Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/855/915/1973064/
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 12:41:55
Document Index: 514023448

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11601', '§ 11603', '§ 11603', '§ 11603', '§ 11603', '§ 11603']

In Re Prevot, 855 F. Supp. 915 (W.D. Tenn. 1994) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Tennessee › Western District of Tennessee › 1994 › In Re Prevot
In Re Prevot, 855 F. Supp. 915 (W.D. Tenn. 1994)
US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee - 855 F. Supp. 915 (W.D. Tenn. 1994)
855 F. Supp. 915 (1994)
In re Ben Jean PREVOT and Arielle Dominique Prevot, the minor children.
Jean-Claude PREVOT, Petitioner,
Debra Moseman PREVOT, Respondent.
*916 Caren B. Fogelman, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
This action is before the Court on a petition filed by Jean-Claude Prevot pursuant to *917 the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq. (the "Act"), and the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980 (the "Convention"), which became effective in the United States on July 1, 1988.[[1]] Petitioner, the natural father of the children, is a French citizen and seeks return of the children to France. At the time of the filing of the petition, the children had recently been brought to the United States by their mother and were living in Memphis, Tennessee. Their mother, the respondent, is an American citizen.
Mr. and Mrs. Prevot decided to explore the possibility of opening a French restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee. Permission was obtained from the Dallas court,[[2]] and they moved to Memphis in February of 1989. The couples' first child, Ben Claude, was born in April, 1989. A restaurant was opened and named after their son (i.e., Ben's). Mr. Prevot was the chef at Ben's while Mrs. Prevot was responsible for all other aspects of the business, including keeping the books and paying the bills. Sometime after Ben's opened, Mrs. Prevot testified that she discovered that Mr. Prevot owed back taxes of approximately $125,000 to the Internal Revenue Service.[[3]] Mrs. Prevot testified that she contacted the IRS and began making payments to avoid foreclosure. About this time Mr. Prevot also declared bankruptcy.
According to Mrs. Prevot, her husband subsequently approached her and said that he "felt caged in" by his obligations, i.e., the restitution payments of $380 per month, the back taxes, and his meetings with the probation officer in Memphis. Mrs. Prevot testified that her husband first suggested that if they moved to France, his native country, they could escape these obligations. For whatever reason, the decision was ultimately made to move to France. Because of his felony conviction, however, Mr. Prevot no longer had a passport. The family, therefore, went to Canada and stayed there approximately five weeks while Mr. Prevot obtained a passport through the French embassy in Canada.[[4]] Two restitution payments were paid in advance so that he would not be in financial violation of the conditions of his *918 parole while he was in Canada attempting to obtain a passport.[[5]]
Mr. and Mrs. Prevot and their two children arrived in France in June, 1991. Upon their arrival, the family traveled the country looking for a place to open a restaurant, ultimately settling in the city of Mougins. Ben was enrolled in a local school and adjusted to life in his new community well. His sister, who was too young to attend school, stayed at home. Once again, Mr. and Mrs. Prevot opened a restaurant and, once again, Mr. Prevot was the chef and Mrs. Prevot was the hostess and manager. Because Mrs. Prevot was not completely fluent in French, however, this arrangement did not work as it had in the United States and ultimately Mrs. Prevot became less involved in restaurant and cooking school operations.[[6]]
Several more incidents took place between the parties during the summer of 1993 and *919 Mrs. Prevot made a decision to return to the United States with the children. After filing a stolen passport report, Mrs. Prevot was able, without the knowledge of her husband, to obtain passports for herself and the children. On August 21, 1993, Mrs. Prevot took the children, drove to Italy, and flew to New York. Mrs. Prevot left France without telling Mr. Prevot she was leaving with the children.
In Friedrich, the Sixth Circuit recognized that the purpose of the Act is "to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence, as well as to secure protection for rights of access." Id. at 1399-1400 (quoting Hague Convention, Preamble). Under the Convention and pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of the Act, the district court has the authority to determine the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody claim. Id. at 1400. "Wrongful removal" is a legal term strictly defined in the Convention, and does not require an ad hoc determination or a balancing of the equities. Id. "Such action by a court would be contrary to a primary purpose of the Convention: to preserve the status quo and to deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court." Id.
The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph a above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of agreement having legal effect under the law of that state.
Under the Act, [the petitioner] has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the removal was wrongful. 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e) (1). If [petitioner] meets his burden, the burden shifts to [the respondent] to show 1) by clear and convincing evidence that there is grave risk that the return of the child would expose the child to physical or psychological harm; Hague Convention, Article 13 b, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e) (2) (A); 2) by clear and convincing evidence that the return of the child "would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms"; Hague Convention, Article 20, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e) (2) (A); 3) by a preponderance of the evidence that the proceeding was commenced more than one year after the abduction and the child has become settled in its new environment; Hague Convention, Article 12, 42 U.S.C. 11603(e) (2) (B); or 4) by a preponderance of the evidence that [the petitioner] was not actually exercising the custody right at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; Hague Convention, Article 13 a, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e) (2) (B).
Therefore, as a threshold matter, [the petitioner] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) [the respondent] removed [the child] from his "habitual residence," and 2) [the petitioner] was exercising his parental rights over [the child] at the time of removal, or that he would have exercised his rights but for the removal, under the law of the state of [the child's] *920 habitual residence. If [the petitioner] meets this burden, [the respondent] may fall back on one of the four affirmative defenses.
As noted in Friedrich, the term "habitual residence" is not defined by the Convention. Courts in this country have looked to the British courts which have provided the most complete analysis and have urged other courts to "resist the temptation to develop detailed and restrictive rules as to habitual residence, which might make it as technical a term of art as common law domicile. The facts and circumstances of each case should continue to be assessed without resort to presumptions or presuppositions." Friedrich, at 1401 (quoting In re Bates, No. CA 122.-89, High Court of Justice, Family Div'n Ct., Royal Court of Justice, United Kingdom (1989)). The Sixth Circuit, in Friedrich, went on to state that in determining habitual residence, "the court must focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past experience, not future intentions," and that "habitual residence pertains to customary residence prior to the removal." Id. at 1401.
In the case at bar, Mr. Prevot has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Prevot children were habitual residents of France when they were removed by Mrs. Prevot to the United States. Sometime during the spring of 1991, Mr. and Mrs. Prevot made the conscious decision to relocate in France, arriving there in the summer of 1991. The family lived there for more than two years before Mrs. Prevot brought them back with her to the United States. Ben, the oldest child, was enrolled in school and was popular with his classmates. The younger child, Arielle, was similarly well adjusted. The family established a business with the full intent that France was to be their permanent home. Mr. Prevot's extended family resided in France and the children became a part of that family. Clearly, the children were habitual residents[[7]] of France as that term is defined in Friedrich.
In the case at bar, the parties clearly went to France with the intention of settling there and opening a restaurant. Moreover, the parties lived in France for approximately one year before they began experiencing marital difficulties. It was only after these events that there is any indication that Mr. Prevot may have held the family's passports. Clearly, both parents jointly agreed to move to France, establish a business there, and raise their children. This is not a situation where Mr. Prevot created "habitual residence" by forcing Mrs. Prevot (and the children) to stay in France for a period of time sufficient to establish residency.[[8]] In this case, residency was created over a period of time well before *921 the parties began experiencing marital difficulties.[[9]]
Mrs. Prevot argues that one of the four affirmative defenses exists in this case there is grave risk that return of the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm. 42 U.S.C. § 11603(e) (2) (A). In support thereof, Mrs. Prevot relies upon the testimony of Dr. Allen Overton Battle, a clinical psychologist at the University of Tennessee, who was called by counsel for respondent to testify regarding his examination of the Prevot children on January 25, 1994.
Dr. Battle testified generally regarding his examination of Ben and described Ben as being preoccupied with safety. Although Dr. Battle stated that "something has happened to Ben that has profoundly affected him," he was unable to state with certainty the cause or source of the trauma and/or stress. When asked to give his opinion regarding the return of Ben to his father in France, Dr. Battle opined that it would cause grave psychological harm to Ben.[[10]] Because of her young age, Dr. Battle was unable to give an opinion regarding the possibility of psychological harm to Arielle if returned to her father in France.
The testimony of Dr. Battle does not establish by clear and convincing evidence (the standard required by the Act) a grave risk of physical or psychological harm in the event that the children are returned to France. On both direct and cross examination, Dr. Battle stated that children of the age of Ben and Arielle are highly suggestible and that identifying "grave risks of psychological harm" involves line drawing and predicting the future. Dr. Battle further stated that when in doubt, he takes a conservative approach, erring on the side of that which appears to be safest for the children. Moreover, Dr. Battle stated that he obtained much of his initial knowledge of this case from the history as told by Mrs. Prevot, without obtaining any information from Mr. Prevot. Dr. Battle further testified that it is important to view the children with their father, but that he was unable to do so in this case. Although the court finds Dr. Battle to be a credible witness, his testimony, taken as a whole, does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children[[11]]*922 to their father in France would create a grave risk of psychological harm.
Mrs. Prevot also argues that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands should preclude the relief sought by the Mr. Prevot. Mrs. Prevot contends that her husband, who is a fleeing felon from Texas, should not be allowed to use a court system from which he fled to obtain the return of his children. Mr. Prevot seeks relief, however, under a treaty (the Hague Convention) and the International Child Abduction Act passed by Congress to implement it. The relief provided by the Act is simply not subject to traditional equitable defenses. Moreover, one requirement of the defense of unclean hands is that the alleged wrongful conduct be directly related to the matter in litigation. Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc., 562 F.2d 365 (6th Cir.1977). Mr. Prevot's initial flight from the United States and violation of the terms of his probation is simply unrelated to his request that the children be returned to the country of their habitual residence as provided by the Act. In any event, Mrs. Prevot aided her husband in his initial flight from the United States. She cannot now attempt to use the activity in which she voluntarily participated to disqualify her husband.
The children Ben Jean Prevot and Arielle Dominique Prevot were wrongfully removed from France and must be returned to their father, Jean Claude Prevot, the petitioner. Friedrich, 983 F.2d at 1402-1403. The actions taken by Mrs. Prevot in this case constitute the exact situation that the Hague Convention was designed to remedy: "situations where one parent attempts to settle a difficult family situation, and obtain an advantage in any possible future custody struggle, by returning to the parent's native country...." Id. at 1402. The court may not be swayed by sympathy, nor does the court make a decision based upon which party may be the better parent or in which country there exist more favorable living conditions for the children.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the petition for the return of the children must be GRANTED.[[12]] The respondent, within 30 days of the entry of this order, must deliver the children to counsel for petitioner or an adult appointed by the petitioner to accompany the children on the return trip to France and to the custody of their father.
[[1]] Both the United States and France are signatories to the Convention.
[[2]] As a condition of probation, petitioner was also required to report to a probation officer on the first Wednesday of each month, and to notify the probation officer twenty-four hours prior to a change in his home or employment address. Respondent testified that she and the petitioner moved to Memphis before petitioner actually obtained permission from the Dallas court to move, but that petitioner later successfully obtained permission to live in Memphis. Petitioner's probation was transferred to Memphis where he met with a probation officer and paid his monthly restitution.
[[3]] Respondent testified that when she arrived early one morning she found a notice on the door from the IRS. Respondent also testified that these taxes were owed from a restaurant petitioner had previously operated in Texas.
[[4]] The couples' second child, Arielle Dominique, was born in Memphis before they left for Canada.
[[5]] With regard to the petitioner's felony conviction in Dallas, the parties submitted the following stipulation:
[[6]] Mrs. Prevot testified extensively regarding their alleged living conditions while in France. The family lived in a 36 foot trailer located in a campground or trailer park. The trailer had two rooms, a back room where the children slept with the remainder of the trailer containing the kitchen and a fold out bed where the petitioner and respondent slept. Mr. Prevot erected a tent or canopy on the side of the trailer where the children would play when the weather permitted. Mrs. Prevot testified that the trailer's plumbing system overflowed, that there was no lock on the back door of the trailer located in the children's room, that several windows in the trailer were broken, and that the refrigerator was broken for a number of months. There was also proof, however, that the restaurant operated by Mr. and Mrs. Prevot contained living facilities in its basement (facilities for changing clothes, a place for the children to stay, a television, etc.).
[[7]] At the hearing on December 28, 1993, counsel for Mrs. Prevot virtually conceded that the children were habitual residents of France.
[[8]] For an example of a parent absconding with a child in an attempt to create residency, see Meredith v. Meredith, 759 F. Supp. 1432, 1435 (D.Ariz. 1991).
[[9]] Friedrich discusses habitual residency in terms of "geography and the passage of time...." Friedrich, 983 F.2d at 1402.
[[10]] As to Ben, Dr. Battle's testimony, while balanced and professional, appeared reluctant. It should be noted that there was no credible proof that either child was at any risk of physical harm and it was generally conceded that Mr. Prevot has been a good and loving father.
[[11]] Dr. Battle's testimony of psychological harm was only in reference to Ben. He was unable to give an opinion regarding Arielle because of her age. He did indicate, however, that separating the children would result in some "damage" to Arielle.
[[12]] This court does not make a final custody determination regarding the Prevot children. That determination will be made by the appropriate court in France. This court simply grants petitioner the relief provided by the Act return of the children to their country of habitual residence.