Opinion ID: 1202823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hague Proceedings in the United States

Text: Asvesta filed her Hague petition on October 31, 2007, asserting that Petroutsas had abducted the child from Greece, the child's habitual residence. The court issued an order to show cause for Petroutsas to appear on November 16, 2007, with the child; Petroutsas did not appear. After the court issued a warrant for Petroutsas' arrest and placed the child in the national database for missing persons, Petroutsas appeared with counsel and the child for a show cause hearing. Following an evidentiary hearing and after encouraging the parties to reach a voluntary settlement agreement, the district court orally granted Asvesta's petition. In so ruling, the court determined that the initial question it faced was simply, whether it should or shouldn't recognize and accord comity to the Hague order entered by the courts of Greece. The court, in its brief discussion of whether the Greek court faithfully applied the Hague convention, observed that the Hague order entered in Greece could be criticized as giving undue weight to matters that are not properly considered under the Hague convention. Nonetheless, the court stated that [i]f all this court had before it were the Hague order from Greece and if[Petroutsas] had faithfully carried out his responsibilities as a litigant with respect to that and other orders, I think this would be a much harder case as a legal matter than it actually is. The court was compell[ed] by Petroutsas' failure to comply with both the Greek Hague Convention order and the California court's order to mediate custody and visitation issues in Greece, describing the circumstances as simply a situation where the two countries or the two courts that have exercised jurisdiction over this child both made orders, both which have been violated by Mr. Petroutsas. The court concluded that under both circumstances [it had] no legal choice other than to grant the petition. On January 17, 2008, the district court ordered that the child be returned to Greece, the minor child's habitual residence, but simultaneously ordered a stay of the child's return pending appeal.