Opinion ID: 1202823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hague Proceedings in Greece

Text: On February 20, 2006, with the California custody order in place, Petroutsas filed a Hague petition for the return of the child to the United States with the United States Central Authority. [6] The petition alleged that Asvesta had wrongfully retained the child in Greece in violation of Petroutsas' custody rights. The United States Central Authority transferred Petroutsas' petition to Greece's Central Authority. Although the record does not detail how Greece's Central Authority handled the petition, it was eventually filed with the Piraeus One-Member Court of First Instance (the Greek Hague court). The Athens Multimember court, where Asvesta filed her custody proceeding, stayed that matter pending resolution of the Hague petition pursuant to Article 16 of the Convention. On March 23, 2006, the Greek Hague court held a hearing on Petroutsas' petition. Both parties voluntarily appeared. According to Asvesta, the parties had notice of the hearing, were represented by counsel, and were provided with the opportunity to be heard and participate fully through counsel. Petroutsas, on the other hand, alleges that, although a non-lawyer representative of the Greek Ministry of Justice appeared to pursue Petroutsas' petition on his behalf, neither Petroutsas nor his personal lawyer were permitted to speak or testify. Petroutsas argues that the appointed representative was not familiar with the facts of the case and did not adequately represent his interests at the hearing. The following day, on March 24, 2006, the Greek court issued an order dismissing Petroutsas' petition for the return of the child, concluding that it was not bound to order the minor's return to the USA. [7] App. at 58. The Greek court found the following pertinent facts:  Petroutsas had assured Asvesta that their stay in the USA was temporary and that soon they would go back to Greece for permanent settlement.  Asvesta had to obtain supplemental employment because Petroutsas' job as a real estate broker yielded a very low income which was not enough to deal with his and the respondent's livelihood needs.  Since 2004, Petroutsas had bec[o]me violent towards the respondent, making scenes, ... talking bad to her, ... swearing at her and insulting her before third parties, and was inexcusably absent from their house.  After the birth of the child, Petroutsas was indifferent to his conjugal and family obligations and was making bad scenes before the eyes of the minor.  The couple had no mental communication and physical contact starting in September 2005 and communicated via e-mail because Petroutsas refused to talk to Asvesta.  Petroutsas had made particular demands regarding any move he would make to Greece, and told Asvesta that if she did not agree, he would be forced to ask for a divorce.  Petroutsas suggested to Asvesta that she go to Greece together with their minor child and that he would go there to see the child.  Petroutsas consented to Asvesta's departure with the child on November 8, 2005, and gave Asvesta permission to travel together with their son during the period of time from 8 November, 2005 to 8 December, 2005 and that Asvesta had arranged to return to the United States with her child and her parents for the Christmas holidays.  Petroutsas reported Asvesta to the authorities on November 29, 2005, and threatened Asvesta that she would go to jail and never see the child again.  Petroutsas had been unfaithful to Asvesta since December 2004. App. at 54-56. The Greek court concluded that the child had not been illegal[ly] removed to and retained in Greece by his mother because (1) Petroutsas ... consented ... to his move and stay in Greece, giving for this purpose to [Asvesta] a related written permission and suggesting to her to stay in Greece together with the minor; (2) Petroutsas was not virtually exercising the right of custody of the person of the minor at the time of his move, since ... he was indifferent to his family obligations, he was not engaged in the minor's care and was indifferent to his pyschosomatic [sic] development; and (3) there was a severe danger that the minor's return to the USA to [sic] expose him to mental tribulation, since he will be deprived of his mother's presence, affection, love and care at the delicate age of 12 months, he will be deprived of the security and stability that he feels near his mother and his mental bond with her will be broken. App. at 57-58. Petroutsas did not appeal this ruling because, he alleges, the appointed representative from the Greek Ministry of Justice failed to do so. As a result, the Greek court's factual findings remain unchallenged. Petroutsas, however, did file a cassation appeal. According to the district court testimony of Grigoriou Stilianos, Petroutsas' Greek legal advisor, a cassation appeal is a limited procedural challenge that allows a party to appeal only the legal conclusions of the lower court. [8] After the Greek Hague court denied Petroutsas' petition, he filed a petition in the Athens Multimember Court custody case seeking visitation with the child in Greece. While this petition and Asvesta's original custody petition were pending, the parties, through counsel, entered into a voluntary settlement agreement establishing a schedule pursuant to which Petroutsas could visit the child in Greece. Petroutsas also filed a petition in the Piraeus One-Member Court of the First Instance [9] seeking recognition of the California court's original January 25, 2006, order that granted him temporary custody of the child. On March 13, 2007, the court declined to do so, and its order was affirmed by the Piraeus Court of Appeal. On April 23, 2007, the Athens One-Member Court finally held a hearing to consider Asvesta's original petition for custody of the child and Petroutsas' petition for visitation rights. The court awarded temporary custody to Asvesta and granted Petroutsas supervised visitation in Greece. A month later, however, the California court modified its prior order, granted temporary sole custody of the child to Petroutsas, and ordered the parties to mediate their custody and visitation dispute in Greece. In July 2007, during supervised visitation with his son, Petroutsas took the child, fled from Greece to Canada and then returned to California where, as far as the record reflects, the child remains to this day. Petroutsas asserts that he took the child from Greece under the authority of the California court order that granted him sole legal and physical custody of the child. Asvesta, on the other hand, viewed Petroutsas' action as an abduction, reported the abduction to the Greek police, filed charges with the Greek police against Petroutsas for kidnapping, and filed a petition for the return of the child to Greece under the Hague Convention in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.