Charalambous v. Charalambous
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25035
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Savvas Charalambous, a Cypriot, filed for the return of his two children, N.C. and A.C., from the United States to Cyprus under the Hague Convention and ICARA after they were taken to Maine in June 2010 by Elizabeth Charalambous.
- Elizabeth claimed a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) would result from their return, including potential psychological harm and safety concerns for herself.
- The district court held there was no clear and convincing grave risk and ordered the children returned to Savvas with interim custody and conditions; Cyprus was identified as the habitual residence, and a Cyprus custody determination was anticipated.
- This Court stayed the turnover pending appeal, then lifted the stay and affirmed the district court’s decision to return the children, with turnover deadlines set for December 9, 2010.
- The court conducted a de novo review of Hague Convention interpretation and reviewed factual findings for clear error, focusing on psychological harm and spousal abuse defenses under Article 13(b).
- The First Circuit held Elizabeth failed to prove a grave risk of harm by clear and convincing evidence and ordered turnover to Savvas for return to Cyprus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly interpreted Article 13(b) on psychological harm | Charalambous argues psychological harm was inadequately considered | Charalambous contends psychological risk defenses were proven | No error; burden not met; no grave psychological risk established |
| Whether the district court erred in finding no grave risk from spousal abuse | Charalambous asserts evidence shows risk to children from abuse | Charalambous argues past abuse and risks to mother translate to child risk | No grave risk shown; district court’s findings supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (grave risk burden; deference to return policy)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010) (best interests favor return; country of habitual residence)
- Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000) (abuse context; psychological harm considerations)
- Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000) (distinguish general wrongdoing from grave risk)
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (context of resources and opportunities in grave risk analysis)
- Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008) (return under Hague; avoidance of forum shopping)