In Re Rix
161 N.H. 544
| N.H. | 2011Background
- A seven-year-old son, A.J., is the child of Cynthia Rix (US citizen) and Rajesh Jathar (India citizen with a green card).
- No prior court orders governed parenting; the parties cohabited and shared parenting duties for about nine years.
- Jathar works in Portsmouth, NH, earning about $250,000 in 2009 and owns two businesses; one employs Rix.
- In May 2009 the couple discussed taking A.J. to India for a family visit around late 2009/January 2010; A.J.’s passport had expired and Rix declined to renew it.
- On December 14, 2009, Rix filed an ex parte motion to prevent travel to India; the court issued a temporary restraining order barring leaving the state without consent.
- December 21, 2009 hearing: Rix claimed risk of non-return and coercion to obtain A.J.’s passport; petition argued travel could harm A.J. and should be conditioned or blocked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does India's non-signatory status to the Hague Convention affect the ruling? | Rix argues non-signatory status increases risk of non-return and undermines enforcement. | Jathar contends signatory status is a significant factor but not determinative; other best interests factors apply. | Not determinative; other best interests factors apply. |
| Was the trial court's discretion unsustainably exercised in permitting travel to India? | Rix contends the risk of non-return was inadequately weighed and travel should be restricted. | Jathar points to substantial U.S. ties and past travel history with return to support travel. | The court did not unsustainably exercise discretion. |
| Did the trial court properly weigh the risk of non-return against travel benefits? | Rix asserts India’s non-signatory status and enforcement difficulties heighten risk. | Jathar emphasizes respondent’s U.S. ties and history of returning from India. | Risk weighed and found not to outweigh travel with safeguards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abouzahr v. Matera-Abouzahr, 361 N.J. Super. 135 (N.J. Super. 2003) (foreign-Hague context: risk factors are non-exclusive in best interests analysis)
- In re Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722 (New Hampshire 2005) (deferential review of trial court's best interests determination)
- Grabowski v. Grabowski, 120 N.H. 745 (New Hampshire 1980) (acknowledges best interests standard and deference to trial court)