1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE ALBOU,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 22-23128-cv-RNS

ANA MARIA TORO,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent, ANA-MARIA TORO, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Answer 

and Affirmative Defenses to the Verified Petition, and states:

Executive Summary

1. Admitted but denied as to entitlement to relief.

2. Denied.

3. Admitted but denied as to those allegations relating to unlawful abduction/illegal 

retention of the child.

4. Respondent admits a judgment was entered adopting the parties’ agreement. 

Mother denies the allegations to the extent the translation is not accurate and all allegations flowing 

from the translation.

5. Respondent admits a judgment was entered adopting the parties’ agreement. 

Mother denies the allegations to the extent the translation is not accurate and all allegations flowing 

from the translation and denied as to the legal conclusion relating to their agreement.

Jurisdiction

6. Admitted as to this Court’s jurisdiction, but denied as to entitlement to relief.

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 1 of 11
2

Venue

7. Admitted as to venue, but denied as to entitlement to relief.

Statement of Facts

8. Admitted as to cohabitation and the child’s birth, and denied as to the remaining 

allegations.

9. Denied as to the dates, admitted as to the Mother beginning a relationship with her 

current husband after the relationship with Petitioner had ended.

10. Admitted as to the agreed travel with Petitioner, but denied as to the 

characterization of Respondent’s Husband, the father of the child’s half-brother.

11. Admitted as to travel, but denied as to dates and entitlement to relief.

12. The legal status of the French civil solidarity pact PACS (pacte civil de solidarité) 

speaks for itself. Admitted as to legal proceedings beginning in France and denied as to the legal 

conclusion or order of the French Family Court and the remaining allegations.

13. Admitted that Respondent and Petitioner agreed that she and the Child would 

permanently separate from each other and that Respondent would continue to serve as the agreed 

primary parent caring for the Child, the remaining allegations are denied.

14. Admitted that the French Family Court entered an order on June 14, 2021. The 

document speaks for itself, Respondent denies Petitioner’s interpretation, legal conclusion, and the 

remaining allegations.

15. Admitted that Respondent became pregnant with the child’s half-brother and that 

she became engaged to her present Husband, but denied as to the remaining allegations. 

Respondent objects to the pejorative characterization of the child’s stepfather as “internet fiancé”.

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 2 of 11
3

16. Admitted Petitioner consented to the Respondent and Child traveling to Florida, the 

child’s special needs, the tacit understanding Respondent is the primary parent meeting the child’s 

special needs, that Petitioner returned to France, that Respondent and Child remained in Florida, 

that Petitioner would frequently travel here, rent a home near Mother and Child, regularly 

timeshare, has stayed in Respondent’s home, helped select the child’s school and programs, and 

acquiesced to the Child remaining here. Denied as to the remaining allegations.

17. Denied as to the hearsay statements and admitted as to the birth of N.S., the halfbrother of the minor child E.A and admitted that Respondent’s pregnancy was high risk.

18. Denied as to the hearsay statements, admitted that Petitioner consented and 

otherwise acquiesced to the child remaining in the United States with Respondent verbally and in 

writing, Respondent can only speculate as to what Petitioner knew and therefore lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegations, and the remaining 

allegations are denied.

19. Denied as to the hearsay statements, denied as to a purported promise, admitted

Petitioner returns regularly to Florida for timesharing, has stayed in Respondent’s home, rented an 

apartment, exercises timesharing, and otherwise tacitly and expressly acquiesced to Respondent 

and Child remaining in Florida, and denied as to the remaining allegations.

20. Respondent admits Petitioner returned to Florida to exercise timesharing, admits 

the Aventura police were called after Petitioner refused to exchange the child, and denied as to the 

remaining allegations.

21. Admitted as to the filing of a petition, but denied as to entitlement to relief.

Legal Analysis

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 3 of 11
4

22. The Hague Convention speaks for itself. Respondent denies any allegations that are 

not consistent with the text of the Hague Convention.

23. The Hague Convention speaks for itself, and Respondent denies any allegations 

that are not consistent with the text of the Hague Convention.

24. The Hague Convention speaks for itself, and Respondent denies any allegations 

that are not consistent with the text of the Hague Convention.

25. The Hague Convention speaks for itself, denied as to the dates, and Respondent 

denies any allegations that are not consistent with the text of the Hague Convention. Admitted 

child was born in 2017.

26. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speak for themselves. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

27. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

28. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

29. Denied as to habitual residence. Denied as the translation of the exhibit attached to 

the Verified Petition is not accurate, and denied as to entitlement to relief.

30. Denied.

31. Admitted, but denied as to entitlement to relief.

32. Denied.

33. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

34. Denied.

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 4 of 11
5

35. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. In the event habitual 

residence is France, any determination of Petitioner’s rights of custody must be in breach of rights 

of custody of France. France ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

and the Child is protected under the CRC and is a party to the European Convention on human 

rights. Respondent denies Petitioner is entitled to relief.

36. Denied as the allegation is a conclusion of law. In the event habitual residence is 

France, any determination of Petitioner’s rights of custody must be in breach of rights of custody 

of France. France ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Child 

is protected under the CRC and is a party to the European Convention on human rights.

Accordingly, Respondent denies Petitioner is entitled to relief.

37. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

38. Denied.

39. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies the legal 

conclusion or that Petitioner is entitled to relief.

40. The allegation is a conclusion of law and alleges no facts and is therefore denied.

41. The allegation is a conclusion of law and alleges no facts and is therefore denied.

42. The allegation is a conclusion of law and alleges no facts and is therefore denied.

43. Respondent is without knowledge and therefore denies same.

44. Admitted Respondent and Child traveled to Florida with the advance consent of 

Petitioner, denied as to the characterizations and entitlement to relief.

45. Admitted Mother was exercising her custody rights, and denied as to the legal 

conclusion and that Petitioner has entitlement to relief.

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 5 of 11
6

46. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

47. The non-legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief and denies the conclusion of law.

48. Admitted as to the child’s age, denied as to Petitioner making a factual 

determination reserved to the court and to Petitioner’s conclusion of law.

49. Denied that Respondent wrongfully retained, admitted as to the timing of the 

Petition, and denied that Petitioner is entitled to relief.

50. The authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies Petitioner is 

entitled to relief and denies the conclusion of law.

51. The case authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief and denies the conclusion of law.

52. Denied as to “plotted to emigrate to the United States with CHILD” and the marital 

status of Respondent, and Respondent’s intent, and the characterization of Respondent’s 

consensual travel to Florida, the remaining allegations are admitted and Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief.

53. Denied.

54. The legal authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief and denies the conclusion of law.

55. The case authority cited by Petitioner speaks for itself. Respondent denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief and denies the conclusion of law.

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 6 of 11
7

56. Denied as to Respondent’s marital status and reason for the Respondent and Child’s 

consensual travel to Florida, the characterization of the judgment and affidavit. The agreement 

speaks for itself. Respondent denies Petitioner is entitled to relief and denies the conclusion of law.

57. Denied. The agreement speaks for itself. Respondent denies Petitioner is entitled to 

relief and denies the conclusion of law.

58. Respondent is without knowledge as to the allegations and therefore denies same.

59. Denied.

Request for Provisional Remedies

60. ICARA speaks for itself, and Respondent denies any allegations that are 

inconsistent with the text of ICARA and the Convention.

61. ICARA speaks for itself, and Respondent denies any allegations that are 

inconsistent with the text of ICARA and the Convention.

62. Respondent denies any allegation not specifically admitted, controverted or denied.

WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that she has wrongfully retained E.A. or any allegations 

that are not consistent with the text of relevant cases, statutes, and treaties. In addition, Respondent 

denies Petitioner set forth a correct translation of the French custody decree, or full or fair recitation 

of the governing law. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the Verified Petition, and the

Court should deny the requested relief.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

63. The alleged removal or retention of the Child was not wrongful as contemplated by 

Article 3 of the Hague Convention because the child’s habitual residence is not France. Father 

alleges the Child’s habitual residence is based on an agreement between the parents. The French 

agreement is not properly translated, and the determination of habitual residence is more than just 

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 7 of 11
8

domicile and nationality. The child is an admitted special needs child with autism, and was four 

years of age when the parties entered an agreement in France on June 14, 2021 designating the 

“habitual residence” of the child with Respondent/Mother (“fixation de la residence habituelle de 

l’enfant chez sa mere.”). Under French law, the designation is roughly primary residential 

parenting and, given the special needs, age of the child, and that by agreement Mother would be 

the parent overwhelmingly caring of the child, the habitual residence of the minor child was not 

geographical fixed in France. The child is alleged to have autism by Petitioner, and is in need of, 

and agreed to be enrolled in, special classes and therapy in Florida. The parties discussed and 

agreed to an appropriate school in Florida for the child, a therapist in Florida, and that the child 

started occupational therapy in Florida. Respondent has family here and no family in France. The 

child's habitual residence is with the Mother in Florida. The habitual residence determination is 

dependent on the totality of the circumstances specific to this case, not the agreement between the 

parents, and no one factor is dispositive. Petitioner cannot establish a prima facie case of wrongful 

removal or retention under the Hague Convention. Accordingly, judgment should be entered in 

favor of the Respondent.

64. In the event this Court determines France, and not the United States, is the habitual 

residence of the child, any determination of Petitioner’s rights of custody under Article 3 of the 

Convention must be in breach under the law of France. France ratified the United Nations 

Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “CRC”) and is a party to the European Convention on 

Human Rights. An order of return to France would violate the Child’s rights under articles 3, 9, 

11 and 23 of the CRC. Accordingly, any order of return, based on Petitioner’s rights of custody 

must be assessed must be in the best interests of the child, and the grounds must show that the 

child’s best interests were a primary consideration. The Petitioner himself alleges the Child has

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 8 of 11
9

autism, and as a result is particularly vulnerable. A return and possible separation of the Child 

from Respondent could have serious and potentially irreversible effects on the Child’s mental 

health because of the Child’s autism and the fact Respondent is the Child’s primary caregiver and 

the person with whom he feels safe and has created the strongest emotional bonds. 

65. The petition must be denied pursuant to Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention, 

because Petitioner consented to, and/or subsequently acquiesced to, the child remaining in the 

United States with the Mother. The child is a young, special needs child. Petitioner consented for 

Respondent and child to travel to Florida. Petitioner subsequently acquiesced to Respondent and 

child staying in Florida. The child has been seeing an agreed therapist in Florida, and is enrolled 

in an agreed appropriate school for his special needs. Petitioner, and his long-time romantic 

partner, regularly travel to timeshare here, and both Petitioner and his romantic partner have stayed 

at Respondent’s home with the child in Florida. Petitioner has rented an apartment here, and has 

taken other steps demonstrating acquiescence, written and tacit agreement, demonstrating a 

consistent attitude of acquiescence over a significant period of time. In the event Petitioner could

establish a prima facie case of wrongful removal or retention under the Hague Convention, 

judgment should be entered in favor of the Respondent based on Petitioner’s consent and/or

subsequent acquiescence.

66. The petition must be denied pursuant to Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, 

because there is a grave risk that the child's return would expose the child to physical or 

psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The child is five years 

of age, and as Petitioner admits in his Petition, is a special needs child on the spectrum. The child

has been seeing a therapist here for months, is enrolled in school here, has acclimated to Florida, 

has family ties here, and regularly timeshares with Petitioner/Father here. Ripping a young special 

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 9 of 11
10

needs child on the spectrum from the safety of his agreed to therapist, special needs therapy, and 

school would involve a grave risk that his return to France would expose the child to psychological 

harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

67. Petitioner’s request for an order that Respondent pay court costs, legal fees and 

transportation costs related to the return of the child would be clearly inappropriate. Mother is not 

employed and a fee award would impose such a financial hardship on her that it would significantly 

impair her ability to care for the child, and she has a good faith belief that her actions were legal 

and/or justified.

WHEREFORE, Respondent/Mother respectfully requests entry of an order denying the 

Verified Petition for Return to France, entering an order Petitioner take nothing by this action, 

ordering Respondent to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any further relief this 

Court deems just and proper.

Dated October 21, 2022.

Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A.

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 3400

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 374-0937

Email: ron@rhkauffman.com

/s/ Ronald H. Kauffman

Ronald H. Kauffman, Esq.

FBN 970743

Attorneys for Respondent

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 10 of 11
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by CM/ECF on 

October 21, 2022, to all counsel of record on the service list below.

/s/Ronald H. Kauffman

Ronald H. Kauffman, Esq.

Service List

Paul A. McKenna, Florida Bar No. 348481

Paul A. McKenna & Associates, P.A.

7300 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 200

Miami, FL 33138

Telephone: (305) 662-9908

paul@pmcklaw.com

litigations@pmcklaw.com

Case 1:22-cv-23128-RNS Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 11 of 11