Davies v. Davies
17-466-cv
| 2d Cir. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Christopher E. Davies (father) sought return of his 5‑year‑old son K.D. from New York to his habitual residence, French St. Martin, under the Hague Convention as implemented by the ICARA.
- Sally K. Davies (mother) had removed K.D. to New York after years of psychological abuse and escalating violent incidents by Christopher, many witnessed by K.D.
- District court conducted a nine‑day bench trial with documentary evidence, testimony from parents, nine fact witnesses, and five experts, and found extensive psychological abuse and dangerous violent outbursts by Christopher in K.D.’s presence.
- District court denied the petition, concluding mother proved by clear and convincing evidence that return would expose K.D. to a “grave risk” of psychological harm under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.
- Second Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal application de novo, affirmed the district court, finding the risk severe and likely and that ameliorative measures would not protect K.D.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davies) | Defendant's Argument (Sally Davies) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 13(b) grave‑risk exception applies | Father: mother failed to show grave risk; evidence does not support fear or severe harm to K.D. | Mother: chronic psychological abuse of mother in K.D.’s presence and direct abusive acts toward K.D. create grave risk of psychological harm | Held: Article 13(b) applies — return would expose K.D. to grave risk of psychological harm; petition denied |
| Sufficiency/clearness of district court factual findings | Father: challenges specific factual findings (e.g., April 15 incident; that K.D. feared him) | Mother: factual record (testimony, photos, video, witnesses) supports findings | Held: factual findings not clearly erroneous; deference to credibility determinations affirmed |
| Whether harm must be physical or child must show fear | Father: emphasizes lack of physical injuries and absence of overt child fear | Mother: psychological harm alone and exposure to spousal abuse can satisfy Article 13(b) when it seriously endangers the child | Held: psychological harm can satisfy Article 13(b); prior spousal abuse and child’s exposure are relevant when they seriously endanger the child |
| Whether ameliorative measures could mitigate risk | Father: argues protections in French St. Martin could allow safe return | Mother: defendant’s history of deceit, threats, and escalation make measures ineffective | Held: district court reasonably concluded available ameliorative measures would not protect K.D.; no safe return options established |
Key Cases Cited
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (grave‑risk exception interpreted narrowly; PTSD recurrence can satisfy Article 13(b))
- Souratgar v. Lee, 720 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (prior spousal abuse and child exposure relevant to grave‑risk analysis; standards for clear and convincing proof)
- Marks v. Hochhauser, 876 F.3d 416 (2d Cir. 2017) (standard of review: de novo for Convention interpretation; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Mathie v. Fries, 121 F.3d 808 (2d Cir. 1997) (deference to district court credibility determinations)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (trial judge credibility findings virtually never clear error when witnesses give coherent, plausible accounts)