Opinion ID: 199909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Undertakings in Context of Abuse Allegations

Text: 103 There is also authority indicating that undertakings should be used more sparingly when there is evidence that the abducting parent is attempting to protect the child from abuse. The Department of State has indicated that: 104 If the requested state court is presented with unequivocal evidence that return would cause the child a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, however, then it would seem less appropriate for the court to enter extensive undertakings than to deny the return request. The development of extensive undertakings in such a context could embroil the court in the merits of the underlying custody issues and would tend to dilute the force of the Article 13(b) exception. 105 Department of State Comment on Undertakings, supra, attached Legal Memorandum. The Department of State's guidance on the Convention also supports the conclusion that a court need not consider extensive undertakings when dealing with an Article 13(b) defense based on sexual abuse; the Department says that [i]f the other parent removes or retains the child to safeguard it against further victimization... the court may deny the petition. Hague International Child Abduction Convention: Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. at 10,510. This analysis implies that the court may deny the return petition on that basis alone, and is not necessarily required to consider ameliorative undertakings. As the Department of State comment on undertakings notes, undertakings are most effective when the goal is to preserve the status quo of the parties prior to the wrongful removal. This, of course, is not the goal in cases where there is evidence that the status quo was abusive. 106 Leading commentators on the Convention also agree that undertakings should be applied cautiously in these cases: 107 [T]he imposition of undertakings, albeit rare, does not rest easily with assertions made in relation to Article 13(1)(b).... 108 ..... 109 Therefore it is submitted that if one of the Article 12 or 13 exceptions is applicable the court should not exercise its discretion to return the child unless enforcement of the undertakings can be guaranteed. 110 See Beaumont & McEleavy, supra, at 162, 165. 111 Under the Convention and its implementing legislation, the American courts have a duty to ensure that a child is not returned to a situation of grave risk or an intolerable situation. See Pérez-Vera Report, supra, ¶ 29 ([T]he interest of the child in not being removed from its place of habitual residence ... gives way before the primary interest of any person in not being exposed to physical or psychological danger or being placed in an intolerable situation.). Where substantial allegations are made and a credible threat exists, a court should be particularly wary about using potentially unenforceable undertakings to try to protect the child. Undertakings that will protect the child from grave risk for only a very limited time are insufficient to defeat an Article 13(b) claim. See Walsh, 221 F.3d at 218 (The Convention does not require that the risk be `immediate'; only that it be grave.) 112 The determination of whether any valid undertakings can be crafted in such a situation is inherently fact-bound. See, e.g., Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312, 752 A.2d 955 (Conn.2000) (remanding for further consideration of alternative care arrangements and legal safeguards for repatriation of child, where evidence established that father sexually abused child and physically abused mother, home country authorities had failed to respond to mother's complaints, and home country had no mechanism for a no contact order); Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (holding district court's order with undertakings would not sufficiently protect child from violent father who abused mother and regularly ignored court orders). However, the terms of the Convention, as well as the Department of State's guidance, indicate that the protection of the child must remain paramount.