Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/case/741
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:17:44+00:00

Document:
Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2004); Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2005); Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 978, 125 S. Ct. 478, 160 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2004); Giampaolo v. Erneta, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (N.D. Ga. 2004); Belay v. Getachew, 272 F. Supp. 2d 553 (D. Md. 2003); Bocquet v. Ouzid, 225 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2002); Anderson v. Acree, 250 F. Supp. 2d 872 (S.D. Ohio 2002); Toren v. Toren, 26 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D. Mass. 1998), vacated on other grounds, 191 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1999); Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998); Koc v. Koc, 181 F. Supp. 2d 136 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).
The proceedings related to two children born in October 1996 and June 1998. Two older siblings, not subject of the proceedings, were born in October 1990 and October 1991. The parents, who never married, entered the United States of America from Mexico in 1990. In 2000, they separated and the mother took the four children to live in Mexico. In 2002, the two oldest children went back to live with the father in California.
On 8 July 2003, the mother took the two younger children to Tijuana, Mexico to visit the father. The father then removed the children to California.
In September 2003, the mother filed a Hague petition with the Mexican Central Authority. This was transferred to the United States Central Authority one month later. In December 2003, the petition was turned over to the San Diego District Attorney's Office and in August 2004 was assigned to a Deputy District Attorney. For reasons unknown, the petition was not filed in the California Superior Court until April 2005.
A hearing was scheduled for 25 April 2005. The mother appeared without counsel and the proceedings were continued. The mother failed to attend two subsequent hearings and the petition was removed and the father awarded sole custody. The mother appealed to the California Court of Appeal. This appeal was stayed when on 23 January 2006 the mother filed a return petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The mother did not attend the hearing scheduled by the Federal District Court on 1 September 2006. She had been unable to enter the United States of America after her passport and visa were stolen. The District Court failed to accept the mother's evidence for her non-appearance and entered final judgment, denying her petition.
On 29 September 2006, the mother filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment of the District Court. The court acknowledged that the basis underlying its original judgment was wrong, but rather than set the judgment aside, it proceeded to rule on the merits of the Hague petition, ruling that it did not entitle her to any relief: Duarte v. Bardales, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79518 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2006).
The mother appealed the District Court's order denying her motion to set aside the judgment.
The 9th Circuit noted that the one-year filing period was of particular importance under the Convention because the "well settled" affirmative defence in Article 12(2) was only available if a return petition was filed more than a year after the alleged wrongful removal.
The potentially prejudicial effect of failing to file within a year from removal had led American courts to apply equitable principles to toll the one-year period, notwithstanding the fact that both the Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) were silent as to whether such principles applied.
The Majority expressed its agreement with the 11th Circuit in Furnes v. Reeves 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 578] that equitable principles may be applied to toll the one-year period when circumstances suggested that the abducting parent had taken steps to conceal the whereabouts of the child from the parent seeking return and such concealment delayed the filing of the petition for return.
The Majority added that while it recognized the serious concerns with uprooting a child who was well settled, significant consideration had to be given to the overarching intention of the Convention, namely deterring child abduction. Logic and equity dictated that awarding an abducting parent an affirmative defence if that parent had hidden the child, would not only encourage child abductions, but also encourage hiding the child from the parent seeking return.
Bea J. agreed with the majority on equitable tolling, noting that where an abductor had hidden the location of the children, and the parent or guardian did not know where to file a petition under the Hague Convention, the one-year period should not run.
In a majority ruling, the 9th Circuit held the District Court had abused its discretion by denying the mother's motion to vacate the judgment and had also erred in proceeding to hear the merits of the return petition when the only issue before it was whether the previously entered final judgment should be vacated.
The case was remitted to the District Court to determine whether equitable tolling was available under the Hague Child Abduction Convention and ICARA, 42 U.S.C. ss 11601-11610.
Bea J. dissented in this ruling. He held that the case record contained ample evidence to support the findings of the District Court, rendering the mother's presence at the hearing immaterial. In this he noted that the evidence supported the finding that the father did not hide the children from the mother and thus she was not entitled to equitable tolling of the one year time period to file the petition.
Moreover, although the District Court did not give the mother a hearing on the issue of whether the children were well-settled, she did not raise this issue on appeal, and had waived it. In any event, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the District Court's finding the children were well-settled in San Diego.
Rehearing, en banc, denied: Duarte v. Bardales, 530 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. Cal., 2008): <http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/06/30/0656808o.pdf>.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.