Opinion ID: 180598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spousal Abuse

Text: The relevant inquiry is not whether there would be a grave risk of harm to Elizabeth if she returned to Cyprus; rather, the grave risk inquiry goes to the children. See Abbott, 130 S.Ct. at 1997 (noting that if respondent could demonstrate returning child to home country would put her own safety at grave risk, the court could consider whether this is sufficient to show that the child too would suffer `psychological harm'); Walsh, 221 F.3d at 220. Elizabeth failed to draw a connection establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that any risk to her constituted a grave risk to the children. The district court found that Elizabeth was subjected to some verbal and emotional abuse and that there was one incident of physical abuse which did not require any medical treatment. [8] The court further determined that the record does not reflect that N.C. and A.C. have witnessed their father being abusive toward their mother. In light of these findings, [9] the court reasoned it could not conclude the Children would suffer from psychological harm or be placed in an intolerable situation based on spousal abuse if they are returned. Charalambous, 2010 WL 4115495, at . Elizabeth argues the district court's findings are clearly erroneous. We disagree. The record supports the district court's conclusion that there was only one act of physical abuse, an incident in April 2010 in which Savvas braced Elizabeth against a wall during an argument and held his hand next to her face. Elizabeth does not specify any other incidents that the district court overlooked. The record also supports the district court's conclusion that neither N.C. nor A.C. witnessed any act of physical abuse, which further suggests the lack of grave risk to the children. Further, Elizabeth has avowed not to return to Cyprus due to her subjective personal fears; if she does not return that removes any risk of the children witnessing any future abusive acts in Cyprus. In view of the district court's well supported findings, there is no grave risk to the children under Article 13(b) associated with any potential future abuse of their mother. Cf. Walsh, 221 F.3d at 209-12; see also Whallon, 230 F.3d at 460 ([A]llegations of verbal abuse and an incident of physical shoving are distinct from the `clear and long history of spousal abuse' presented in Walsh. ). Finally, Elizabeth argues that the district court failed to consider the impact that returning the children to Cyprus without their mother would have on them, given her stated choice to remain in the United States regardless. She focuses on evidence of the extraordinary attachment between the children and their mother. The district court supportably found that Elizabeth's stated refusal to return to Cyprus was based upon her subjective perception of a threat that was not corroborated by other evidence in the record. Charalambous, 2010 WL 4115495, at . Regardless, the court weighed the consequences of Elizabeth choosing not to return to Cyprus, and concluded that the alternative of allowing these children to remain wrongfully retained in this country is equally likely to traumatize the children. [10] Id. at . Elizabeth offers no argument on appeal as to why that is not so. The district court correctly concluded that the impact of any loss of contact with the Mother is something that must be resolved by the courts of the Children's habitual residence. Id. ; see also Abbott, 130 S.Ct. at 1995. We point out that Elizabeth is free, in the courts of Cyprus, to seek custody of the children and such other orders as may become necessary as to the children.