Opinion ID: 201283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grave Risk Finding

Text: 21 Having found by clear and convincing evidence that C.D. was sexually abused by her father, the court then went on to conclude, also by clear and convincing evidence, that returning the children to Sweden would create a grave risk of psychological harm and an intolerable situation for them. The court credited the observations of both Dr. van der Kolk and Dr. Luxenberg that returning C.D., who has been sexually abused, to the place of trauma and location of her victimization can have profoundly disturbing effects on the child. The court also credited the conclusions of Dr. van der Kolk, one of McLarey's expert witnesses, that it is important to the psychological well being of C.D. that what she has disclosed be believed and not appear to lead as a consequence to her return to the place of trauma. Thus, the court found that her return would create a grave risk of fractur[ing] irremediably her sense of safety, justice and the value of truth telling, a situation the court found would be intolerable for her. The court found a similar, though derivative, effect would occur to A.D. This, coupled with the fact that [t]he parties have proceeded on the assumption that the children should not be separated and that any order under the Hague Convention would apply to both, led the court to deny Danaipour's request to have the children sent back to Sweden.