Lynne Hales Chafin v. Jeffrey Lee Chafin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25101
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Parents: Jeffrey (U.S. citizen) and Lynne Chafin (U.K. citizen); daughter E.C. has dual U.S./U.K. citizenship.
- In Feb 2010 Lynne brought E.C. from Scotland to Alabama on a 90-day visitor visa for a trial period; relationship then deteriorated.
- Jeffrey filed for divorce and emergency custody in Alabama and (the district court found) removed E.C.’s passports, preventing Lynne from returning to Scotland.
- Lynne filed a Hague Convention (ICARA) petition seeking return of E.C. to her habitual residence in Scotland; a two-day bench trial followed.
- District court found E.C.’s habitual residence was Scotland, that retention in the U.S. was wrongful, and that Jeffrey failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that return would pose a grave risk of harm; return ordered.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed, deferring to district court factual findings (habitual residence and passport removal) and applying applicable Convention/ICARA standards; appeal reached the Supreme Court earlier and was remanded for merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lynne) | Defendant's Argument (Jeffrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether E.C.’s habitual residence changed from Scotland to Alabama | Lynne: trip was a temporary, conditional visit; habitual residence remained Scotland | Jeffrey: family intended to settle in Alabama; objective facts support new habitual residence | Court: affirmed district court — parents lacked shared settled intent to abandon Scotland; habitual residence remained Scotland |
| Whether retention was wrongful under the Convention (passport removal) | Lynne: Jeffrey removed E.C.’s passports and prevented return to Scotland, so retention was wrongful | Jeffrey: he removed only the U.K. passport and Lynne could have returned using the U.S. passport | Court: affirmed finding that Jeffrey removed passports and wrongfully retained E.C. in U.S. |
| Whether the grave-risk exception prevented return | Lynne: return would not pose grave risk | Jeffrey: asserted grave risk of harm if returned | Court: Jeffrey failed to show grave risk by clear and convincing evidence; exception not met |
| Standard of review and expeditiousness under ICARA | Lynne: (implicit) district court applied proper standards | Jeffrey: (appeal challenges factual findings and credibility) | Court: mixed standard — clear-error for facts, de novo for legal questions; affirmed and reiterated need for expeditious ICARA proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013) (Supreme Court remand holding appeal not moot and urging expeditious resolution)
- Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998) (ICARA matters must be heard expeditiously; district court factual deference)
- Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (mixed standard of review for habitual residence; increased burden when no settled parental intent)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (analysis of children’s attachments and when return would be tantamount to changing child’s environment)
- Baran v. Beaty, 526 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (ICARA and Convention purpose to return children to habitual residence)