Norinder v. Fuentes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18473
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Magnus Norinder seeks return of his son JRN to Sweden under the Hague Convention and the ICARA, 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.
- Respondent Sharon Fuentes abducted JRN to the United States in March–April 2010 and intended to remain here.
- Habitual residence analysis focuses on where the child and parents intended to reside and act, not formal domicile.
- District court determined Sweden was JRN's habitual residence and that Fuentes abducted him in violation of the Convention.
- Case proceeded to address whether returning JRN to Sweden would pose a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, and to resolve related discovery and fees issues.
- Appellate review affirmed the district court’s rulings on habitually residence, grave-risk defense, discovery management, and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitual residence determination for JRN | Fuentes claims U.S. habitual residence; Norinder contends Sweden. | Fuentes argues U.S. residence should prevail based on intent to return. | Sweden is JRN's habitual residence; district court’s finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Grave risk of harm defense under Article 13(b) | Fuentes shows clear and convincing evidence of grave risk if returned. | Norinder argues evidence does not show grave risk; he is a fit parent. | No grave risk; return to Sweden appropriate under the Convention. |
| Pretrial discovery limits in ICARA case | Fuentes asserts denial of discovery violated Federal Rules and due process. | Court expedited proceedings; late discovery requests were unfounded and would delay relief. | District court acted within its discretion; no abuse of discretion in discovery management. |
| Attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3) | Fuentes challenges the reasonableness and magnitude of the award. | District court correctly calculated lodestar and made adjustments; award appropriate. | District court did not abuse discretion; fee award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Altamiranda Vale v. Avila, 538 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2008) (habitual residence and grave risk standard under the Hague Convention in the Seventh Circuit)
- Kijowska v. Haines, 463 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2006) (habitual residence framework and forum considerations under ICARA)
- March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001) (expedited procedures in Hague/ICARA context; limited discovery acceptable)
- Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005) (grave risk of harm standard; safety of children paramount)
- Koch v. Koch, 450 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2006) (intent to reside and establishment of new habitual residence in foreign country)
- Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (analysis of habitual residence when child accompanies both parents to new country)
- Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (grave risk defense requires clear and convincing evidence)