0 7 -0 0 1 2 5 -C V- WS GARETH ALE XANDER BARAN, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SUSAN ELIZABETH BEAT Y, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 9 , 200 8) Before BL ACK

and CAR

NE S, Circuit Judges, and RE ST AN I , Judge. * BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e:2

Pe tit ion er -Appe llant G ar eth B ar anis anA ustra lian c iti ze n. O n F eb ru ar y 16, 2007 , he filed a petition in th e Southern District of A la ba m a se ek ing the r et

ur n of his m ino r son pur suant t o th e H ag ue Co nve nti on o n th e Ci vil A spe ct s of In te rn at ion al Ch ild

Abduc tio n ( the “ Co nve nti on” ) an d it s im ple m en tin g legislation , the I nternational ChildAbduction Rem edies Ac t of 1988 (“ ICA RA” ), 42 U . S. C. § 11 603( b)
. I n th e dis tr ic t c ourt, Re spon de nt- Appe lle e Su san B eaty , the ch ild ’ s m oth er , c onc ed ed she w ro ngf

ull y r em ove d he r son fr om

A ustra lia , his co untry of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e. H ow ev er , she a rg ue d th e ch ild sho uld not be re tur ne d be ca use he w oul d f

ac e a gr av e ri sk o f harm

w er e he to be r et

ur ne d to A ustra lia
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d, a nd d en ie d th e pe tit ionf or r et ur n. Baran c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by ( 1) f ind ing the c ondu ct

Be aty al le ge d w as suf

fi ci en tly gr av e to j ust if

y de ny ing the c hil d’ s r et

ur n; ( 2) f ai lin g to re qui re Be aty

to showA ustra lian of

fi ci al s w oul d be inc ap ab le of or unw ill ing to pr ote ct the c hil d up on h is r et

ur n; and ( 3) f

ai lin g to c onsi de r w he the r suf fi ci en t sa fe guard s ( known a s un de rt ak ing s) c oul d pe rm it the c hil d to sa fe ly r et ur n to his ho m e co un try. Find in g n o e rro r in th e d en ia l o f Bar an ’s pet it io n, we af fir m . T he onl y c ha lle nge Baran br ing s w ithr es pe ct to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of f ac t i s hi s c ont en tio n th at

Be aty ’ s te sti m ony

w as inc onsi ste nt and unc or ro bor at ed
. B ar anha s no t sh ow n th e dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly e rr ed by c re dit ing3

Beaty ’ s testim ony . Consequent ly , w e drawthe following facts fr om the district co ur t’s fi nd in gs of f

act . B aran v . B ea ty , 479 F. Supp. 2d 1257 , 1260-64 (S. D. Ala
. 20 07 ). I. BACKGROUND From Oc tober 2001 through August 200 6, G areth A lexander Bar an, an A ustra lian natio na l, li ve d w ithS usan E liz ab eth B eaty , aU nit ed S ta te s c iti ze n f

ro m D ap hne , A la

ba m a, a t the ir

hom e in A lto na , V ic tor ia , A ustra lia
. O n M ar ch11, 2006 , Be aty

gave bir th t o th ei r son, S am

ue l, w ho i s th e subj ec t of thi s pe tit ion
. InO ct obe r 2001 , Baran su sta ine d de bil itatin g in j ur ie s ina n auto m obi le a c c i d e n t , r e n d e r i n g h i m u n ab l e t o w o rko r c a r e f o r h i ms e l f f o r s o me t i me the re af te r. B eaty , ar eg ist er ed

nur se , te nde d B ar ana nd w orke d to sup port the ho us eh ol d fi na nc ia ll y , payin g B aran ’s chi ldsu pp or t o bl ig at io ns forhi s t wo ch ildre n f ro m apr ev iou s m ar

ri ag e. ( T hose c hil dr en , a ge s 16 a nd 1 2, vis it an d li ve wit h t he ir f

at he r on a reg ul ar b as is wit ho ut co ur t s up erv is io n.) A f t e r h i s a c c i d e n t , B a r a n b e c a me d e p r e s s e da n db e g a n dr i n k i n g h e a v i l y, be co m ing int oxi cate d ona n a lm ost da ily ba sis
. I t w as not

unc om m on f or Baran to drive while intoxicated or to pass ou t after an all-day

drinking binge. When drunk, Baran was violent and uns table. He berated Be aty and intim idated her phy sically
. On occa sion, he wa s phy sically abusive towards her. O n one such4

oc ca sio n B ar ansla

ppe d B eaty

so h ar d sh e fe ll to the gr ound
. A nothe r tim e, he pu sh edhe r in th e p res en ce o f hi s d au gh te r, fri gh te ni ng an d u ps et ti ng th e ch il d. On a separate occasion, while Beaty wa s pregnant with Sam

uel, Baran pinned her be tw ee n adoo r an d th e w al l, pus hin g onthe doo r in a m an ne r that a

ppl ie d in te nse pr es sur e to h er

abdom en . O n othe r oc ca sio ns, Baran hurl ed f ur nit ur e at Be aty a nd sm as he d t he do orof t he co up le ’s m ic ro wav e o ve n i n a fit of a ng er. Af ter Sam uel was born, Bar an’ s alcohol abus e and anger intensified. B aran b eg an dri n k i n g al l d ay ev ery d ay, a n dp ar t i ci p at ed o n l y m i n i m al l y i n Sa m u el ’s care a nd s upe rv isi on. A lth oughthe re w er e tim es w he n B ar anw oul d a ssi st i n cari ng f or S am ue l, suc h oc ca sio ns w er e iso la te d and i nf re que nt. Baran di d no t t em

pe r his abusi ve c ondu ct

w he n S am

ue l w as pr es en t. O ne nig ht whe n S am

ue l w as le ss than aw ee k ol d, Baran be cam e int oxi cate d and de ci de d h e wan te d t o s ho w hi s d rin ki ng co m pa ni on s “ ho w bi g S am ’s bal ls were.” H e too k S am

ue l, undre sse d hi m , a nd c ar ri ed him ba lanc ed on o ne hand i nto the nig ht a ir be fo re stum

bli ng i nto ata

ble , se ndi ng g la ssw ar e fl y ing a s he did so. On July 13, 2006, Bar an subjecte d Beaty to a six-hour, expletive-laden barrage of verbal abuse and threats w hile she held Sam uel in her arm s. O n that occasion, Bar an scream ed to Beaty he hated her, she wa s never going to see Sam ue l or he r fam ily

a ga in, a nd h e w as goi ng t o “ba sh h er f ac e in. ” T o punc tuate5

the thr eat, Baran r ep eate dly swung a porta

ble te le phon e at

he r he ad , c au sin g B eaty to fear for her life. A ll the while, Beaty held Sam

uel and attem

pted to us e her bodyto shield h im
. Sam uel rem ained very

quiet, but he cried out when Baran tore him f ro m Be aty ’ s arm s and d ep osi te d hi m on a c ouc h un supe rv ise d. D es pit e the se inc ide nts of

e ndange rm en t, the re w as no e vid en ce Baran ha d e ve r be at enor oth er w ise phy sic al ly

harm ed S am ue l. A t vari ous tim es Baran to ld B eaty in poi nte d te rm s sh e ha d “ tr ic ke d” a nd

“ tr ap pe d” him

w iththe pr eg nanc y , he did not w an t anothe r ch ild , Be aty sho uld not bl am e h im

if a nyth in g h ap pe ne d t o S am ue l, an d s he sh ou ldha ve ha d a n abo rti on . Baran in fo rm ed

Be aty w he n th e ch ild

gr ewold er , he w oul d te ll Sam ue l he did not w an t hi m . O n a t l ea st tw o oc ca sio ns, in the c ont ex t of dis ag re em en ts c onc er

nin g his f am ily or f inanc ia l m atte rs , Baran to ld B eaty to re tur n to the U nit ed

S ta te s, a d mo n i s h i n g h e r

t o t a k e S a mu e l w i t h h e r

b e c au s e B a r a n w a n t e dh i s f r e e d o m. Ba se d onthi s c our se of

c ondu ct , Be aty

c am e to f

ear fo r he r lif

e an d Sam ue l’ s li fe if

the y r em ai ne d inA ustra lia

w ithBaran. B eaty

f el t i sol at ed

a nd be lie ve d no ne of

Baran’ s f am ily c oul d pr ovi de a ny

kin d of sup port or

int er ve nti on ne ce ssary to pr ote ct

he r an d S am

ue l f ro m Baran’ s e xpl osi ve out

bur sts . B eaty ne ve r w en t t o th e A ustra lian po lic e or j udi ci al sy ste m

f or he lp b ec au se she f

irm ly believed thos e institut ions wouldbe unable to protect her. She never soug ht legal6

cu sto dy of S am ue l f ro m a ny A ustra lian tr ibuna l be ca

use she be lie ve d no one in A ustra lia w as c ap ab le of

he lpi ng o r pr ote ct ing he r or S am ue l. O n Augus t 16 , 200 6, Baran r ec ei ve d ase ttl em en t ( in an am ount e qui va le nt to a ppr oxi m at el y

$26 0, 000 in Unit ed

S ta te s c ur

re nc y ) as ar es ult

of his 200 1 au tom obi le a cc ide nt. T o c el eb rate , he im m ed ia te ly pur ch as ed

aboat. O n Augus t 1 9 , th e b o a twa s d e l i v e r e d , a n dth e r e c o r dc o n t a i n s p h o t o g r ap h s o f B a r a n , B e a t y, and Baran’ s older children sm iling aboard the boat. T he next afternoon, howe ver, Baran c am e hom e fr om

a n e rr an d to f

ind anot e in B eaty ’ s handw ri tin g r ea din g,

“ Hey Bab e, W en t fo r a wal k b e b acklat er. ! Susie & Boo Boo.” (“ Boo Boo” was Be aty ’ s pe t nam e fo r Sam ue l. ) Be aty

did not r et ur n ho m e w ithS am

ue l tha t ni ght , pr om pti ng B ar anto launc h ase ar cha nd c ont ac t the pol ic e. L at e that ni ght , the pol ic e inf orm ed Baran th at

Be aty a nd S am ue l ha d be enloc at ed

aboard a n a ir plane bo un d fo r th e Uni te d S ta te s. Si nc e ar ri vin g inthe U nit ed

S ta te s, Be aty

a nd S am ue l have li ve d w ith Beaty ’ s parents in Daphne, Alabam a. Beaty is adam ant that she will never r eturn to Austra lia

und er a ny c ir cu m stanc es be ca

use she f ears Baran w ill harm

he r if she does. Baran has had no face- to-face contact with Be aty or Sam uel since they

left A ustra lia , a lth oughhe a nd B eaty have ha d nu m er ous te le phon e co nve rs at ion s.7

On Se ptem

ber 21, 2006, Bar an subm itted to th e Australian Central A uth or ity a n “ Appl ic at ionf

or the Re tur n of aCh ild , ” pur suant t o th e H ag ue Conventio n. T he application st ated Beaty had rem oved Sam

uel to the United States w ithou t Baran’ s consent, and requested that Sam uel be returned imm ed ia te ly. Und er t he he ad in g “ pr op os edarra ng em en ts forreturn o f th e ch il d,” the appl ic at ionr ea d: T he c hil d sh oul d be r et

ur ne d f orthw ithto m e at

the f am ily hom e in A lto na , V ic tor ia , A ustra lia
. I w oul d li ke the m oth er to re tur n w iththe child. A s I am

unem ploy ed, I am

unable to cover the costs associated w iththe ir tr av el
. I a m

w ill ing to m ee t the c hil d a t the Me lbo ur ne A ir port up on arr iva l. I f the [ m oth er ] doe s no t r et ur n I a m able to loo k after the said child alon e. (P et iti one r’ s E xh. 1, a t 4. ) I n hi s pe tit ion , Baran di d no t pr opos e an y a lte rn at ive arra ng em en ts forSam

ue l’s ca re. O n F eb ru ar

y 16, 200 7, Baran f

ile d ape tit ionin fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt, se ek ing S am

ue l’ s r et ur n. T he c ourt he ld an e vid en tiary he ar ing Marc h 22 , 200 7, atwhi ch Beat y

tes ti fie d i n p ers on . Baran ap pe ared by cou ns el
. Atth e h ea ri n g , B ea t y i n t ro du ce das ev i d en ce a M ay 1 9 9 7 af fi d av i tBa ra n ’s ex -w if e ha d f ile d inA ustra lian c ourt duri ng c ust ody pr oc ee din gs r eg ar din g Baran’ s older children. I n the affidavit, the e x-wif e aver red Bar an had slapped he r, thr ow n he r ag ai nst

the w al l, kic ke d he r in the abdom enw hil e w eari ng h eavy8

w ork bo ots , a nd thr ow n f ur nit ur e ab out the hom e dur ing the ir

r el at ion shi p. B eaty al so i ntr oduc ed

tr an sc ri pts of

pho ne c onve rs at ion s be tw ee n he rs el f an d B ar anshe ha d se cr et ly

r ec or de d. B ar andid

not pr ovi de a ny

te sti m ony

a t the he ar ing , r el y ing sol el y on the a ff

idavit a tta ch ed to his or igi na l pe tit ion , in w hic h he de nie d havin g ph y si cal ly harm edBeat y

du rin g h is rel at io ns hi p wi th he r. Ina n op ini on d at ed

Marc h 28 , 200 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound a lth oughBe aty ha d w ro ngf

ull y r em ove d S am

ue l f ro m the c ountry

w ith out Baran’ s c onse nt, Sam ue l wo ul d fa ce a g rav e ri skof h arm were h e to be returne d t o Au st ral ia
. N oti ng B ar anha d no t su gge ste d c ondi tio ns o f re tur n th at w oul d r ed

uc e or elim inate the risks Sam

uel face d on return, the court denied the petition. Baran ap pe al s. II. DISCUSS ION In198 0, the U nit ed

S ta te s be cam e a sig na tor y to the H ag ue Co nve nti on o n the Ci vil A spe ct s of

I nte rn at ion al Ch ild

Abduc tio n ( the Co nve nti on) , e nsur ing it s im ple m en ta tio n th ro ugh the I nte rn at ion al Ch ild Abduc tio n R em ed ie s A ct of 198 8 (I CA RA ), 42 U . S. C. § 11 603( b)
. T he Co nve nti on i s de sig ne d “ to p ro te ct c hil dr en int er na tio na lly

f ro m the harm fu l e ff

ec ts o f the ir

w ro ngf ul r em ova l or

r et en tio n and to establish procedures to ensure their prom pt return to the State of their habitual residence, as w ell as to secure protec tion for rights o f ac cess.” H anl eyv . R oy , 4859

F. 3d 6 41, 644 ( 11th C ir
. 200 7) ( quot ing Co nve nti on, pm bl. ). “ T he Co nve nti on an d [ the im

ple m en tin g le gis la tio n] e m pow er c ourts i n th e U nit ed

S ta te s to de te rm ine onl y

r igh ts unde r the Co nve nti on and n ot the m er its of a ny und er ly ing child custo dy

claim s.” 42 U. S. C. § 116 01(b)(4). When a child has been
w ro ngf ull y r em ove d f

ro m his c ountry

of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e, the Co nve nti on pr ovi de s th e non- ab duc tin g pare nt w ithar em edy of r et ur n, int en de d to r es tor e the part ie s to the pr e- ab duc tio n st at us quo and d et er

pare nts f ro m c ro ssi ng b or de rs in se arch of a m or e sym

pa th et ic forum

forch il d c us to dy pro ceed in gs . Hanley , 485 F. 3d at 64 4; M

arc h v
. L ev ine , 249 F . 3d 4 62, 468 ( 6thCi r. 200 1) ; Friedrich v. Friedrich , 78 F. 3d 10 60, 1063-64 (6th Cir. 1996 ). Whe n apare nt f

ile s ape tit ionf

or the r et ur n of ar em ove d c hil d, the f

ir st que sti on c ourts m

ust a sk i s w he the r the r em ova l w as w ro ngf ul. I f so, the c hil d
m ust be r et ur ne d “ fo rthw ith ” unl es s th e re spon de nt e sta bli she s on e of

the affi rm at iv e d efen se s en um erat edin th e Co nv en ti on . See Co nve nti on, a rt . 12- 13; Bader v. Kramer , 484 F . 3d 6 66, 668 -6 9 ( 4thCi r. 200 7)
. T he se a ff irm at ive de fe nse s are to be narr ow ly c onstru ed

to ef fe ct ua te the pur

pose s of the Co nve nti on an d, ev en if p ro ve n, d o n ot au to m at ic al ly precl ud e an ord er o f ret urn. See H ague In t’ l C hil d A bduc tio n C

onv en tio n: T

ex t an d L egal A nal

ys is , 51 F ed
. Re g. 10, 494,10

10, 509 (M ar . 26, 198 6) ; Baxter v . B axter , 423 F. 3d 36 3, 368 (3d Cir. 2005 ); Friedrich , 78 F . 3d at 10 67. Be aty doe s no t c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that sh e w ro ngf

ull y rem oved her son from

Australia. H owever , she c ontend s Sam uel would face a grave risk of harm

we re he to be r eturned to Australia beca use of Baran’ s violence an d d ru nk en ne ss . See Co nve nti on, a rt . 13( b) ( pr ovi din g c ourt m ay de ny pe tit ionif re spon de nt s how s e vid en ce of gr av e ri sk o f harm

to ch ild ’ s ph y sic al or psy ch olo gic al w el lbe ing ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d, a nd e xe rc ise d it s di sc re tio n no t t o o rd er Sa m

ue l’s re tu rn . On ap p ea l , B ar an p o i n t s t o th re e a l l eg ed erro rs i n th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s an al y sis
. H e co nte nds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by ( 1) f ind ing the c ondu ct

Be aty al le ge d w as suf

fi ci en tly gr av e to j ust if

y de ny ing S am

ue l’ s r et ur n; ( 2) f ai lin g to re qui re Be aty

to showthat Austra lian of fi ci al s w oul d be inc ap ab le or unw ill ing to sa fe guard S am ue l up on h is r et

ur n; and ( 3) f

ai lin g to or de r re tur

n c ondi tio ne d up on unde rt ak ing s th at

w oul d am el ior at e an y

r isk of se ri ous harm

to Sam ue l duri ng the pe nde nc y of A ustra lian c ust ody

pr oc ee din gs. I n r es pons e, Be aty take s th e posi tio n that on ce the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound r et ur nin g S am ue l t o Austra lia

w oul d e xpos e him to a gr av e ri sk o f harm , it

w as e nti tle d to de ny

the pe tit ionw ith out

inquir ing fu rth er i nt o a ny con di ti on s t ha t m ig ht pe rm it Sam ue l’s s afe r eturn.11

A
. G rav e R isk

E xc ep tio n A rt ic le 13( b) of

the H ag ue Co nve nti on s ta te s: N otw ith standi ng the pr ovi sio ns [ pr ovi din g ar em edy of r et ur n f or w ro ngf ull y r em ove d c hil dr en ] , the j udi ci al or a dm ini str at ive auth or ity of the r eque ste d S ta te is not bound t o or de r the r et

ur n of the c hil d if the person . .
. wh[o] oppo ses [the child’ s] return establishes that . . . the re is a gr av e ri sk tha t hi s or he r re tur n w oul d e xpos e the ch ild to phy sic al or

psy ch olo gic al harm

or oth er w ise pla ce the c hil d in an in tol er ab le sit

ua tio n. T he r es pond en t op posi ng a c hil d’ s r et

ur n be ar s th e bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng the gr av e ri skex cep ti on by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. 42 U.S.C. § 11 60 3( e)(2 )(A). Whe the r a gr av e ri sk o f harm to a ch ild

e xis ts unde r the te rm s of the H ag ue Co nv en ti on is a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct , whi ch we rev ie w de novo
. Sim cox v. Sim cox , 511 F . 3d 5 94, 601 ( 6thCi r. 200 7) ; Silve rm an v . Silve rm an , 338 F . 3d 88 6, 8 96 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. 1. F inding of abus e Be fo re de ny ing Baran’ s pe tit ion , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d te sti m ony f ro m Be aty , r ev ie w ed

a ff idavit s su bm itt ed by Be at y a nd B ar an , a nd h eard

a rg um en t from counsel for both p arties. A fter noting Baran’ s concluso ry aff idavit (which had been drafted in connection with his in itial petition and not for the evidentiary he ar ing ) did

not pr ovi de a ny

c ount er -e xpl an at ionf

or the e ve nts to w hic h B eaty12

ha d t es ti fie d, se e B aran , 479 F . S upp. 2d at 12 60 n . 1, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the fo llo w ing f

ac ts: Baran a buse s a lc ohol on a

da ily or ne ar -d ai ly

ba sis , that he is susceptib le to lengthydrinking and gam bling binges th at in no way ab a t e ddu r i n g th e f

i v e mo n t h s th a tS a m h ab i tu a l l y r e s i d e dw i t h h i m, that he is onl y

m ar gin al ly

able to care f

or his ow n ba sic ne ed s, that he ha s no c los e fam ily

m em be rs or f ri en ds tha t c oul d r ea sona bly be expected to have m eaningful inv olvem ent in Sam ’ s day -to-day car e an d pr ote ct ion , that he is em oti ona lly uns ta ble a nd p ro ne to unc ontro lle d de str

uc tiv e out

bur sts of r ag e, that he w as phy sic al ly a nd ve rb al ly abusi ve tow ar d B eaty

in Sam ’ s pr es en ce , that he phy sic al ly endangered Sam

(both intent ionallyand unin tention ally ) w hen Sam liv ed und er his r oof , a nd tha t B ar anr ep eate dly a nd p oin te dly

state d to Be aty a ft er S am ’ s bi rth th at

he did not w an t S am , that S am

sho uld have been aborted, that S am would die if Sam

“ becam e an A m er ic an , ” an d th at

Be aty c oul d no t bl am e him

if “ som ethin g h ap p e n e dt o ” S a m. Id
. at 1270-71 . Based on these facts, the district court concluded Beaty had m et he r bur de n of

sho w ing S am

ue l’ s r et ur n to Austra lia

w oul d e xpos e him

to gr av e r i s ko f p h ys i c a l o r

p s yc h o l o g i c a l h a rm. Baran c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion , c ont en din g th at his dr unke nne ss and t em

pe r ar e not

the sor t of gr av e ri sks to w hic h A rt ic le 13( b) is dir ec te d. C iti ng p er sua siv e au tho ri ty , Baran c ont en ds tha t, to es ta bli sh g rave r isk , Bea ty w as req ui redto sh ow Samuel had been m istreated—not that sh e herself had be en ve rb al ly or ph y si cal ly abu se d. See Nunez-E scudero v. Tice -M

enley , 58 F . 3d 374, 376-77 (8th Cir. 1995 ) (holding p hy sical and sexual abuse of m other13

ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh g rave r isk

of harm to ch ild ); W

hal lon v . L

yn n , 230 F . 3d 450, 460 ( 1st

Ci r. 200 0) ( co nc lud ing ve rb al abuse of c hil d’ s m oth er

a nd s ibl ing an d s ho vi ng of c hi ld ’s m ot he r in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh gra ve ris k o f ha rm to ch il d)
. B ut s ee W

als h v
. W als h , 221 F . 3d 2 04, 219 -2 0 ( 1st Ci r. 200 0) ( fi ndi ng g rave r isk of harm to ch ild e sta bli she d by

e vid en ce f

athe r dis obe y ed

c ourt or de rs , e nga ge d in g en er al ac t s o f v i o l en ce , a n dh ad s ev er el y b ea t en p re g n an twi fe i n fr o n to f c h i l d ’s siblin gs). A lth oughit

is tr ue the re w as no e vid en ce to sugg es t B ar anint en tio na lly harm ed Sam

uel, the district court w as presented w ith evidence Baran had threatened to do so bo th before and afte r Sam uel’ s birth. Moreover, the court he ar d te sti m ony

that B ar anha d pl ac ed

S am ue l i n harm ’ s w ay

by abusi ng B eaty w hil e she w as pr eg nant, ve rb al ly be ratin g B eaty

f or hours on e nd whil e she he ld Sam ue l i n h er arm s, an d h an dl in g n ewb orn S am ue l i rres po ns ib ly whi le dru nk . To deny return, the district court was not required to find Sam uel had previous ly

been phy sic al ly

or psy ch olo gic al ly

harm ed ; i t w as r equir ed

to fi nd r et

ur nin g hi m to Australia w ouldexpose him to a present grave r isk of phy sical or psy cholog ical ha rm , or o th erwi se pl ace h im in an in to le rab le si tu at io n. Co nv en ti on , art . 13 (b ). The e vidence presented wa s sufficient to supp ort the court’ s conclusio n that14

Baran’ s vi ole nt t em

pe r an d a buse of a lc ohol w oul d e xpos e Sam ue l t o agr av e ri sk of harm we re he to be r eturned to Australia. 2. F ailur e to exam ine country’s ab ility to pro tect Baran contends the grave risk analy sis do es not end when a court concludes th e co nd it io ns to whi ch th e ch il d wi ll be returne d p os e a g rav e ri skof h arm . Rathe r, he a rg ue s, be fo re de ny ing ape tit ionf or r et ur n, the c ourt m

ust f ir st de te rm ine w he the r the c hil d’ s c ountry of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e is c ap ab le of pr ot ect in g t he ch il d fr om th e id en ti fie d ri sk
. N ei the r the Co nve nti on n or I CA RAspe ci fi es the m an ne r in whic h a re vie w ing c ourt m

ust a sse ss whe the r a gr av e ri sk o f harm to the c hil d e xis ts and whether that risk alone justifies deny ing a petitio n for re turn. N evertheless, before de ny ing ape tit ionf

or r et ur n, som e fe de ra l c ourts h av e re qui re d r es pond en ts t o pr es en t e vid en ce the c hil d’ s c ountry of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e is n ot e qui ppe d to pr ote ct the c hil d up on r et

ur n. A s c ouns el c onc ed ed

a t or al a rg um en t, thi s p ro p o s ed “ re qu i re m en t ” ap p ea rs t o h av e o ri g i n at ed wi t h th e S i x t h Ci rc u i t ’s opi nio n in Friedrich , in w hich that court stated in d icta: [W ] e be lie ve that a

gr av e ri sk o f harm

f or the pur pose s of the Co nve nti on c ane xis t i n on ly tw o si tuatio ns. F ir st, the re is a gr av e ri sk o f harm

w he n r et ur n of the c hil d pu ts the c hil d inim m ine nt danger pri or

to the r es olu tio n of

the c ust ody

dis put e— e. g. , r et

ur nin g the c hil d to az one of

w ar , f am ine , or dis ea se . S ec ond, the re is a gr av e15

risk of harm

in cases of ser ious abu se or neglect, or extraordinary em ot io na l d ep en de nc e, wh en the c ourt in the c ount

ryof habi tua l residence, for whatever reason, m ay be incapab le or unwillin g to give the c hil d ad eq uat e prot ec tio n . Friedrich , 78 F. 3d at 106 9 (em phasis add ed). T he Sixth Circuit’ s form ulation has be enr ep eate d by

c ourts thr ough out

the c ountry , a nd h as be ena cc ep te d by m an y lo wer co ur ts as a go ve rn in g p rin ci pl e o f la w. Se e, e . g. , I n re A ppl ic ati on o

f A dan , 437 F. 3d 3 81, 395 ( 3d C ir
. 200 6) ( statin g in dic tathat the pe tit ion er

m ust dem onstrate that “ ‘ the court[s] in the country of habitual residence, for w hatever reason, m ay

be incapable or unwilling to gi ve the child adequate protection’”) ; G arc ia v
. A ngar ita , 440 F . S upp. 2d 1 364, 138 1- 82 ( S. D . F la
. 200 6) ; In re D.D. , 440 F. S upp. 2d 1 283, 129 9 ( M. D . F la
. 200 6)
. But see Van De Sa nde v. Van De Sand e , 431 F . 3d 5 67, 570 -7 1 ( 7thCi r. 200 5) ( cr iti ci zi ng Friedrich f orm ulatio n of gr av e ri skan d n ot in g i ts ov eru se ). What m akes the Friedrich standard attractive is its em phasis o n the prim acy of the country

of habitual residence. ICA RA em phasizes “ [c] hildren who are
w ro ngf ull y r em ove d or

r et ai ne d w ith in the m eanin g of the Co nve nti on are to be prom ptly returned .
. . . ” 42 U. S. C. § 116 01(a)(4). T his rule is desig ned to protect the interests of the state of habitual residence in determ ining any custodydispu te, and to deter parents from unilaterally

rem ovin g children in search of a m ore16

sym pa th et ic forum . Sim cox , 511 F . 3d at 60 4. Mo re ove r, the r equir em en t acknowledges com ity

betwee n review ing courts andcourts in oth er signatory co un tri es . Friedrich , 78 F.3d at 1 06 8 (“ In th in ki ng ab ou t t he se pro bl em s, we ack no wled ge th atco ur ts in th e ab du ct ed -fro m co un try are as read y

an d abl e as we are to protect children. If return to a country , or to the custod y of a par ent in that co untry , is dange ro us, w e can e xpe ct that c ountry ’ s c ourts t o r es pond acco rd in gl y .”). N ot a ll co urts, how ev er , have a cc ep te d th e Si xthCi rc uit ’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the gr av e ri sk ana ly sis
. R el y ing on the pla in l an gua ge of A rt ic le 13( b) , m an y co urts h old

w he n ar es pond en t pr ove s r et ur nin g ac hil d w oul d e xpos e him to a gr av e ri sk o f phy sic al or

psy ch olo gic al harm , the r ev ie w ing c ourt ha s di sc re tio n to de ny the pe tit ionf

or r et ur n ou tr igh t. T ha t po sit ionis co nsi ste nt w iththe Co nve nti on’ s of

fi ci al c om

m en tary a nd w ithdir ec tiv es f

ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s S ta te D ep ar tm en t. Indis cu ssi ng the ba lanc e be tw ee n th e Co nve nti on’ s go al s of pr ote ct ing ch ildre n and e nsur ing the ir spe edy r et ur n, the of fi ci al c om

m en tary to the Co nve nti on s ta te s, “ [T ] he int er es t of the c hil d innot

be ing r em ove d f

ro m it s habit ua l r es ide nc e . . . giv es w ay be fo re the pr im ar

y int er es t of

a ny pe rs on i n no t being expo sed to phy sical or psy cholog ical danger or being placed in anSe e Blon din v . D ub ois , 189 F.3d 240, 246 n.5 ( 2d Cir. 1999) (“ Blondin II

”) ( noting 1 Pérez-Ve ra Repor

t is recognized as officia l commentary to the Convention). 17 in to le rab le si tu at io n.” Elis a Pér ez-Ve ra, Ex plan atory Report: Hague Conference on Priv ate I

nte rnat ion al L aw , in 3 A ct es e t D oc um en ts d e la Q uat orz ie m e Sessi on 426 (1 980) ( “ P ér ez -V er a Re port ” ), ¶ 29. T he c om

m en tary say s no thi ng a

bout a 1
re vie w ing c ourt’ s du ty

to as se ss the hom e co untry ’ s a bil ity to pr ote ct

ac hil d f ro m harm —it say s onlythat return need not be ordered w hen the risk of grave harm ex is ts . Si m ilarl y , in of

fi ci al c om

m en ts r eg ar din g th e use of a n A rt ic le 13( b) de fe nse , the U nit ed

S ta te s S ta te D ep ar

tm en t ha s m ad e no m en tio n of a ny oblig ation on the part of district courts to determ ine whether a country of habitual res id en ce i s ab le to pro vi de ch il dr en at r is k o f ha rm wit h p ro te ct io n o r se rv ic es . A s on e of fi ci al c om

m en t e xpl ai ns: U nde r A rt ic le 13( b) , ac ourt i n it s di sc re tio n ne ed not or de r a ch ild re tur ne d if the re is a gr av e ri sk tha t r et ur n w oul d e xpos e the c hil d to phy sic al harm

or oth er w ise pla ce the c hil d ina n in tol er ab le sit ua tio n. * * * * An exam ple of an “ intol erable situation” is one in which a custodi al pare nt s ex ua lly

abuse s th e ch ild
. I f the oth er pare nt r em ove s or re ta ins the c hil d to sa fe guard it a ga ins t f urthe r vic tim iz at ion , a nd the ab usi ve pare nt the n pe tit ion s f or the c hil d’ s r et

ur n un de r the Co nve nti on, the c ourt m ay de ny the pe tit ion
. S uc h a ct ionw oul d18

pr ote ct the c hil d f

ro m be ing r et ur ne d to a n “ int ole ra

ble sit ua tio n” a nd s ub j e c t e dt o a

g r a v e r i s ko f

p s yc h o l o g i c a l h a rm. H ague I nt’ l C hil d A bduc tio n C

onv en tio n: T

ex t an d L egal A nal

ys is , 51 Fe d. Re g. at 1051 0. T he S ta te D ep ar

tm en t’ s pr onounc em en ts, w hil e not bin din g, a re e nti tle d to de fere nc e. Baxter , 423 F . 3d at 37 3 n. 7 ( “ A lth oughnot c onc lus ive , the m eanin g attr ibu te d to tr eaty

pr ovi sio ns b y

the gov er

nm en t a ge nc ie s c harg ed

w iththe ir negotiatio n and enforcem ent is entitled to great w eight.”). A l t h o u g h ac o u rti s n o tb a rr e df r o m c o n s i d e r i n g e v i d e n c e th a tah o me co untry c anpr ote ct

a n a t- ri sk c hil d, ne ith er

the Co nve nti on n or

I CA RAr equir e it to d o so : [T ] o de fi ne the iss ue not

a s w he the r the re is a gr av e ri sk o f harm , but as whether

the law ful custodi an’ s country has good law s or even as w he the r it both ha s and z ea lou sly e nf or ce s su chlaw s, dis re gard s th e language of the Conventi on and its im plem enting st atute; for they say nothin g a bout the law s inthe pe tit ion ing pare nt’ s c ountry . T he om iss ionto m en tio n th em doe s no t se em

to ha ve be ena n a cc ide nt— the kin d of

sli p indr af

tsm an shi p th at

c ourts s om et im es c or

re ct in the exercise of their interpretive authority
. If handing over custod y of a ch ild to anabusi ve pare nt c re at es agr av e ri sk o f harm to the c hil d, in the se nse that the pare nt m ay w ithsom e nonn eg lig ibl e pr oba bil ity injure the child, the child shou ld not be handed over, howe ver se ve rel y th e la w of t he pa ren t’s co un try m ig ht pu ni sh su ch be ha vi or . V an D e Sand

e , 43 1 F .3dat 5 71 . T o r equir e a re spon de nt t o a dduc e ev ide nc e re gard ing the c ondi tio n of the l e g a l a n ds o c i a l s e rv i c e s ys t e ms i n ac o u n t ry s h e h a s f l e dc r e a t e s d i f

f i c u l tp r o b l e msAs we discuss be low, our rule doe s not prohibit courts from consider ing, a s part of the 2 discretionar

y decision to deny

return unde r Article 13(b), whe ther the c hild’s country of habitual residenc e may

be able to protect the c hild from harm. We simply hold that the respondingpare nt may meet her burden of

provingg rave risk of har m without adducingevidenc e re g ardingthe home country ’s ability

or willingne ss to offer

the child protec tion. 19 of pr oof , a nd a ppe ar s no t t o have be enc ont em plate d by the Co nve nti on. A lth ough we are cognizant of the Conventi on’s goal of quickly returning abducted child ren to the ir c ountri es of

ha bit ua l r es ide nc e, the te xt o f the Co nve nti on and the co m m en tari es on i t pl ac e a hig he r pr em ium on c hil dr en ’ s sa fe ty

than onthe ir re tur n. C onse que ntl y , w e de cl ine to im pose on a r es pond ing pare nt a

duty to pr ove that he r ch ild ’ s c ountry of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e is unable or unw ill ing to amel i o ra t e t h e g ra v e r i s ko f h ar m wh i ch wo u l do t h erwi s e a cc o m p an y t h e c h i l d ’s re tur n. 2 B
. U nde rta ki ngs When a court determ ines that returning a child to his count ry of habitual re sid en ce w oul d e xpos e him to a gr av e ri sk o f harm , it is “ not bound t o or de r the re tur n of the c hil d. ” Co nve nti on, a rt . 13. W e re vie wf or abuse of dis cr et iona dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to de ny ape tit ionf

or r et ur n f oll ow ing af

ind ing of gr av e ris k o f ha rm . See Sim cox , 511 F. 3d at 608 (“ Once the district court determ ines that the gr av e ri sk thr es hol d is m et , onl y the n is the c ourt ve ste d by the Conventio n with the dis cr et ion to re fu se to or de r re tur n . . . . G ive n th e int en se ly20

fa ct -b ound

na tur e of the inquir

y , dis tr ic t c ourts s houl d be a llo w ed a de qua te discretion.”). T he re is a lon g- standi ng tra dit ionin E ngl ish -s pe ak ing c ountri es of pr ote ct ing c hil dr enf

ro m harm thr oughc ourt or de rs w hic h r equir e pare nts or gu ard ia ns to tak e st ep s t o e ns ur e ch il dr en ’s saf et y . See Paul R. Beaum ont & Peter E. M c El e a v y, T

he H ague Co nv en tio n on I

nte rnat ion al C

hil d A bduc tio n 157- 58 (1999) (discuss ing legal origin s of undertakings ). T he concept of court-ordere d conditi ons on the return of c hildren has been im ported to Hague Convention cases by cou rts in th e Uni te d Ki ng do m , Can ad a, Aus tra li a, an d t he Uni te d S ta te s. Id
. at 161- 68; se e als o Lin da Sil be rm an , In te rpr et ing the H ague A bduc tio n C

onv en tio n: In Search of a Global

Jurispru dence , 38 U . C. D av is L
. Re v. 104 9, 107 6 ( 2005 ) (n oti ng c ourts i n c om

m on l awc ountri es have be enw ill ing to en te r m ir ro r or de rs , safe har bor orders, and oth er undertakings, w hile civil law countries have been
m or e re sis tant t o th ei r use ). U nde rt ak ing s c om m onl y inc lud e re str ai nin g or de rs , ar range m en ts f

or tr an spor ta tio n and l odgi ng c ost s, a nd s om et im es inc lud e pr ov is io ns fora ch il d’s ed uc at io n. See Ro xa nn e Hoe gg er, W hat if She L ea ves? D om es tic V

iol en ce Ca ses U

nde r th e H

ague Co nv en tio n an d th e In suf fic ie nc y of the U nde rta ki ngs R em ed

y , 18 Berk el ey

W om en ’s L.J. 18 1, 1 83 (20 03 ). Undertakings m ay

take m any

form s, including d irect order s by the review ing court21

pr ovi din g c ondi tio na l r et ur n of the c hil d and m ir

ro r- or de rs ( al so c al le d sa fe harb or or de rs ) re qui ri ng the pe tit ion ing pare nt t o ob ta in a c ondi tio na l c ust ody

or de r in the co untry of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e be fo re r et

ur n of the c hil d is or de re d. B ea um ont & McEl eav y , supra , at 1 61 -1 68 . Although the practice is far from uniform , som e courts hold th at once a re spon de nt h as sho w n ac hil d is a t gr av e ri sk o f harm , the bur de n sh if ts t o th e pe tit ion er to pr ovi de e vid en ce that sp ec if ic und er takin gs w ill a lle viate the id en ti fie d ri sk
. See, e. g., Danaipou r v. McL arey , 286 F . 3d 1 , 15 ( 1st Ci r. 200 2) (h old ing “pr opon en t of

the und er

takin g bo re the bur de n of sho w ing ” co untry

of habit ua l r es ide nc e co uld

pr ovi de a de qua te e va luatio n of a lle ge d a buse ); se e als o Fe der v. Ev ans-Feder , 63 F . 3d 2 17, 226 ( 3d C ir
. 199 5) ( ci tin g Thomson v. Th om son , 119 D . L . R. 4th253 ( Can. S up. 199 4) ( “ [I ] n or de r to am el ior at e an y shor t- te rm harm to the c hil d, c ourts i n th e ap pr opr ia te c ir cu m stanc es have m ad e re tur n c ont ing en t up on ‘ unde rt ak ing s’ f ro m the pe tit ion ing pare nt. ”)
. Whe n th e petition er m akes such a showing, the district court m ust factor the proposed un de rta ki ng s i nt o i ts di sc ret io na ry de ci si on to gra nt or d en y return. Undertakings are not m entioned exp licitly in the Conventi on; ho we ver, they ar e ap pe al ing ins of

ar a s th ey m ay pe rm it ch ildre n to be sa fe ly r et ur ne d to the ir co untri es of

ha bit ua l r es ide nc e, a llo w ing the hom e fo rum to re sol ve c hil d c ust ody22

and placem ent dispu tes within the context of the child’s cultural and legal tr ad iti ons. F or

that r ea son, m an y

c om m en ta tor s have a dvoc at ed the use of unde rt ak ing s a s ade sir ab le m eans o f pr ev en tin g r ev ie w ing c ourts f ro m be co m ing em broiled in un derly ing custo dy dispu tes while ef

fectuating the Conventio n’ s dual goa ls o f en sur ing c hil dr en ’ s sa fe ty a nd r et ur nin g th em

to the ir c ountri es of habi tu al res id en ce. See Merl e H. W ei ne r, Navigatin g the Road Betw een U nif orm ityand

Progr es s: T

he Ne ed for P urpo siv e A nal

ys is o f the H ague Co nv en tio n on the Ci vi l A spe ct s of I nte rnat ion al C

hil d A bduc tio n , 3 3 C o l u m. Hum . R ts. L . R ev. 275, 338 n.242 (2002 ) (c ollecting citatio ns). Other com

m entators, howe ver, have taken the positi on that un dertakings are anune nf or ce ab le im

posi tio n onthe abil ity

of ahom e co untry

to re sol ve c ust ody dis put es und er

the lawof

it s own natio n. A lth oughr ev ie w ing c ourts are f re e to en te r co ndi tio na l r et

ur n or de rs , the y

r et ai n no pow er

to en fo rc e tho se or de rs a cr oss na ti on al bo rd ers . See Car ol S. B ruch, The U nmet Ne eds of Domestic Violence Victim s and Their Chil dren in Hague Child Abduction Conventio n Cases , 3 8 F a m. L. Q. 529, 543 (200 4) (citing British stud y showing un dertakings orders wer e violated in two-thirds of child abduction cases and honored in on ly one-fourth); Merle H . W einer, I

nte rnat ion al C

hil d A bduc tio n an d th e E

sc ape fro m D om es tic Violence , 69 F or dham

L . Re v. 593 , 678 ( 2000 ) (“ [T ] he re is curr en tly no r em edy23

fo r the vio la tio n of

a n un de rt ak ing
. C ontrary state m en ts b y

som e co urts are sim

ply wro ng .”); Beau m on t & McEl eav y , supra , a t 16 5 ( “ [I ] f one of the A rt ic le 12 o r 13 ex ce pti ons is a

ppl ic ab le the c ourt sh oul d no t e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to r et ur n th e ch ild unl es s e nf

or ce m en t of

the und er

takin gs c anbe guarante ed
. ”) ; se e als o D anai pour , 286 F. 3d at 24-25 ) (noting inabi lity of Sw edish courts to order sexual ab use inv es tig at ionor

to lim it vis itatio n by

a lle ge dly pe rp etratin g pare nt d

ur ing pe nde nc y of c ust ody pr oc ee din gs)
. B ec au se the c ourt gr an tin g or de ny ing a petition for r eturn lacks j urisdictio n to enforce any undertaking s it m ay

order, even the m ost c ar ef ull y c ra ft ed c ondi tio ns o f re tur

n m ay pr ove ine ff

ec tiv e in p ro te ct ing ac h i l df r o m r i s ko f

h a rm. T he S ta te D ep ar

tm en t ha s r ec om

m en de d any

und er takin gs o rd er ed

pur suant to the H ag ue Co nve nti on b e “ lim ite d insc ope a nd f urthe r the Co nve nti on’ s go al of en sur ing the pr om

pt r et ur n of the c hil d to the j ur isd ic tio n of ha bit ua l r es ide nc e, so that the jurisdiction can resolve the custodydispu te.” D anai pour , 286 F . 3d at 22 (citing Letter

from Catherine W . B rown, Assistant Le gal Adviser for Consul ar Af fa i rs , Un i t ed St at es De p ’t o f S t at e, t o Mi ch ae l Ni ch o l l s , Lo rd Ch an ce l l o r’s Dep ’t, Chi ldAbduc ti on Uni t, Un it edKin gd om (Aug . 10 , 19 95 ), av ailabl e at ht tp :/ /h il to nh ou se .co m

/a rti cl es /Un de rta ki ng _R

pt .tx t, l as t v is it edMay 2, 20 08 ). T he S ta te D ep ar

tm en t ha s e xpl ai ne d “ [u ] nde rt ak ing s th at do m or e than th is w oul d24

appear questionable un der the Convention , par ticularly when they

address in great detail issues of custo dy , visitation, and m aintenance.” Id
. A lth oughthe S ta te D ep ar tm en t do es not

opp ose the use of

und er takin gs i n al l c ir cu m stanc es , it

ha s c au tio ne d: If the .
. . c ourt is presented with unequi vocal evidence that return would cause the child a “ grave risk” of phy sical or psy cholog ical harm
. . . then it would seem

less appropriate for the c ourt to enter ex te nsi ve und er

takin gs than to de ny

the r et ur n r eque st. T he de ve lop m en t of

e xte nsi ve und er

takin gs i n su chac ont ex t c oul d em br oil the c ourt i n th e m er its of the und er ly ing c ust ody

iss ue s and w oul d te nd t o di lut e the f or ce of the A rt ic le 13( b) e xc ep tio n. Id
. a t 25 ; Sim cox , 511 F . 3d at 60 7. I n e xa m ini ng this of fi ci al gui danc e, the Se ve nthCi rc uit

ha s no te d “ unde rt ak ing s are m ost e ff ec tiv e w he n th e goa l i s to pr es er ve the status quo of

the part ie s pr ior

to the w ro ngf

ul r em ova l. T his , of course, is not the goal in cases wher e there is evidence that the status q uo was abusive.” V

an D e Sand

e , 431 F . 3d at 57 2 ( quot ing D anai pour , 286 F. 3d at 25). Undertakings m ay

be useful in som e situations , par ticularly in cases w here pare nta l vi ole nc e is n ot a lle ge d. Whe n gr av e ri sk o f harm to a ch ild

e xis ts a s a re sul t of dom es tic abuse , how ev er , c ourts h av e be eninc re as ing ly w ar y of or de ri ng un de rta ki ng s t o s afeg ua rdth e ch il d. Sim cox , 511 F . 3d at 60 6; D anai pour , 286 F.3 d a t 2 6 (“ Whe re s ub st an ti al all eg at io ns are m ad e an d a cred ib le th reat ex is ts , a co urt sh oul d be part ic ularl y w ar y about usi ng p ote nti al ly

une nf or ce ab le25

unde rt ak ing s to tr

y to pr ote ct

the c hil d. ”)
. A s th e Se ve nthCi rc uit e xpl ai ne d in V an D e Sand

e : R e tu rn p l u s c o n d i t i o n s ( “un d e rt a k i n g s ” ) c a n i n s o me, mayb e man y, ca se s pr ope rl y

a cc om m oda te the int er es t i n th e ch ild ’ s w el fare to the int er es ts o f the c ountry

of the c hil d’ s ha

bit ua l r es ide nc e. O ft enthe bulkof the evidence concer ning risk of harm

will be f ound in that country and the left-behind parent’ s defense to charges of a buse m ay be m or e dif

fi cu lt an d c ost ly

to pr ep ar e an d pr es en t i n th e co untry to which the abducter has fle d. But in cases of child abuse th e balance m ay shift against return plus conditio ns . . . . “ [U ] ndertakings are m ost e ff ec tiv e w he n th e goa l i s to pr es er ve the status quo of

the parties prior to the wr ongful rem oval. T his, of course, is not th e goal in cases wher e there is evidence that the status q uo was abusive.” 431 F. 3d at 57 1- 72 ( quot ing D anai pour , 28 6 F .3dat 2 5)
. W ith tho se principles in m ind, we turn to the facts of this case. A s the trial co ur t t el ls th e st ory , in the w an ing m om en ts o f the [ ev ide nti ar y ] he ar ing , a ft er

the c los e of evidence, a fter or al argum ents wer e concluded, and afte r a short rece ss in which the [court] decided to take the m atter under subm iss ion , pe tit ion er ’ s c ouns el r eq ue ste d “ one m or e bit e at

the ap ple ” by m en tio nin g, f

or the f ir st t im e, the c onc ep t of “ unde rt ak ing s. ” S pe ci fi ca lly , pe tit ion er ’ s c ouns el r eque ste d to be giv ena n op portun ity , a t so m e fu tur e da te , to put on e vid en ce of

the purportedly“procedural issue” of possib le conditio ns that thi s Court m ight im pose in order to safeguard Sam upon his return to Australia. Be ca use the Marc h 22 he ar ing ha d e sse nti al ly c onc lud ed , a nd b ec au se it w as e vid en t that pe tit ion er ha d no f ur the r ev ide nc e or

a rg um en t t o present at that tim e, the Court adj ourned the hearing with the caveat that petitio ner’ s “ undertaking s” request w ouldbe reser ved for further d i s c u s s i o n i f

n e c e s s a ry.I t is not clear what evidence Ba ran w ould have pr esente d had such a hear ing be en 3 c onve ne d. Af

te r t he c ourt de nie d th e pe tit ion

fo r r e tur n, B ara n s ub mitte d tw o r e le va

nt i te ms t o the cour t in connection with his motion for a newtrial: an af fidavit from a

n Australian soc ial service manag er pr oviding g ener al information about Austra lian child protec tive service s and an aff idavit from his sister, who volunteer ed to allow Samuel to live in her home . (Recor d Ex cer pt K, Exh. A & B .) B ara

n d id n ot p ro po se a

sp e c if ic sa fe ty pla n f or Samue l, s ug g e st Sa

mue l w ou ld qualify for pr otective se rvice s were he to be r eturne d to Australia, or indicate how his sister (who once told B eaty

that Ba ran’ s abuse wa s “none of her business,” Baran , 479 F. Supp. 2d at 1262) would be able to protect Samuel in the futur e whe n she had f ailed to do so in the past. Article 11 of

the Convention require s courts to resolve petitions withi n six wee ks from 4 their filingdate or

be re ady to provide a r eason why

they have not done so. Convention, art. 11. 26 B aran , 47 9 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 27 1- 72 . N o a ddi tio na l he ar ing s w er e co nve ne d to a ddr es s th e que sti on o f unde rt ak ing s, a nd o n M ar ch28, 200 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e pe tit ion ou tri gh t. Baran c ont en ds i t w as e rr or f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de ny the pe tit ionw ith out fi rs tal l o wi n g h i m

t o p re s en tfu rt h erev i d en ce o f p o s s i b l e u n d er t ak i n g s . We 3 dis ag re e. I n it s or de r de ny ing the pe tit ion , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d a llo w ing Baran to pr es en t a ddi tio na l e vid en ce w oul d un dul y de lay the r es olu tio n of

the pr oc ee din gs. T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as und er no o bli ga tio n to c ont inu e the 4
ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing in or de r to p er

m it Baran to pr oduc e ev ide nc e of und er takin gs, an d B ar anha s pr ovi de d no e xc use f or his f ai lur e to a dduc e suc h e vid en ce a t the Marc h 22 he ar ing
. C onse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse his dis cr et ionby de nyin g B aran ’s req ue st to pro po se un de rta ki ng s ata fu tu re ev id en ti ary he ari ng .27

Inde ci din g to de ny

the pe tit ionf

or r et ur n, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as li m ite d to the e vid en ce in the r ec or d be fo re it
. T ha t e vid en ce inc lud ed the te sti m ony

a nd supp ortin g e xhi bit s pr es en te d a t the Marc h 22 he ar ing , a nd B ar an ’ s a ff idavit atta ch ed to the pe tit ionf

or r et ur n. T he e vid en ce did

not c ont ai n any

spe ci fi c pr opos al f

or appr opr ia te und er

takin gs, suc h a s ac ust ody , vis itatio n, or fam ily -specific c hild welfar e plan, which would am eliorate the grave risk of harm to whi ch th e d is tri ctco ur t fo un d S am ue l wo ul d b e ex po se d o n re tu rn . In light of the evidence before it, the district court reasoned any proposed undertaking s would be inapprop riate given the nature of the ca se: T he re is ab undant, c re dib le e vid en ce be fo re the Co urt tha t B ar anis a violent and abusiv e m an with a lengthy history of inflicting ph y sical an d ps y ch olo gic al abuse on those he ost en sib ly lov es the m ost . H is vol at ile pe rs ona lity , his pr ope nsi ty f or a lc ohol abuse a nd h is f

re que nt state m en ts o f thi nly

ve ile d hatr ed

f or S am a nd S am ’ s m oth er

pr ior to Sam 's re m oval com

bine to prod uce a highly

com busti ble powder keg from which this Court is powerless to protect Sam
. For this Court bli the ly to shi p S am

ba ck to A ustra lia

sub j ec t t o e la bor at el y c ra ft ed , w el l- m eanin g c ondi tio ns tha t m ay or m ay not be e nf or ce d or en fo rc ea ble by a n Austra lian c ourt w oul d be to ab dic at e its ove rarc hin g r es pons ibi lity to pr ote ct

thi s c hil d f

ro m harm , w hil e sim ultaneous ly

entangling this Court in cus todym atters that excee d its auth or ity

and j ur isd ic tio n. T his the Co urt w ill not do. Id
. at 1 27 3. Baran bo re the bur de n of pr opos ing und er

takin gs tha t w oul d am el ior at e the grave risk of harm

to which Sam

uel would be exposed o n return to Australia, y et28

he adduced no evid ence on the question
. Under the c ircum stances, the tr ial court re as ona bly c onc lud ed

it c oul d no t gu ar an te e Sam ue l’ s sa fe ty

sho uld it or de r him

to b e r et u rn ed t o Au s t ra l i a f o r f u rt h ercu s t o d y p ro ce ed i n g s . We c o n cl u d e t h e c o u rt ’s de ci sio n to de ny

the pe tit ionf

or r et ur n f el l w el l w ith in i ts d isc re tio n. III. CONCLUSION T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as pr es en te d w ithe vid en ce that B ar anha s be envio le nt in the presence of his son, has m ade threats to the child’ s safety , and du e to injury an d a lc ohol abuse is una

ble to care pr ope rl y

f or him se lf or his c hil d. B as ed

on this ev ide nc e, the c ourt di d no t e rr w he n it c onc lud ed

r et ur nin g S am ue l t o Austra lia would expose hi m

to a grave r isk of phy sical or psy cholog ical harm
. Moreover, be ca use the c ourt w as not

pr es en te d w itha ny

pr opos ed und er takin gs tha t c oul d am el ior at e the r isk

of harm to the c hil d un de r the c ir cu m stanc es pr es en te d, the co urt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing the pe tit ionf

or r et ur n. AFFIRMED.