Opinion ID: 199909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexual Abuse as a Grave Risk of Harm

Text: 51 The Article 13(b) exceptions are narrow, and should be construed narrowly by the courts. In this instance, however, some of the district court's statements evidence an overly restrictive approach to the type of conduct that constitutes sexual abuse, and to the relationship between sexual abuse of a child and grave risk. The policy under the Convention of both the United States government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is weighted towards protection of the child when there is credible evidence of sexual abuse, particularly when the child is so young and when the allegations involve abuse by a parent. This policy informs the grave risk analysis. 52 The United States Department of State's guidelines on the Hague Convention state that sexual abuse by a parent is an example of an Article 13(b) defense justifying non-return. Hague International Child Abduction Convention: Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. at 10,510. In fact, it is the only example so provided by the Department. The Department of State's legal analysis states that: 53 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. 54 Id. American policy thus equates sexual abuse with both prongs of the Article 13(b) defense to return of the child: intolerable situation and grave risk. The Department of State's interpretation of the Convention is entitled to great weight. See Blondin, 238 F.3d at 162 n. 10. 55 Although its ruling on this point is not entirely clear, the district court seemingly placed too much emphasis on physical assault as an element of sexual abuse, finding that [t]he credible evidence does not prove that C.D. has been sexually abused physically,  Danaipour, 183 F.Supp.2d at 321 (emphasis added), and that [a]lthough returning a child who had been raped to the parent who molested her could reasonably be regarded per se as an intolerable situation, this is not such a case, id. at 325-26. 56 Sexual abuse other than rape may create an intolerable situation or a grave risk under Article 13(b), particularly when such abuse occurs at the hand of a parent. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting as amicus curiae, has urged us, in light of the district court's language, to clarify that penetration is simply not a prerequisite to a finding of sexual abuse posing a grave risk of harm to a child. We agree. The Commonwealth states that this is particularly true when the abuser is a parent, stating that [e]xperts recognize that sexual abuse committed by a parent and unaccompanied by penetration often results in significant trauma, given the violation of trust inherent in parental sexual abuse. The Commonwealth also notes that its own policy is to prosecute the act of forcing a child to sexually touch an adult as criminal sexual assault. The district court apparently applied a different standard to the significance of this type of abuse; for instance, the court stated in its opinion that the younger child may have touched [her father's] penis on one ... occasion. Id. at 317. The child's statement to Dr. Luxenberg, however, was that she squeezed her father's penis and it was very hard, surely a far more serious occurrence. The district court found Dr. Luxenberg's testimony credible. Id. at 322. Moreover, there was no evidence that this only happened on one occasion, as the district court said, id. at 317, nor was there evidence that it had happened more than once. 57 The district court's language concerning rape may also reflect an improper standard. It would be inappropriate to apply any standard that vaginal penetration, but not other types of sexual abuse, would automatically qualify as a grave risk or an intolerable situation. The proper focus is on the effect on the child and whether there is grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise ... intolerable situation to which the child would be exposed upon return. This conclusion is supported by the Department of State's guidance, which refers to sexual abuse, not limited to rape or forcible intercourse, in discussing grave risk. See Hague International Child Abduction Convention: Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. at 10,510. 58 In addition, the district court's opinion placed a great deal of emphasis on its finding that neither child suffered from PTSD, Danaipour, 183 F.Supp.2d at 313, 321-22, 325, which was a major subject of expert testimony at the trial. Although a finding that a child suffers from PTSD and would deteriorate if returned to the country of habitual residence could be evidence tending to support a finding of grave risk under Article 13(b), see, e.g., Blondin, 238 F.3d at 163, a risk of harm arising out of the return to a locale where abuse occurred is a factor that a district court may properly consider in its overall grave risk analysis regardless of the label it bears. 59 A finding that a child is currently not experiencing severe psychological effects of sexual abuse is not necessarily dispositive; for example, there was significant testimony that sexually abused children often function well as small children, only to experience significant psychological deterioration as they reach puberty. 12 The diagnostic criteria for PTSD, after all, were not developed to reflect children's psyches. Dr. van der Kolk, who served on the committee to define the diagnostic criteria for PTSD for the most recent edition of the leading psychiatric diagnostic manual (the DSM-IV), felt it necessary to warn the court that [a diagnosis of PTSD] is not a be all and end all in determining whether [the younger child] was seriously harmed by the life circumstances. He also testified that return to Sweden would be harmful for both girls, although he only diagnosed the younger child with PTSD. This type of evidence has a direct bearing on grave risk determinations in cases where sexual abuse is alleged. 60