Opinion ID: 1202823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The District Court's Consideration of Petroutsas' Failure to Comply with the California and Greek Court Orders

Text: Before applying these principles to the Greek court's Hague determination, we first address Petroutsas' argument that the district court committed reversible error by granting Asvesta's petition, at least in part, on the basis of Petroutsas' failure to comply with two orders: the California state court's order to mediate custody and visitation issues in Greece and the Greek court's Hague order. Petroutsas argues that his compliance with these orders was irrelevant to the district court's Hague Convention inquiry. We agree that the district court did rely to a considerable extent on Petroutsas' failure to comply with the California and Greek court orders in granting Asvesta's petition. The court specifically noted that Petroutsas had violated the California court's order by failing to mediate custody and visitation issues in Greece, and had ultimately treated [the Greek court's Hague order] as if it didn't exist. by bringing the child back to the United States in 2006. [14] The court opined that it would be a much harder case as a legal matter if Petroutsas had complied with these orders. We understand the district court's concern with Petroutsas' failure to abide by the various court orders in light of the contentious dispute between Petroutsas and Asvesta and the tactics both parties employed in battling for the custody of their son. However, we agree with Petroutsas that, in the context of this case, the parties' conduct was not the proper focus of the court's inquiry. Rather, the question before the court was whether it should extend comity to the Greek court's decisionan inquiry that properly focuses on the process and judgment of the foreign court. See Hilton, 159 U.S. at 202-03, 16 S.Ct. 139. The district court, however, explicitly acknowledged that the question of comity was the only question before it. We therefore view the court's references to Petroutsas' actions in its oral ruling as part of its comity analysisnot as a separate basis for granting the petitionand decline to reverse the district court solely on the basis of its consideration of Petroutsas' conduct. Rather, we turn to the merits of the district court's overall comity analysis, unencumbered by any consideration of Petroutsas' actions.