659 F. App'x 11
2d Cir.2016Background
- Father (Nikolaos Adamis) petitioned under the Hague Convention / ICARA to return his son D.A. to Greece after mother (Fotini Lampropoulou) moved with the child to the U.S.
- District court held a bench trial and found Adamis consented to the child’s removal, so the move was not a "wrongful removal" under Article 13(a) of the Hague Convention.
- The district court’s finding relied largely on recorded phone conversations among the parents and the child, testimony from Lampropoulou, D.A., and a stepsister, and credibility determinations rejecting Adamis’s explanations.
- Adamis, represented below but proceeding pro se on appeal, argued on appeal that the recordings were doctored and inadmissible under Greek law; those arguments were not preserved.
- The Second Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error, deferred to credibility assessments, and affirmed the district court’s judgment denying return of D.A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adamis) | Defendant's Argument (Lampropoulou) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was "wrongful" under Hague Convention Article 13(a) | Did not consent to permanent removal — consent limited to a short trip | He consented to the move; recordings and testimony show agreement to live in U.S. and travel to Greece | Removal was not wrongful: district court’s finding of consent affirmed |
| Admissibility/authenticity of recorded conversations | Recordings were doctored / illegally obtained under Greek law (raised on appeal) | Recordings were authentic and admissible; Adamis admitted admissibility below | Waived on appeal; recordings deemed admissible and relied upon by district court |
| Standard of review for factual findings/credibility | N/A (challenged factual findings) | N/A | Factual findings reviewed for clear error; credibility findings entitled to particular deference and were not clearly erroneous |
| Whether child’s objections or maturity required separate analysis | Argued child’s wishes should affect outcome | District court considered child’s views but relied on consent finding | Court did not reach or need to decide child-preference finding because consent dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error; application of Convention de novo)
- Ortega v. Duncan, 333 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2003) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014) (purpose of Hague Convention: prompt return, not custody determinations)
- Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (Convention focuses on return to habitual residence for custody proceedings)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (return order under Hague Convention does not adjudicate merits of custody allocation)