In another recent custody case involving the Hague Convention before the Southern District of New York, the court denied father’s request for the return of his sons to Canada.  In this case, there was an interesting twist because the facts were as follows.  The mother/ respondent claimed that she and the petitioner/father had discussed the children going to live with her parents in New York.  

She claimed that the husband had agreed.  The father, however, said that he did not agree and after testimony, the court found that the father did not effectively consent to the children being removed to the United States, and that they should be returned to Canada. 

 However, based on the circumstances, testimony, and evidence presented, the mother had in essence a second bite at the apple. The court allowed the children to remain in New York  as the Hague Convection will allow children to remain in the country they are currently in if there is a grave risk of harm if they are returned.   The court cited the father’s long and serious history of untreated mental health issues.  

Based on that, they allowed the children to stay in New York even though the father had not consented  to their removal to New York and Canada was the home jurisdiction for the boys.  Again, the Hague Convention and the courts try to protect children. There is always an underlying concern for their best interests. The court will try to make decisions based on children’s best interests within the bounds of the law.