Opinion ID: 793263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grave Risk of Harm

Text: 44 The Convention's Article 13(b) exception is narrowly drawn. See Feder, 63 F.3d at 226. Were a court to give an overly broad construction to its authority to grant exceptions under the Convention, it would frustrate a paramount purpose of that international agreement — namely, to `preserve the status quo and to deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court.' Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir.1999) ( Blondin I ) (quoting Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1400 (6th Cir.1993) ( Friedrich I )); see Baxter, 423 F.3d at 367 ([T]he Convention's procedures are designed to restore the status quo prior to any wrongful removal or retention, and to deter parents from engaging in international forum shopping in custody cases.). As the U.S. State Department has explained, an 45 intolerable situation was not intended to encompass return to a home where money is in short supply, or where educational or other opportunities are more limited than in the requested State. An example of an intolerable situation is one in which a custodial parent sexually abuses the child. If the other parent removes or retains the child to safeguard it against further victimization, and the abusive parent then petitions for the child's return under the Convention, the court may deny the petition. Such action would protect the child from being returned to an intolerable situation and subjected to a grave risk of psychological harm. 46 Hague Convention Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. at 10,510; Baxter, 423 F.3d at 373 (same); see Blondin II, 238 F.3d at 162 (noting that a grave risk of harm encompasses situations in which the child faces a real risk of being hurt, physically or psychologically, as a result of repatriation, but not situations where repatriation might cause inconvenience or hardship, eliminate certain educational or economic opportunities, or not comport with the child's preferences). 47 There is little question that, under this standard, the abuse, sexual and otherwise, that Avans contends Adan has inflicted on Arianna would, if true, qualify as an intolerable situation and grave harm for purposes of Article 13. The question, however, becomes whether Avans produced clear and convincing evidence of these allegations, and whether she established, as she must, that `the court[s] in the country of habitual residence, for whatever reason, may be incapable or unwilling to give the child adequate protection.' Blondin II, 238 F.3d at 162 (quoting Friedrich II, 78 F.3d at 1069) (emphasis omitted). 48 We also note that, in considering the Article 13(b) exception, a court must take into account any ameliorative measures (by the parents and by the authorities of the state having jurisdiction over the question of custody) that can reduce whatever risk might otherwise be associated with a child's repatriation. Blondin I, 189 F.3d at 248. Therefore, even if the court finds that authorities in the country of habitual residence are capable of safeguarding the child, it must still carefully tailor its order to counter whatever risk of harm exists — including returning the child in the custody of the parent who removed the child — thus reducing or eliminating the risk of harm that might otherwise be associated with granting [the] petition. Id. at 249.