PRECEDENTI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 10- 1678 & 10- 1825

M AR I NA KAR P E NKO , A p p e llee /C ro ss -A p p e llan t

v. PAU L LEEND ERTZ , A ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D
. C
. N o. 5- 09- cv- 03207 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e T hom as M
. G ol den

A r gued J ul y12, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , A L D ISE R T , and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t24, 2010) St ephen J

. C ul l en, E s qui r e ( A r gue d) K ell yA
. P o w ers, E sq u ir e Jo sh u a J. G ay field, E sq u ir e M ile s & S to c k b ri d g e , P . C
. 10 L i ghtSt r eet B al t i m or e, M D 21202

C ouns el forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l ant2 L i nda ShayG ar dner , E s qui r e ( A r gue d) G ar dnerL aw O ffi ces 740 M ai n St r eet B ethl ehem, PA 18018

C ouns el forA ppel l ant/ C r os s A ppel l ee

O P I N I O N

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: P a u l L e e n d e rtz , fa th e r o f th e m in o r ch ild a t iss u e in th is pr ocee di ng, appea l s t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr antof a pe t i t i on fi l ed byt he mot her , M ar i na K arpenko, fort he chi l d’ s r etur n undert he H a g u e C o n v e n tio n o n th e C iv il A sp e c ts o f In ter n a tio n a l C h ild A bduct i on. For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he gr ant o f K a rp e n k o ’s p e tit io n a n d o rd e r th e m in o r ch ild ’ s im m e d iate return t o h er m otheri n the N et herl and s. I . Backg r ound T hi s act i on fol l ow s a l ong, b it te rdi s put e betw een L e e n d e rt z a n d K a rp e n k o o v e r c u s to d y o f th e irm in o r c h ild , E .L ., b o rn in P en n sy lv a n ia in 2 0 0 1
. L ee n d ertz an d K arp en k o w ere m arr i ed att he t i m e of E. L
. ’ s bir t h, buts epar at ed i n 2002 and offi ci al l ydi vor ced i n 2 007. I n Sept ember 2002, t he Penns y l vani a C our tof C om m on Pleas i s s ued an or der i ncorpor at i ng a C us t odySt i pul at i on exec ut ed byt he part i es w h ich p rov ided th a t (1 ) K arp en k o w o u ld o b tai n p ri m ary p h y sical cu stod yan d li v e w ith E
. L
. in the U k raine , K arp en k o ’s nat i ve countr y ; and ( 2) L eende r t z w oul d have r egul arvi s i t at i on r i ght s to b e ar r anged i n t he U kr ai ne, t he N ether l ands , ort he U ni t ed St at es . L eende r t z has fami l y i n t he N ether l ands and, as a c o m m e rc ia l p ilo t, is a b le to v is it th e N e th e rl a n d s .3 K arpenko i ni ti al l ym oved w i t h E

. L
. t o t he U kr ai ne, but a tLe e n d e r t z ’ s r e q u e s t , s h e r e l o c a t e d t o Ed e , Neth e r l a n d s . E. L. arr i ved i n t he N ether l ands at age t w o and bega n at t endi ng D ut ch publ i c s chool at age four
. E
. L
. has num er ous D ut ch fr i ends and s o c i a l i z e s wi t h Karp e n k o ’ s r e l a t i v e s i n t h e Net her l a n d s . E. L. lea rn e d D u tch a s h e r pr im a ry lan g u a g e a n d b e c a m e im m e rse d in D u tc h c u ltu re . A l t hough K arpenko’ s r el ocat i on fr om t he U kr ai ne t o t he N ether l ands w as os t ens i bl yt o acc om m odat e Leende rt z, K arpenko re fus ed t o al l ow ful l vi s i t at i on i n acc or dance w i t h t he cour t
- or der ed C us t odySt i pul at i on. I n 2007, fol l ow i ng fur t her d e ter io ra tio n o f re latio n s, K a rp e n k o m o v e d to a n e w lo c a tio n in E de, N ether la nds , and r efus ed t o pr ovi de Leendert z w i t h her addr es s orphone number

. In 2008, bot h par t i es fi l ed pet i t i ons fors ol e phy s i cal and l egal cus t ody : s he i n t he D ut ch D i s t r i ct C our tof A r nhem, he i n t he P ennsy l vani a C our tof C om m on Pl eas . T he D ut ch courts t ay ed K arpenko’ s pet i t i on pendi ng a d e c is io n b yth e P e n n s y lv a n ia c o u rt
. B yO r derof M ay20, 2 0 0 9 , t he Penns y l vani a C our tof C om m on Pl eas gr ant ed s ol e cus t ody of E
. L
. t o L eende r t z. T hat or derpurpor t s t o ( 1) t r ans fers ole l egal and pr i m aryphy s i cal c u sto d yto L e e n d e rtz ; (2 ) g ra n t L e e n d e rtz “ so le a u th o rityto a p p lyf o r a n d o b tain a U n ited S tate s p a ss p o rt f o r th e m in o r c h ild w i t houtM ot her ’ s cons entorauthor i zat i on and w i t houtany f u rth e r n o tic e to M o th e r;” (3 ) g ra n t L e e n d e rtz a u th o rityto “obt ai n cus t odyof t he chi l d at any pl ace t hats he maybe found, w hetheri n t he U ni t ed St at es or anyot hercountry ” w i t houtany f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s; (4 ) g ra n t L e e n d e rtz a n d h is s iste r a u th o rity “to p ick u p th e ch il d at he r sch o o l or an yloca ti o n ;” (5) aw ard K a rp e n k o v isitatio n rig h ts “ a s s h e a n d th e F a th e r m a ya g re e ;” a n d (6 ) a d

ju d g e K a rp e n k o in c iv il co n tem p t f o r w ill f u lly vi ol at i ng pr i orcour tor der s . K arpenko appeal ed and the Penns y l vani a Super i orC our taff i r m ed.4 In th e N e th e r la n d s, a f o re ig n o rd e r is n o t en f o rc e a b le unt i l dom es t i cat ed by a D ut ch cour t
. D ut ch C i vi l C ode, T i t l e 9, A rt ic le 9 8 5 , et

s eq . H ow ever , r ather t han r educi ng t he M ay20, 2 0 0 9 , Or d e rt o a d o me s t i c j u d g me n tu n d e rDu t c h l a w, L ee n d ertz arran g ed to se ize E

. L
. in the N ethe rl an d s an d return w i t h hert o Penns y l vani a w i t houtnot i ce t o K arpenko ort he Du t c h c o u r tp r e s i d i n g o v e rt h e c u s t o d yp r o c e e d i n g t h e r e . On M ay27, 2009, L eende r t z l ocat ed E. L
. on t he s i dew al k out s i de hers chool i n t he N ether l ands

. W i t h t he hel p of an uni dent i fi ed th ird p a rty , L e e n d e rtz p lac e d E .L . in a c a r a n d d ro v e h e r to G er m any , w her e theyfl ew t o D ubai and ul t i m at el yt he U ni t ed St at es . D ut ch author i t i es i s s ued an A m berA l er tw i t hi n m i nut es o f E
. L
. ’s rem o v al. B y O rde r o f M ay 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a D u tc h c o u rt rul ed that( 1) at t he t i m e of E. L
. ’ s r emoval , K arpenko and L e e n d e rtz h a d jo in t cu sto d yu n d e r D u tch la w ; ( 2 ) L e e n d e rtz ac ted u n law fu ll yb y re m o v ing the c h il d w ith o u t K arp en k o ’s p e rm iss io n ; an d (3 ) L e e n d e rtz sh a ll i m m e d iate lyre tu rn E .L . to K arpenko. L eende r t z r efus ed t o compl yw i t h t he D ut ch O r der a n d c u rre n tlyre sid e s w ith h is n e w w if e a n d E .L . in N or t hampt on, Penns y l vani a. O n J ul y 20, 2009, K arpenko fi l ed t he i ns t antpet i t i on for r etur n of E. L
. undert he C onvent i on on the C i vi l A s pect s of Intern at i onal C hi l d A bduct i on, done atT he H ague on O ct ober 25, 1980, T
. I
. A
. S. N o. 11, 670 at 1 , 22514 U
. N
. T
. S. at98, r epr i nt ed i n 5 1 F ed

. R eg . 1 0 , 4 9 4 (19 8 6 ) (H ag u e C o n v en ti o n ), a s c o d if ied b y th e In ter n a tio n a l C h ild A b d u c tio n R e m e d ies A c t, 4 2 U .S .C . 1 1 6 0 1 , et

s eq . (I C A R A ). K arpenk o cl ai m s sh e is enti t l ed to th e i m m ediat e return of her dau gh t er because L eende r t z w r ongful l y r emoved he r fr om t he N ether l ands t o t he U nit ed S t at es. T he D ist ri ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant ed K arpenko’ s pet i t i on forE
. L
. ’ s r etur n on M a rc h 3 , 2 0 1 0 . T o a v o id p o ten tia llyre lo c a tin g E .L . m u lti p le t i m es dur i ng t he pende ncyof thi s p roc eedi ng, how ever , t heT h e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyrejected L ee n d ertz’s 1 arg u m en ts f

o r a b sten ti o n u n d er Y

o u n g e r v . H

a rr is , 401 U
. S. 37 ( 1971) , and C ol or ado R i verW at erC ons er vat i on D is tr i ct v. U ni t ed Stat es , 42 4 U
. S
. 80 0 (197 6), becau se these m a tters, r ai s ed i n this fede r al cour tact i on, w er e neve rr ai s ed i n t he P e n n s y lv a n ia s ta te c o u rt c u s to d yp ro c e e d in g . See Yang v. Tsui , 4 1 6 F .3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B yits o w n te rm s , a pr ocee di ng undert he H ague Conven t i on i s di s t i nctfr om det er m i nat i ons of cus t ody , H ague Convent i on, art. 19 ( “A deci s i on under this C onvent i on conce r ni ng t he r etur n of the chi l d s hal l notbe t aken t o be a de t er m i nat i on on t he mer i t s of a n yc u sto d yiss u e .”), so th e p e n d e n c yo f c u sto d yp ro c e e d in g s in s t at e court s uppl i es no r eas on for a feder al cour tt o abs t ai n fr om adj udi cat i ng a H ague Convent i on pet i t i on. 5 D istric t C o u rt sta y e d e n f o rc e m e n t o f

its O rd e r pe n d in g a p p e a l. L ee n d ertz ap p e a ls the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of K arp en k o ’s H ag u e C o n v en ti o n p eti ti o n . K arp en k o cro ss- appea l s the D i s tr i ct C o u r t ’ s e n t r y o f

t h e s t a y. I I . Juri s di ct i on and S t andard of R evi ew T he D i s t r i ct C our t pr oper l yexer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on under 42 U
. S. C
. § 116 0 3 ( a) , w hi ch conf er s U ni t ed St at es di s t r i ct cour t s w i t h or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on o v er act i ons ar i s i ng undert he C onvent i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291.

1 W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl ear err or . Factual fin d ings w i l l be uphel d s o l ong as t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s “ac countof the evi dence is p la us i bl e i n l i ghtof the r ecor d, even i f .
. . w e w oul d have w eighed the evi dence di ffe r ent l y . ” Y

ang v. Tsui , 4 9 9 F
. 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 7 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). C oncl us i ons of l aw ar e r evi ew ed de novo

. I d.A rt i cl e 3 o f t he C on ven t i on provides: 2 T he r emoval ort he re t ent i on of a chi l d i s t o be cons i der ed w ron g fu l w h ere --
a . itis in b re a c h o f

rig h ts o f c u sto d ya ttribu ted to a per s on, an i ns t i tut i on oranyo ther body , ei t her jo in tlyo r a lo n e , u n d e r th e law o f th e S tate in w hi ch the chi l d w as h ab i tual l yr es i dent i m m edi at el ybefor e the r emoval or r et ent i on; and b . at th e tim e o f

re m o v a l o r re ten tio n th o se rig h ts w er e actual l y exer ci s ed, ei t her j oi nt l yoral one, or w oul d have be en s o exer ci s ed butfort he r emoval orr et ent i on. 6 I I I . D i s cus s i on T h e Ha g u e Co n v e n t i o n , Ar t i c l e 1 , s e t s f o r t h i t s t wo pr i m aryobj ect i ves : “( a) t o s ecur e the pr om ptr etur n of chi l dr en w r ongful l yr emoved t o or r et ai ned i n anyC ont r act i ng St at e; and ( b) t o ens ur e that r i ght s of cust ody and of acc es s undert he l aw of one Cont r act i ng St at e ar e ef fec t i vel yr es pect ed i n t he other C ont r act i ng St at es . ” T he H ague C onvent i on does notp rov i de a f o ru m to re so lv e in ter n a tio n a l cu sto d yd isp u tes , b u t ra th e r it pr ovi des a l egal pr oces s “t o rest or e the s t atus quo pr i ort o any w ron g fu l r emoval orr et ent i on, and t o det erpar ent s fr om e n g a g in g in in te rn a tio n a l f o ru m s h o p p in g in c u s to d yc a s e s .” Y ang , 499 F. 3d at270. T he U ni t ed St at es and the N ether l ands ar e St at e s i gnat or i es t o t he C onvent i on. U nder the H ague Convent i on, t he pet i t i onerbear s t he i ni t i al bur den of pr ovi ng by pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hat t he chi l d w as habi tual l yr es i denti n a St at e s i gnat or yt o t he C onvent i on and w as w r ongful l yr emoved t o a di ffe r entSt at e as defi ned byA r t i cl e 3. Kar kkai nen v. Koval chuk , 445 F. 3d 280, 2 287 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. “[A ] chi l d’ s habi tual r es i dence i s t he pl aceT he af fi r m at i ve def

e n s e s r e q u i r e the r es pondentt o pr ove 3 ( 1) t hata gr ave r i s k t hat t he chi l d’ s r etur n w oul d expos e hi m or hert o phy s i cal orps y chol ogi cal har m orot herw i s e pl ace t he chi l d i n an i nt ol er abl e s i tuat i on bycl earand convi nci ng evi den ce ; ( 2) t hatt he chi l d’ s r etur n w oul d notbe perm i t t ed by t he funda m ent al pr i nci pl es of t he re ques t ed S t at e r el at i ng t o t he pr ot ect i on of hum an r i ght s and fundam ent al fr eedoms bycl ear a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e ; (3 ) th a t th e c h ild is n o w se ttl e d in h is orhernew envi r onm entbypr eponder ance of the evi dence ; ( 4) t hatt he per s on fr om w hom t he chi l d w as r emoved w as not exer ci s i ng cus t odyr i ght s att he t i m e of r emoval orr et ent i on, or had conse nt ed t o ors ubs equent l yacqui es ced i n t he r emoval or re ten tio n b y p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e ; o r (5 ) th a t th e c h ild obj ect s t o bei ng r etur ned and has at t ai ned an a ge and de gr ee of m atur i t y at w hi ch i t i s appr opr i at e t o t ake a ccountof i t s vi ew s by p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce . 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 6 0 3 (e)(2). 7 w her e he ors he has been phy s i cal l ypr es ent fo r a n amount of t i m e s uffi ci entforacc l i m at i za ti o n and w hi ch has a degr ee of s et t l ed purpos e fr om t he chi l d’ s per s pect i ve. ” I d. at 29 1 -92
. In Y ang , w e d iv id e d th e a n a ly sis o f th e p e tit io n e r’s b u rd e n in to fou r par t s: A cour tm us tdet er m i ne ( 1) w hen t he r emoval or r et ent i on t ook pl ace ; ( 2) t he chi l d’ s habi tual r es i dence i m m edi at el ypr i ort o s uch r emoval or r et ent i on; ( 3) w hethert he r emoval o rr et ent i on br eac hed the pet i t i oner ’ s cus t ody r i ght s undert he l aw of the chi l d’ s habitual r es i dence ; and ( 4) w h ethert he pet i t i onerw as exer ci s i ng hi s orher cus t odyr i ght s att he t i m e of r emoval orr et ent i on. 499 F. 3d at270- 71. O nce t he pet i t i oner m eet s i t s i ni t i al bur den, t he r es pondent m ay oppos e t he chi l d’ s r etur n bypr ovi ng one of fi ve af fi rm at i ve d efen ses. 3T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned i t s hol di ng on h ab itu al 4 re sid e n c e a s f

o llo w s: T he chi l d m oved w i t h t he M ot her t o t he N ether l ands w hen s he w as onl yt w o y ear s ol d. T he chi l d has l i ved i n t he N ether l ands w i t h t h e M o t h e r f

o r t h e p a s t s i x y e a r s . At t h e t i me s he w as r emoved, t he chi l d w as at t ending school i n t he N ether l ands w her e s he has num er ous fr i ends

. H erpr i m aryl anguage i s D ut ch and s he w as ful l y inv o l ved i n al l as pect s of dai l yand cul tur al l i fe i n t he N ether l ands

. T her e ca n be no doubtt hatt he N ethe rl ands, nott he U ni t ed St at es , i s t he pl ace w her e s he has been phy s i cal l ypr es entfr om t he age of tw o unt i l s he w as r emoved a t the age of

ei ghtand w hi ch hel d a degr ee of s et t l ed purpos e fr om t he chi l d’ s per s pect i ve. 8 Th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t h e l d a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , aft er w hi ch i ti s s ued the fol l ow ing f actual fi ndi ngs and l egal concl us i ons : E
. L
. w as r emoved on M ay27, 2009, fr om her habi tu al re si dence i n t he N ether l ands

. K arpenko had c us t ody 4 att he t i m e of r emoval beca us e, underD ut ch l aw , di vor ced par ent s r et ai n j oi nt cus t odyunt i l a D ut ch courtrul es ot herw i s e; t her e w as no s ever an ce of j oi ntcus t odybya D ut ch courtas of M ay27, 2009, a poi nt conce ded byL eende r t z’ s experton D ut ch l aw . K arpenko w as exer ci s i ng her cus t odyr i ght s att he t i m e of r emoval beca us e s he w as act i vel yi nvol ved i n E
. L
. ’ s dai l yl i fe. B yr emov ing E
. L
. , L eende r t z br eac hed K arpenko’ s cus t ody ri g h ts un d er D u tch law b ec au se h e reso rt ed to an ex tr em e f o rm of s el f- hel p, “a s nat ch and run, ” r athert han r egi st er i ng t he Penns y l vani a court ’ s M ay 20, 2009, O r der i n t he N ether l ands as r equi r ed byD ut ch l aw . L eende r t z fai l ed t o carr yhi s bur den of e s ta b lis h in g h is a f

f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e , i

. e. , t hatgr ant i ng t he pet i t i o n w o u ld pose a gr ave r i s k of phy s i cal , s exual , or ps y chol ogi cal abus e upon E. L
. ’ s r etur n. L eende r t z ar gues t hatt he D i s tr i c tCou rt ’ s f a c tu al fi ndi ngs ar e cl ear l yerr oneous . W e di s agr ee. L eende r t z’ s cl ai m s of err or do n o t leav e us w i t h a fi r m convi ct i on t hatanyof the fa ctual9 fi ndi ngs ar e mi s t aken. For exampl e, L eende r t z ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o con si dert he part i es ’ s et t l ed par ent al i nt entr egar di ng t he chi l d’ s l ocat i on in it s anal y s i s of habi tual r es i dence

. A s “cr i t i cal ” evi dence of s et t l ed par ent al i nt entt hat E
. L
. w oul d r es i de i n t he U n it ed S t at es , L eende r t z r el i es on a F e b ru a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , cu sto d ya g re e m e n t w h ich p u rp o rts to s t i pul at e E
. L
. ’ s habi tual r es i dence t o be the U ni t ed St at es . E ven a ss u m in g it w e re p o ss ib le f o r pa re n ts to c o n tra c tu a llystip u late a chi l d’ s habi tual r es i dence , L eende r t z’ s r el i ance on t he February28, 2002, agr eementi s m i s pl ace d. T hats t i pul at i on w as vaca ted w hen t he P enn sy l van i a cou rtado pted t he p art i es’ s ubs equent l yexec ut ed C us tod y St i pul at i on on Sept ember 19, 2002. T he Sept ember 19, 2002, C us t odySt i pul at i on s t at es t hat E
. L
. w oul d r es i de i n t he U kr ai ne. I n anothercl ai m of purpor t ed err or , L eende r t z ar gues t he D i st r i ctC our tdi s r egar ded evi dence t hathi s conductcompl i ed w i t h D ut ch and A m er i can l aw “[a ] t al l t i m es , ” and ther efor e he di d notbr eac h K arpenko’ s cus t o d yr i ght s byr emovi ng E
. L
. fr om th e N e th e rla n d s. L e e n d e rtz c o n ten d s h e w a s le g a llye n tit led to r el yon t he Penns y l vani a court ’ s M ay20, 2009, O r derw hen he seize d E
. L
. o u tsi d e h er sc h o o l i n the N ethe rl an d s. H o w ev er, t hatO r derpurpo rt s t o exer ci s e pow erauthor i zi ng conductby L eende r t z on for ei gn s oi l – i n par t i cul ar , a “s nat ch and gr ab, ” as a c c u ra telyc h a ra c ter ize d b y th e D istric t C o u rt. A P e n n sy lv a n ia s ta te c o u rt lac k s ju risd ictio n to a u th o riz e su c h c o n d u c t; t herefore, t he P enn sy l van i a cou rt ’s M ay20 , 20 09 , O rderw as a n u lli tyin th e N e th e rla n d s u n til d o m e stic a ted b y a D u tch c o u rt. O n M ay29, 2009, a D ut ch co u rtrul ed thatL eende r t z ac t ed u n law fu ll yb yrem o v ing the c h il d w ith o u t K arp en k o ’s per m i s s i on. T hes e fact s s uppor t t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hat L eend ert z breached K arpenk o’s cust od yri gh t s. W e con clud e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct w ere n o t cl ea rl yerro n eo u s. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s u lt im ate a sses sm en t: “U n d er n o au tho ri tyw as th e F athe rO urs i s t ercour thas exer ci s ed i nher entequi t abl e pow er 5 t o denyr el i ef i n t he ana l ogous butdi s t i nct co n t extof fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ement , w h ic h “l i m i t s acc es s t o cour t s i n t he U ni t ed S tat es by a fu g it ive w h o h as f led a crim inal co n v ict ion in a c o u rt in the U n it ed St at es , ” P r evot v. P r evot , 5 9 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (6 th C i r. 19 95 ) (H agu e C on ven t i on peti t i on dis m i ssed b ecause pe t i t i o n e rwas a f

u g i t i v e i n t h e Uni t e d St a t e s ) , b u tf u g i t i ve di s ent i t l ement does notappl yt o K arpenko’ s conducther e. 10 author i zed t o s nat ch the chi l d fr om hers chool i n t he m annerhe di d. ” A tor al ar gum ent , a m ember of thi s panel pos ed a nove l ques t i on w hi ch w as notr ai s ed o r br i efe d byt he part i es or c o n sid e re d b yth e D istric t C o u rt: S h o u ld th is C o u rt e x e rc ise its equi t abl e p o w er t o denyr el i ef unde rt he H ague Convent i on beca us e K arpenko fi l ed thi s pet i t i on w i t h uncl ean ha nds ? T he doctr i ne of unc l ean hands , named f or t he equi t abl e maxi m t hat “he w ho com es i nto equitym ustcom e w i t h clean han ds, ” “i s a se lf -im p o se d o rd in a n c e th a t clo se s th e d o o rs o f a c o u rt o f

e q u ity t o one t ai nt ed w i t h i nequi t abl enes s orbad fa i t h r el at i v e t o t he m a t t e r i n whi c h h e s e e k s r e l i e f , h o wev e r i mpr o p e r m ayhave been the beha vi or of t he def endant

. ” P r ecis i on I

ns tr um ent

M f g. C o. v. A ut o. M

ai nt
. Mach. C o. , 324 U
. S. 806, 814 ( 1945)

. T he doctr i ne maybe r ai sed su a sp o n te , Hig h m a r k , I n c . v . U PMC Heal th P l an , 276 F. 3d 160, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; t he ques t i on t hen i s w hetheri t s appl i cat i on i s appr opr i at e her e. K arpenk o ’ s c o n d u c ti n th e Nether l ands w as deci dedl ynot co m m en d ab le; itw as w ron g fo r he r t o interfe re w ith L ee n d ertz’s vis i t at i on ri gh t s and t o r efuse t o di scl ose the ch i l d’s new add res s aft e r r e l o c a t i n g . But we a r e n o t a war e o f a n y a u t h o r i t y t hat w ould su p por tdi s m i s s al of a H ague Convent i on pet i t i on on gr ounds of uncl ean ha nds

. T he l anguage of the H ague 5 C onvent i on, and of I C A R A w hi ch i m pl ement s i t , demonst r at es t hatt hei rpurpos e i s t o pr ot ectt he w el l

- bei ng of chi l dr en. T he C onvent i on’ s pr eambl e emphas i zes that“the i nt er es t s of11 c h ild re n a re o f p a ra m o u n t im p o rta n c e in m a tters re latin g to th e ir cust o dy ” and e xpr es s es a des i r e t o pr ot ectchi l dr en fr om t he har m s caus ed byw r ongful r emoval

. H ague Convent i on, pr eambl e. T he conduc tof the par ent s , ot hert han the cl ai m of abduct i on orr et ent i on, i s n otm ent i oned i n t he H ague C onvent i on exce ptt o t he ext en t tha tt hatconductm aybe r el evantt o one of the af

fi r m at i ve defe ns es . M or eover , ar t i cl e 19 o f th e C o n v e n tio n p ro v id e s th a t a d e c isio n to re tu rn a c h ild undert he C onvent i on i s not a det er m i nat i on on t he mer i t s of cu stod y . C u stod yis t o b e d ec ided b ya c o u rto f th e c h il d ’s

“ h a b it u a l re sid e n c e .” T h e p u rp o se o f th e C o n v e n tio n is to s afe guar d t he chi l d bydi s cour agi ng ki dnappi ng i n connec t i on w i t h cu st od ydis pu t es. W e c o n c l u d e t h a ta p p l i c a t i o n o f th e u n c l e a n h a n ds do c t r i n e wou l d u n d e r mi n e t h e Hag u e Con v e n t i o n ’ s g oal of pr ot ect i ng t he w el l

- bei ng of the chi l d, of r es t or i ng t he s t atus quo befor e the chi l d’ s abduct i on, and of e ns ur i ng “thatr i ght s of cu stod yan d o f ac ce ss u n d er the law o f o n e C o n tr ac ti n g S tat e a re eff ect i vel yr es pect ed i n t he otherC ont r act i ng S ta t es . ” H ague C o n v e n tio n , a rt . 1 (b ). F u rth e rm o re , w ro n g f

u l re m o v a l o f a c h ild is m o st lik e ly to o c c u r w h e n s tra in e d re latio n s b e tw e e n p a re n ts a re a t th e ir w or s t
. A s par tof the i r r es pons i bl e b ehavi ort hatm ay acc om panys uch s t r ai n ed rel at i ons , one orbot h par ent s m ay i nt er fer e w i t h t he ot her ’ s cus t ody r i ght s . T he H ague Convent i on di s cour ages par ent s fr om r es or t i ng t o t he m os t extr eme for m of i nt er fer ence , chi l d abduct i on, bypr ovi di ng a j udi ci al r emedyfor re m o v a l. If re lief

f o r a b d u c tio n w e re u n a v a ilab le to p a re n ts w ith al l egedl yuncl ean ha nds , t he w el l

- bei ng of t he abduc t ed chi l d, w hi ch i s a mai n purpos e of the H ague Convent ion, w oul d be i gnor ed. T her e w oul d be no r emedyt o pr eventa cy cl e of abduct i on and r e- abduct i on, an out come w hi ch w o u l d i nfl i ct n e e d le s s h a rm o n v u ln e ra b le c h ild re n .12 A s w e have m ent i oned, a pet i t i oner ’ s pr i orconductm ay be r el evantt o det er m i ni ng w hetherr el i ef s houl d be gr ant ed, but s uch conduc tdoes notdes t r oyel i gi bi l i t yt o fi l e a c l ai m undert he H a g u e C o n v e n tio n . O n c e a p e tit io n is f iled , the c o u rt w ill cons i dert he pet i t i oner ’ s p ri orconducti n t he cont extof the r es pondent ’ s aff

i r m at i ve d efe ns es , s uch as an as s er t i on t hat r etur ni ng the chi l d w oul d pos e a gr ave r i s k of harm . T he aff i r m at i ve def

ens es al l ow cons i der at i on of thos e as pect s of the p e ti ti o n e r’s c o n d u c t w h ich d ire c tlyre late to th e c h ild ’s w e llbei ng. H er e, L eende r t z di d r ai s e the af fi r m at i ve def

ens e of p h y sical or p sy ch o log ical ha rm to the ch il d

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt f o u n d f o r K a rp e n k o o n th is iss u e . In a d d iti o n , an yirre sp o n sib le conduct by ei t her par t y w i l l be a cons i der at i on bythe p rop er c o u rt in f u tu re c u s to d yp ro c e e d in g s . M or eover , w hen cons i der ed agai ns tt he fa ct s of thi s cas e, w e ca n s ee how i nappr opr i at e the d o ctri n e of unc l ean ha nds w oul d be bec aus e Leender t z enga ged i n pr eci sel yt he type of c o n d u c t th a t th e H a g u e C o n v e n tio n w a s d e s ig n e d to d e te r. L e e n d e rtz b ra z e n lyv io late d D u tch law w h e n h e sn a tc h e d h is daught erfr om s chool and r an w i t h herfr om G er m anyt o D ubai t o t he U ni t ed St at es . D ut ch author i t i es r es ponded byi s s ui ng an A m berA l er t , muc h th e wayAm e r i c a n author i t i es w oul d r es pond i f s uch i l l egal conductw er e t o b e com m i t t ed i n t he U ni t ed S ta te s . I f Leender t z had s i m pl yfol l ow ed the pr ocedures under D ut ch l aw t o dom es t i cat e t he Penns y l vani a cour t ’ s M ay20, 2 0 0 9 , O rd e r, th e D u tch c o u rt w o u ld h a v e h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto cons i dert hi s cl ai m of cust ody

. I n 2008, w hen the part i es fi l ed s epar at e cus todypet i t i ons i n t he U ni t ed St at es and the N ether l ands , t he D ut ch courts t ay ed K arpenko’ s cu st ody pr ocee di ng pendi ng a rul i ng bythe Pennsy l vani a courtr ather t han gr ant i ng K arpenko cus t odyi n L eende r t z’ s abs ence . T he D utch cou rt ’s han dli ng of the case dem on strat es it s w i l l i ng ness to co n side r L ee n d ertz’s i n terests an d the P en n sy lvan ia co u rt ’s13 deci s i on. B y r es or t i ng t o s el f- hel p, L eende r t z for ecl os ed an oppor tuni t yt o per fec ta cl ai m t o cus t ody

. W e concl ude t hatt he doctr i ne of unc l ean ha nd s does notbarK arpenko’ s pur s ui tof s t atut or yr emedi es undert he H ague Convent i o n to r es t or e the s t atus quo befor e E. L ’ s abduct i on. I V . C oncl usi on For t he above s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s O r der , gr ant i ng K arpenko’ s pet it ion undert he H ague C onvent i on, l i ftt he stayof enf or cementof thatO r ders o t hat E
. L
. m aybe r etur ned t o t he N ethe rl ands i m m edi at el y , and d ism iss K a rp e n k o ’s c ro ss -a p p e a l o f th e sta ya s m o o t.M a rin a K a rp e n k o v . P a u l L e e n d e rtz N os . 10- 1678 & 10- 1825

A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge, di s s ent i ng. M ycol l eague s concl ude t hat t he H ague C onvent i on and t he I nt ernat i onal C hi l d A bduct i on R emedi es A ct( I C A R A ) , 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 11601- 11610, di ves t t hi s C our t of i t s el ement al pow er t o denyr eli ef to a l i t i gantw i t h “uncl ean ha nds ” r el at i ve t o t he equi t abl e r emedys ought

. I di s agr ee, as I cannotacc eptt hatt he C onvent i on s ub s i l ent i o unde rm i nes ourpow er– and i ndeed, our obl i gat i on – t o denyequi t abl e r el i ef t o a pet i t ion er w ho has engaged i n uncons ci onabl e conduc tdi r ect l ybear i ng on t he di s put e betw een t he par t i es . A ccor di ngl y , I w oul d raise the u n clea n -ha n d s d o ctri n e su a sp o n te t o d ism iss K ar p en k o ’s pet i t i on bas ed on heruns crupul ous act i ons i n w i l l ful l yvi ol at i ng t he cus t ody or de r s o f Pe n n s y l v a n i a c o u r t s , abus i ng P enn sy l van i a’s l egal pr ocesses, abscon ding w i t h the part i es’ dau g h t e r , E. L. , a n d d e n y i n g E. L. a l l a c c e s s t o Le e n d e r t z , her father , s i nce 2006. B eca us e thi s uncons ci onabl e mi s conduct r el at es di r ect l y t o K arpenko’ s cl ai m for r etur n of a chi l d under t he H ague Convent i on, i toper at es as a compl et e bart o her re lief. R e sp e c tf

u lly , I d iss e n t. I. B o t h t h e H a g u e C o n v e n t i o n a n d i t s a v a i l a b l e r e m e d y – t he r etur n of a c hi l d – ar e equi t abl e i n natur e. See H azbun Esc afSee al s o, e. g. , B el l v. A er odex, I nc. , 473 F. 2d 869, 872 1 ( 5t h C i r . 1973) ( “[T] he re m edy s ought

. . . di ct at e[s ] w hethert he c a se w ill b e c o n sid e re d a n a c tio n a t law o r a p ro c e e d in g in eq u ity . ”). 2 v . R o d ri q u ez , 2 0 0 F
. S u p p . 2 d 6 0 3 , 6 1 1 n . 2 1 (E

. D
. V a. 20 0 2 ). 1 A s w ith o th e r e q u itab le r e m e d ies , the re f o re , H a g u e re lief

is su b jec t to th e e q u itab le d o c trin e th a t “h e w h o c o m e s in to e q u ity m u st c o m e w ith c lea n h a n d s.” P re c isio n In str. M f g . C o . v . A u t. M ai nt
. M ach. C o. , 324 U
. S. 806, 814 ( 1945) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. T he do ctri ne of unc l ean ha nds i s “a s el f- i m pos ed or di nance t hatcl os es t he doors of a cour t of equi t yt o one t ai nt ed w i t h i nequi t abl enes s or bad fai t h r el at i ve t o t he mat t eri n w hi ch he s eeks r el i ef, how ever i m pr oper m ay have been t he beha vi or of the def

endant

. ” I d. C our t s cl os e thei rdoor s “o n ly fors uch v io latio n s o f c o n sc ien c e a s in so m e m e a su re a f f e c t th e e q u itab le re la tio n s b e tw e e n t h e p a rt ie s [ re la tiv e to th e re lie f s o u g h t] .” H i ghm ar k, I nc. v. U PM C H eal th P la n, 276 F. 3d 160, 174 ( 3d C i r . 2001 ) (q u ot at i on om i t t ed)

. A s w e have oft en emphas i zed, t he nexus “betw een the mi s conductand the cl ai m m us tbe clos e.” E
. g . , In re N ew V all eyC o rp., 1 8 1 F
. 3 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). A lth o u g h th e d o c trin e o f u n c lea n h a n d s is f r e q u e n tly i nt erpos ed as an equi t abl e def ens e, w e mayr ai s e the doctr i ne s ua s p o n te, see H i ghm ar k, 276 F. 3d at174, t o ens ur e thatour equi t abl e pow er s ar e “neve r . . . exert ed i n behal f of one w ho has act ed fr audul ent l yorw ho bydece i toranyunfai rm eans has3 gai ned an a dvant age, ” K ey s t one D r i l l erC o. v. G en. E xcava t or C o. , 290 U
. S. 240, 245 ( 1933)

. A s w e have expl ai ned p r e v i o u s l y, th e e q u itab le d o c trin e o f u n c lea n h a n d s i s n o t a m a tter o f d e f

e n se to th e d e f

e n d a n t. R a th e r, in a p p ly in g it[,] c o u rts a re c o n c e rn e d p rim a rilyw ith t hei row n i nt egr i t y , and w i t h avoi di ng becomi ng t h e a b e t t o ro f

i n i q u i t y. N e. W om en’ s C t r . , I nc. v. M cM onagl e, 868 F. 2d 1342, 1354 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (c ita tio n s a n d q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). C o n se q u e n tly , it i s ourpr er ogat i ve, and eve n ourobl i gat i on, t o s hutt hi s Feder al C our t ’ s door s “i n l i m i ne” t o a r emedy

- s eeke rw ho has comm i t t ed “s om e uncons ci onabl e ac t [w i t h an] i m m edi at e and nece s s aryr el at i on t o the equi t yt hathe s eeks

. ” K ey s t one, 290 U
. S. at245. C ont r aryt o t he maj or i t y ’ s concl us i on, t he doctr i ne of uncl ean h an d s i s ful l yappl i cabl e t o l i t i gat i on undert he H ague C onvent i on. A l t hough t he maj or i t yi s corr ect thatt he uncl eanhands do ctr i ne i s notamong t he C onvent i on’ s enumer at ed exce pt i ons , I pr es um e that“C ongr es s i s know l edgeabl e about exi s t i ng l aw per t i nentt o t he leg i s l at i on i tenac t s , ” G oody ear A t om i c C orp. v. M i l l er , 486 U
. S. 174, 185 ( 1988) , i ncl udi ng t he d o c trin e s o f

e q u itab le to lli n g a n d f

u g iti v e d ise n tit lem e n t, as w e ll as t he uncl ean- hands doctr i ne, appl icab le t o s ui t or s s eeki ng eq u it ab le relie f
. C o n seq u en tl y , I do n o t sha re the m ajority ’sS ee also P rev o t v. Pre v o t, 5 9 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 6 (6th C ir

. 2 1995) ( l eavi ng open t he quest i on w hether“uncl ean ha nds ” may be as s er t ed as a “de fens e” orexception i n a ca s e undert he H a g u e C o n v e n tio n ). 4 difficu ltyin loc ati n g “a n yau tho ri tythat w o u ld su p p o rtd ismi s s al o f a H a g u e C o n v e n tio n p e titio n o n g ro u n d s o f u n c le a n h a n d s .” M aj

. O p. at11. T he l ong ar m of equi t yi s pr es enther e. I ndeed, t he equi t abl e natur e of the C onven ti o n ’s r emedyr ender s t he un cl e a n -h and s doctr i ne fu l l yapp l i cable i n C on ven t i on cases. N ot hi ng i n I C A R A ort he C onvent i on s peci fi es ot herw i s e. T hat i s al l t he “a ut hor i t y ” I r equi r e. 2
T he maj o ri tyi s m i s t aken i n as s um i ng t hatH ague li ti g ati o n is i m m u n e f

rom tr ad it ion al eq u it ab le d o ctri n es. In Jo u rne v . Jo u rne , 9 1 1 F
. S u p p . 4 3 (D

. P
. R
. 1 9 9 5 ), a dist ri ct co u rt in v o k e d its “ e q u itab le p o w e r s ” a n d th e d o c trin e o f w a iv e r to di s m i s s D r . J our ne’ s pet i t i on for t he re tur n of hi s chi l dr en under th e H a g u e C o n v e n tio n . Id . at 4 7 -4 8 . A f ter h is w if

e re m o v e d h is c h ild re n f

ro m F ra n c e to P u e rto R ico , D r. Jo u r n e v o lu n tar ily d ism iss e d h is div o rc e a n d c u sto d yp ro c e e d in g s in F re n c h c o u rt. I d. at 4 8
. In v ie w of thos e fa ct s , t he courthel d t hatD r . J our ne
“ w a iv e d ” h is H a g u e re m e d yb y“ e sc h e w [ in g ] [ h is] o p p o rtu n ity t o r es ol ve the cus t odydi s put e i n hi s nati v e Fr ance . ” I d. I n t he c o u rt’s v iew , D r. Jo u rn e s’s c o n d u c t ev in c e d “ a n in ten t to r el i nqui s h hi s r i ght s t o have the cus t odyi s s ues deci ded byt he c o u rts o f F ra n c e .” Id . S ig n if

ica n tly , th e c o u rt’s w a iv e r a n a ly sis aff or ded no s peci al s ol i ci tude forH ague Convent i o n cl ai m s . See5 i d. C o u rts h a v e sim ilarlyin v o k e d th e ir e q u itab le p o w e rs to d en yH ag u e re li ef u n d er the fu g it ive d isen ti tl em en t do ctri n e. In P re v o t v. Pre v o t, 5 9 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 (6th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ), t h e Cou r tof A ppeal s fort he Si xt h C i r cui tappl i ed the doctr i ne t o r ever s e the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of the H ag u e p eti ti o n o f M r. P re v o t, a fu g it ive f

rom the U n it e d S ta te s. Id. at 56 6 -56 7
. In th e c o u rt ’s v ie w , “ n o th in g in th e [ H a g u e ] C o n v e n tio n o r [ IC A R A ] . . . p u rp o rts to strip a n A m e ric a n c o u rt o f th e p o w e rs in h e re n t to it as a court , ” i ncl udi ng t he pow er s t o “r eac tt o ab u ses of A m er i can c r i m i nal pr oces s , t o defi ance of j udi ci al l y - i m pos ed obl i gat i ons ow ed t o vi ct i m s of cr i m e, and t o fl i ght s fr om fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t i es t o our governm ent
. ” Id. at566. O t her cour t s have f

ol l ow ed s ui t
. See Pes i n v. R odr i gu ez , 2 4 4 F. 3d 12 50 , 12 53 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( app l y i ng th e do ct ri ne to di sm i ss t he fugi t i ve m o the r ’ s appea l fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or der gr ant i ng t he fa t he r ’ s Hag ue pet i t i on, r eas oni ng t hat“[w ] e ca nnot p erm it [h er] to r ea p the be n ef it s o f a jud ici al sy stem the o rde rs of w hi ch s he has cont i nued t o fl aunt ”) ; Sas s on v. Shenhar , 667 S
. E
. 2 d 5 5 5 , 5 6 4 (V a. 20 0 8 ) (aff irm ing the a p p ell ate c o u rt ’s di s m i s s al of the fa t her ’ s H ague a ppeal on fugi t i ve di s ent i t l e ment g ro u n d s). A d d iti o n a lly , tho se c o u rts tha t h a v e d e c lin e d to a p p ly th e d ise n tit lem e n t d o c trin e h a v e d o n e so b a se d o n sp e c if ic f a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s, a n d h a v e n o t d e ter m in e d th e d o c trin e to b e c a t e g o r i c a l l yi n a p p l i c a b l e t o c l a i ms o f wr o n g f u l r e mov alSee M ar ch v. L evi ne, 249 F. 3d 462, 470 ( 6t h C i r . 2001) 3 (o b s e rv in g th a t “ [ g ]i v e n th e f u n d a m e n ta l r i g h ts a t is s u e , . . . dis enti t l em ent w i l l gen eral l ybe too ha rs h a sanct i on i n a case i nvol vi ng an I C A R A pet i t i on, ” and de cl i ni ng t o di s ent i t l e the pet i t i onerbas ed on ci vi l cont emp t or der s unr el at ed t o t he part i es’ H agu e dis pu t e); W al sh v. W al sh, 22 1 F
. 3d 20 4, 21 6 (1st C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hatdi s m i s s al un d ert he fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ement doctr i ne w oul d be “t oo har s h[, ] par t i cul ar l yi n t he abs ence of anys how i ng t hatt he fugi t i ve st atus has i m pai r ed the ri g h ts of the o ther p are n t”). 6 underthe H ague Convent i on. I n m yvi ew , t hes e ca s es 3 demonst r at e thatH ague l i t i gat i on i s s ubj ect t o t he ful l r ange of nons t at u t o r y e q u i t a b l e d o c t r i nes appl i cabl e i n ot her contr over s i es . A s i ndi cat ed, beca us e t he r etur n- of- chi l d r emedy is essen tia lly e q u it ab le, a H ag u e p eti ti o n is subject t o eq u ity ’s do ct ri ne o f un cl ean h and s. T he maj or i t yfi nds t h e uncl ean- hands doctr i ne i nappl i cabl e i n H ague l i t i g ati on beca us e i t“w oul d under m i ne t he H ague Convent i on’ s goal of pr ot ect i ng t he w el l

- bei ng of the chi ld, o f r es t or i ng t he s t atus quo befor e the chi l d’ s abduct i on, and of e ns ur i ng ‘t h atr i ght s of cus t odyand of a cce s s undert he l aw of one Cont r act i ng St at e ar e ef fec t i v elyr es pect ed i n t he ot herC on tr ac t i ng St at es . ’ ” M aj

. O p. at11- 12 ( quot i ng H ague C onvent i on, ar t
. 1( b) )

. B utt hatar gum entpr oves t oo m uch. W hen w e appl yequi t abl e doctr i nes t o denya r emedyt o w hi ch a cl ai m anti s ot herw i s e ent i t l ed, w e nec es s ar i l y s ubor di nat e the7 s ubs t ant i ve l aw t o ourC our t’ s obl i gat i on t o defe nd our j ur i s prudent i al r eput at i on and i nt egr i t y . C as es undert he H ague C onvent i on have be en no exc ept i on. T hus , w hen court s have app l i ed the fug i t i ve d i sent i t l em ent doct ri ne to H agu e m at t ers , t heyhave s ubor di nat ed H ague pol i ci es t o det er “ abus es of A m er i can c r i m i nal pr oces s , ” Pr evot , 59 F. 3d at566, “pr om ot [e] t he ef fi ci entoper at i on of the court s , di s cour ag[e ] fl i ght s fr om j us t i ce, and av o id[ ] pr ej udi ce t o t he others i de ca us ed byt he appel l ant ’ s fugi t i ve s t atus , ” Pes i n, 244 F. 3d at1253. L i kew i s e, atl eas tone cour t has s ubor di nat ed H ague pol i ci es t o t he pol i ci es under l y i ng t he doctr i ne of w ai ver . See J our ne, 911 F. Supp. at 48. U nl es s t he majori t yi s pr epar ed t o exempt H ague l i t i gat i on f ro m th e d o c trin e s o f b o th w a iv e r an d f u g iti v e d ise n tit lem e n t, i t l acks a pr i nci pl ed bas i s forr efus i ng t o appl y t he uncl ean- hands do ct ri ne o n the groun d thati t “un derm i ne[s]” H agu e obj ect i ves. See M aj

. O p. at11. T he maj or i t y s t at es t hat “fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ement does not appl yt o K arpenko’ s conducther e, ” M aj

. O p. at 1 1 n. 5, but o f f e rs n o ju stif

ica tio n f o r dis tin g u ish in g b e tw e e n th e e q u itab le d o c trin e s o f f

u g iti v e d ise n tit lem e n t a n d u n c lea n h a n d s. I re a d ily c o n c e d e t h a t t h e u n c l e a n - h a n d s d o c t r i n e i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o s o me c a teg o rie s o f

law su its, as w h e n lit ig a n ts re p re se n t th e p u b lic i nt e r e s t , e . g. , Pe r ma Li fe M uf fl e r s v. I nt ’ l Pa r t s Corp. , 39 2 U. S. 1 3 4 , 1 3 8 -1 3 9 (1 9 6 8 ) (p a ri d e licto d e f e n se u n a v a ilab le in p riv a te a n titru st c a se s b e c a u s e th e y“ se rv e [ ] im p o rta n t p u b lic purpos es ”) , oractas pr i vat e att or ney s gener al , e. g. , A SPC A v. R i ngl i ng B r os . & B arnum & B ai l ey C i r cus , 244 F. R
. D
. 49, 53T hr ough t he age s , gr eatw r i t er s an d dr amat i s t s have 4 s ounded the ca l l for t he i nt er vent i on of r el i ef now r efl ect ed by m odern dayequi t ypr ecepts. “R i gor ous l aw i s oft en r i gor ous in ju s tic e ,” w ro te th e R o m a n p la yw ri g h t T e re n c e (1 8 5 -1 5 9 B .C .) in H ea u ton ti m o rum en o s ac t. iv, sc. 5 , l. 4 8
. Y e a rs lat er C icero (1 0 6 -4 5 B .C .) w ro te th a t “‘ e x tre m e law , ex tr e m e in ju stic e ’ is now become a s t al e pr overb i n di s cour s e. ” I
. D e O ffi ci i s , ch. 10. T hi s aphor i s m echoe d i n J ean Raci ne’ s 1664 obs er vat i on t hat “extr eme j us t i ce i s oft en i nj us t i ce. ” Fr èr es E nnemi es , acti v. s c. 3. T hen ca m e V ol t ai r e i n 1718: “M ai s l ’ extr ême j us t i ce e s tune e x tr ê m e in

ju re .” O e d ip u s , a c t iii, s c . 3
.

8 ( D
. D
. C
. 2007) ( uncl ean- hands defe ns e unavai l abl e i n l i t i gat i on u n d e r th e E n d a n g e re d S p e c ies A c t b e c a u se p riv a te litig a n ts fur ther“the overr i di ng publ i c po li cyi n favorof pr ot ect i ng t he ani m al s ”)

. B utt he r at i o n al e for ecl os i ng t he uncl ean- hands d o ctri n e in th o s e c ase s – that u n clea n h an d s sh o u ld n o t bar a lit ig a n t f ro m a c h iev in g a b ro a d p u b lic b e n e f it – is a b se n t in i ndi vi dual cas es undert he H ague Convent i o n. N orcan the m aj or i t y ’ s pos i t i on be j us t i fi ed by r efe r ence t o t he magni tude of t he r i ght s i m pl i cat ed i n H ague l i t i gat i on. See W al s h v. W al s h, 22 1 F
. 3d 20 4, 21 6 (1st C i r. 20 00 ) (“T o bar a parent w ho has l ost a c h il d f

ro m e v e n a rg u in g th a t th e c h ild w a s w ro n g f u lly r emoved t o anothercountr yis t oo har s h. ”)

. I n m yvi ew , t hat m a g n itu d e h e ig h ten s o u r p ro f o u n d o b lig a tio n to e n su re th a t th is C our tdoes notbecome an i ns t rum ent al i t y of i ni qui t y i n r el at i on t o those r i gh t s. 49 T he maj or i t yi s al so conce r ned thatappl i cat i on of the uncl ean- hands doctr i ne w oul d be comm onpl ace i n H ague C o n v e n tio n m a tters , b e c a u se w ro n g f u l re m o v a l “ is m o st lik e ly to occu r w hen strai ned rel at i on s bet w een p arent s ar e atth e ir w or s t ” and a ft er“one orbot h par ent s m ay[have ] i nt er fer e[d] w i t h t he other ’ s cus t ody r i ght s . ” M aj

. O p. at12. T heyfea rt hat t he uncl ean- hands doctr i ne w i l l evi s cer at e the H ague C onvent i on’ s “r emedy[for ] pr event [i ng] a cy cl e of a bduct i on an d re-ab d u cti o n , an o u tcom e w hi ch w oul d i n fli ct ne ed less h arm on v u l n e r a b l e c h i l d r e n . ” M a j

. Op. a t1 2
. Butt h a ta r g u m ent as s um es t hatw e w oul d appl yt he doctr i ne w oodenl y , w i t hout se n sitiv ityto th e a c rim o n io u s f a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s f

re q u e n tly a t t e n d i n g Ha g u e p e t i t i o n c a s e s . He r e , I h e e d t he Sup r e me C our t ’ s admoni t i on, i n t he fugi t i ve di s ent i t l ement cont ext , t hat cou rts m u st exerci se “r estrai nt, ” den y i ng rel i ef on l yas a
“ rea s o n a b le re s p o n s e to th e p ro b le m s a n d n e e d s th a t p ro v o k e it.” D egen, 517 U
. S. at823- 824. A ppl y i ng t hatt eac hi ng, I w oul d not denyH ague r el i ef a s a mat t erof cour s e w heneve r one par enthas d o n e s o m e th in g to “ in te rf e re w ith th e o th e r’ s c u s to d yri g h ts ,” M a j. O p . at 1 2 , as I a g re e th a t th is m a yb e re lativ e ly comm onpl ace i n heat ed cus t odybat t l es . I acc eptthatt he u n c lea n -h a n d s d o c trin e m u st b e a p p lied w ith re stra in t, b u t I in sis t th a t it m u st b e a p p lied . U n les s th e S u p re m e C o u rt in stru c ts o therw ise, I refu se to interpre t th e H ag u e C o n v en ti o n to af fo rd uncondi t i onal r el i ef t o a l i t i gantw hos e exc ept i onal , i nequi t abl e, an d r epr ehens i bl e mi s conducti s a di r ect , but

- forcaus e of the un l aw ful r em ov al of w hich she com plai ns.10 T he maj or i t y co nt ends fi nal l yt hat , even i f the H ague C o n v e n tio n is s u b

jec t to th e d o c tr in e o f u n c lea n h a n d s, it in a p p ro p ria te in th is c a se b e c a u se “ L e e n d e r tz e n g a g e d in pr eci s el yt he type of c onductt hat t he H ague Convent i on w as d e s ig n e d to d e te r.” M a j. O p . a t 1 3 . A s a f

a c tu a l m a t t e r, I di s agr ee. T he maj or i t yack now l edges , butdow npl ay s , t he fa ct th a t L e e n d e rtz re m o v e d h is d a u g h ter to th e U n ited S tate s in re lian c e o n a n o rd e r f

ro m a P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rt th a t p u rp o rte d to author i ze hi m t o “obt ai n cus t odyof th e chi l d atanypl ace t hat s he maybe found, [i ncl udi ng “athers chool , ”] w h etheri n t he U ni t ed S ta t es oranyot hercountr y . ” A pp. 445- 447. Si gni fi cant l y , i taddi t i onal l ys peci fied t hat“[n] o fur t her p ro c e e d in g s o r a n y f

u rth e r o rd e rs sh a ll b e re q u ire d f o r F a th e r to obt ai n cus t odyof the chi l d. ” A pp. 445- 447. A l t hough t he Penns y l vani a courtm ayhave l acked t he author i t yt o ent eran o rd e r w ith su c h a h u g e sw e e p , tha t o rd e r d o u b tles s m a d e th is c a se o f u n la w f u l re m o v a l an e x c e p tio n a l o n e . H e re , L e e n d e rtz d id n o t es c h e w leg iti m a te le g a l p ro c e ss e s f o r se lf -h e lp ; h e d id not r emove hi s chi l d t o t he U ni t ed St at es beca use h e w as unw i l l i ng or u n abl e t o obt ai n j udi ci al r el i ef. I ndeed, gi ven L eende r t z’ s m ul t i

- y eareff or tt o gai n acc es s t o hi s daught er t hr ough t he courts y s t em, I doubthe w oul d have r emoved t he chi l d t o t he U ni t ed S t at es but

- fort he Penns y l vani a court ’ s or der pu rport i ng t o au t ho ri ze hi s act i on s. I am aw are of no ot her case i n w hi ch a H ague r es pondenteff ect ed an unl aw ful r emoval t hat w as purpo rt edlyauthori zed b yan A m eri can cou rt
. U nd er these circ um s t ance s , I concl ude thatL eende r t z’ s conductw as qual i t at i vel ydi ffe r entfr om t hat w hi ch “H ague Convent i on w as11 d esig n ed to d eter, ” M aj. O p . at 12 , an d I find the C o n v en ti o n ’s det err ence r at i onal e compl et el yi nappl i cabl e i n t hi s cas e. I n s um , I w oul d hol d t hatt he doctr i ne of unc l ean ha nds is f u llya p p lica b le in H a g u e C o n v e n tio n c a se s, a s “ [ p ]u b lic pol i cy. . . m akes i tobl i gat or y for cour t s t o deny a pl ai nt i ff r el i ef once hi s ‘ uncl ean ha nds ’ ar e es t abl i s hed. ” G audi os i , 269 F. 2d at 8 8 2
. A lt h o u g h I reco g n ize that w e m u st m ea su re “uncons ci onabl e conduc t ” w i t h s ens i t i vi t yto t he fa ctual pecul i ar i t i es of H ague cas es , I w oul d notexce ptH ague l i t i gat i on fr om t hi s l ongs t andi ng pr i nci pl e. I now tur n t o t he appl i cat i on of th e s e p re c e p ts to th e u n c o n tr o v e rt e d f a c ts o f th is c a s e . II. T he equi t abl e doctr i ne of unc l ean ha nds appl i es w hen a par t ys eeki ng r el i ef ha s comm i t t ed an “ uncons ci onabl e” a ctt hat i s “i m m edi at el yr el at ed t o the equi t ythe part ys eeks i n r es pect t o t he l i t i gat i on. ” H i ghm ar k, 276 F. 3d at174. A ddi t i onal l y , t he n ex u s “‘b etw ee n the m isco n d u ct an d the claim m u st b e c lose

. ’” I d. ( quot i ng N ew V al l ey , 181 F. 3d at 5 2 5)

. I w oul d hol d t hat K arpenko’ s conducti n t hi s cas e w as bot h uncons ci onabl e and d ir ec tl y related to h er p eti ti o n fo r th e e q u it ab le rem ed yo f re turn o f a c h ild u n d e r th e H a g u e C o n v e n tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , I w o u ld r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand fort he entr yof an or der di s m i s s i ng herpet i t i on. I n Sept ember 2002, L eend er t z and K arpenko ent er ed a12 s t i pul at i on i n w hi ch t hey agr eed t hat K arpenko w oul d h ave p rim a ry p h y sic a l c u sto d yo f th e c h ild in th e U k ra in e , su b jec t to L eende r t z’ s r i ght t o vi s i t t he chi l d four t i m es per y ear , for a t ot al of thi r t een w eeks

. K arpenko v. L eende r t z, N o. 09- 03207, 2010 W L 8 3 1 2 6 9 , at * 1 (E

. D
. P a. M ar. 4 , 2 0 1 0 ) (D istri c t C o u rt ’s R etur n O r der& O pi ni on) ; s ee A pp. 265- 267 ( s t i pul at i on)

. T he s t i pul at i on w as ent er ed as an O r der of t he C our t by a j udge of t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a C o u r to f C o m m o n P l e a s . K a rp e n k o , 2 0 1 0 WL 831269, at*1. A s agr eed, K arpenko ther eaf t erm oved w i t h t he chi l d t o t he U kr ai ne. I d. I n M ay 2003, s he r el ocat ed to the N ether l ands , appar ent l yatL eende r t z’ s r eques t
. I d. Si n ce 2006, K arpenko has uncons ci onabl ydeni ed L eende r t z al l acc es s t o t he chi l d, i n compl et e v iolati on of the par t i es ’ 2002 agr eement and t he l aw s of bot h t he U ni t ed St at es and H ol l and. See i d. at *2. A ddi t i onal l y , w hen K arpenko moved w i t h t he chi l d t o a new addr es s i n t he N ether l ands i n 2007, s he di d notpr ovi de Leender t z w i t h hernew addr es s ort el ep hone num ber

. I d. I n num er ous t el ephone mes s ages , K arp enko has t hr eat ened Leende r t z thathe w i l l nevers ee E. L ag ain and ha s w arned hi m t hat , i f he tr i es t o s ee he r , K arpenko w i l l change t he chi l d’ s name and gether a n ew pas s por t
. I d. O t herevi dence i ndi cat ed that K arpenko mal i gned Leendert z and de ni ed the chil d acce ss even t o L eend ert z ’s re lat i ves i n the N et herl and s. See A pp. 455. I n m yvi ew t hi s conducti s m ali ci ous and u n c o n sc io n a b le; it g o e s f a r b e y o n d a sim p le “ in ter f e re [ n c e ] w ith [ L e e n d e rt z ’s ] c u s to d yri g h ts .” M a j. O p . a t 1 2
.13 K arpenko al s o behave d uncons ci onabl yi n di s r egar di ng t he cus t odyor der s of Penns y l vani a court s and mani pul at i ng t hos e court s t o heradvan tage. N oti ns i gni fi cant l y , K arpenko f ir stob t ai ned t he ri gh tt o leave t he U nit ed S t at es w i t h E

. L
. via t he Sept ember 2002 or derof the Penns y l vani a C our tof Commo n Pl e a s . Se e Karp e n k o , 2 0 1 0 W L 8 3 1 2 6 9 , a t* 1

- 2
. To obt ai n t hatr i ght , K arpenko pl edged thatL eende r t z w oul d have r i ght s of vi s i t at i on and acce s s and pr om i s ed nott o chal l enge the cus t odyagr eement
. I d. ; A pp. 266- 267. T hat pl edge pr oved en ti rely sp ec iou s, h o w ev er, as K arp en k o w en t o n to d isreg ard eac h of hercourt
- or der ed obl i gat i ons once s he depa r t ed the U n ited S tate s. K a rp e n k o f irst d isre g a rd e d th e c o u rt’s o rd e r w ith r es pectt o L ee n d ert z’ s vi s i t at i on r i ght s ; by2006, s he w as det er m i ned t o denyhi m an y an d al l acc es s t o t he chi l d. See K arpenko, 2010 W L 831269, at*2. T hen, i n February 2008, s he p e t i t i o n e d a Du t c h c o u r t f o r s o l e c u s t o d y o f E. L. , t hi s t i me di s r egar di ng t he P enns y l vani a cour t ’ s or der i ns ofar as i tbound hernott o chal l enge t he part i es ’ Sept ember 2002 agr eement
. See id

. O n M a y2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , L e e n d e rtz f iled p e tit io n s in P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u r t f o r M o d if

ica tio n o f

a C u sto d yO rd e r a n d f o r C iv il C on t em pt. Id. K arpenk o sou gh ta con t i nu ance o f t ho se pr ocee di ngs , and i n exchange f ort hatcont i nuance , K arpenko p ro m ise d th e c o u rt th a t sh e w o u ld p e rm it L e e n d e rtz to v isit w ith t he chi l d pendi ng t he ful l hear i ng. See A pp. 336, 405. Pur s uant to th a t p ro m ise , th e c o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r gr a n ti n g L e e n d e rtz p art i al phy s i cal cus t odyi n t he N ether l ands dur i ng t he w eek of O c to b er 2 6 to N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 8
. A p p . 4 2 9
. B u t K arp en k o ’s pr om i s e w as y etanother s ubt er fuge; pr edi ct abl y , s he defi ed the14 co u rtan d ref

u sed to perm it L ee n d ertz to visi t w ith h is da u g h ter. A p p . 4 5 2
. In v iew o f th o se c ir cu m stan ce s, a P en n sy lvan ia co u rt en te r ed a c ont empt or deragai ns tK arpenko on M ay20, 2009. K arp en k o , 2 0 1 0 W L 8 3 1 2 6 9 , at *2 ; A p p . 4 4 8 -45 6
. T h at co u rt addi t i onal l yaw ar ded Leendert z ful l cus t odyoverE
. L
. and author i zed hi m t o “obt ai n cus t ody

. . . atanypl ace t hats he may be found. ” K arpenko, 2010 W L 831269, at*2; A pp. 446. W hen t he D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed K arpenko’ s Pet i t i on for R etur n of C hi l d , sh e ver ynear l ys ucce eded i n m aki ng t he fede r al cour t s y s t em an “abe t t or ” of heri nequi t abl e conduc t
. See N e . W o m en ’s C tr
. , 8 6 8 F
. 2 d at 13 5 4
. A s the D istri ct C o u rt g ra n ted K a rp e n k o ’s H a g u e p e tit io n , it o b se rv e d , b u t ap p a re n tly m i ni m i zed, K arpenko’ s compl et e l ack of cr edi bi l i t yt hr oughout t he pr ocee d ings. K arpenko, 2010 W L 831269, at*3. N evert hel es s , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ubs equentSt ayO r der m emori al i zed i t s di s t rus tof the l i t i gantw ho had ac h i eved s ucce s s on t he mer i t s of herH ague c l ai m . I n t hator der , t he D istri ct C o u rtassu m ed K arp en k o w o u ld d ef y alm o st a n yco u rt or deradver s e t o her , emphasi zi ng i t s “conc ern[] t hatt he M ot her [ w o u ld ] n o t co m p lyw ith a n O rd e r f r o m th e T h ird C irc u it o r d e r i n g t h e c h i l d ’ s r e tu r n t o t h e Uni t e d St a t e s . ” Karp e n k o v. L eende r tz, 2 0 1 0 W L 996465, at*2 ( E
. D
. Pa. M ar . 15, 2010) (D istri ct C o u rt ’s S tay O rde r). T o circu m v en t an a d v erse o rde r, t he C our tpr edi ct ed that“[t ] he M ot herm ay. . . flee w i t h t he ch il d to an u n k n o w n loca ti o n in E u rop e a n d ch an g e the ch il d ’s n a me , a s s h e h a s t h r e a t e n e d t o d o i n t h e p a s t
. ” I d

. I n myv i e w, K arp enko’s i nequi t abl e conduc tt ow ar d L eende r t z thus15 c o n t i n u e d a s s h e i n v o k e d t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s p o we ra g a i n s th i m, w hi l e maki ng i tcl ear that she di d notcons i derher s el f t o be b o u n d b yits o rd e rs. U n lik e m yc o llea g u e s, I w o u ld n o t p e rm it hert o empl oyt he pow erof the fe der al cour t s i n t hi s abusi ve m anner . A ddi t i onal l y , i n vi ew of K arpenko’ s evi dentdi s dai n for A m er i can c our t s , I bel i eve i ti s onl yfi t t ing t o denyher“the benef i t s of a j udi ci al s y s t em t he or der s o f w hi ch s he has c o n tin u e d to f

lau n t,” P e s in , 2 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 , jus t as w e d o in fug i t i ve d i sent i t l em ent cas es. K arpenko’ s pet i t i on under t he H ague Convent i on i s but herl at es teff

ort t o m ake A m er i can c our t s t he i ns t rum ent al i t i es o f h e r in e q u itab le c o n d u c t. In m yv iew , w e a re d u ty- b o u n d to d e n yK a rp e n k o a ll eq u itab le r e lief in v iew of h e r u n c o n sc io n a b le and frau d u lent co n d u ct – h er m an ipu lat ion o f th e A m erican le gal pr oces s , herdefi ance of courtor der s , and herunr el ent i ng in iq u ityto w a rd L e e n d e rtz . It i s p lain th a t K a rp e n k o se e k s e q u ity i n t hi s C our taft er sh e “gai ned an a dvant age” by“ac t [i ng] fr audul ent l y , [by ] dece i t , [and by ] unfai r m eans . ” K ey s t one, 290 U
. S. at244- 245. I w oul d hol d t hatK arp en ko’ s uncl ean ha nds barus fr om hear i ng hercas e, m uch l es s gr ant i ng herr eques t ed r el i ef. A ccor di ngl y , I w oul d r emand t hes e pr ocee di ngs to the D istri ct C o u rtfo r en tryo f a n o rde r dism issi n g K arp en k o ’s p e tit io n . F o r th e re a so n s h e re to f o re sta ted , I res p e c tf

u llyd iss e n t.