Armand v. Armand, 4:24-cv-00974

Alain Armand (petitioner) and Priscilla Moxam Armand (respondent) are former spouses with two minor children.
Petitioner alleges Respondent wrongfully removed their children from France to Missouri, USA, without his consent in April 2024, in violation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Petitioner requests the return of the children to France and moved to strike Respondent's Answer as improper under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondent, pro se, maintains the children would face grave risk if returned to France due to Petitioner’s alleged history of abuse, and disputes his right to custody.
Petitioner also sought immediate (pendente lite) family access (phone contact) with the children, which Respondent opposed, claiming he already had access and extended calls would not be in the children's best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Strike Respondent’s Answer (12(f))	Answer contains immaterial/scandalous/faulty defenses	Defenses are valid; pleadings proper, supported with exhibits	Denied: Motion to strike is a disfavored drastic remedy; defenses permitted
Admissibility of Answer Exhibits	Respondent’s exhibits (esp. psychologist letter) should be stricken/sealed	Exhibits support defenses; court records are public	Only the psychologist letter sealed; other exhibits allowed
Family Access Pendente Lite	Requests telephone contact with children every 3 days	Already shared phone numbers; one child reluctant, the other communicates	Granted in part: Weekly calls of up to 30 mins, not to be recorded without consent

BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2007) (Motions to strike are extreme and disfavored measures)
Stanbury L. Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2000) (Emphasizes court’s discretion and the disfavored nature of motions to strike)