Pandita Charm-Joy Seaman v. John Kennedy Peterson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17183
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Peterson removed his four children from Mexico to the United States; Seaman sued under ICARA seeking return of the children.
- District court granted the return order and Seaman’s costs and transportation were addressed; Peterson appealed.
- Appellate jurisdiction of the district court order was contested due to timing of final judgment and unresolved fees, later clarified by Budinich and Haluch decisions.
- The district court held habitual residency and wrongful removal in favor of Seaman, and found no grave risk to the children if returned.
- The court applied Ruiz’s mixed standard of review to habitual residence, then conducted de novo review of the ultimate legal question.
- Court concluded there was no reversible error and affirmed the district court’s grant of the return order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitual residence of the children at removal | Peterson argues Mexico wasn’t the habitual residence. | Seaman’s evidence showed Mexico as habitual residence. | Mexico was the children’s habitual residence. |
| Wrongful removal under Mexican custody rights | Seaman’s rights were not actively exercised or violated. | Peterson violated custody rights by taking the children. | Removal violated Seaman’s custody rights under Mexican law. |
| Grave risk of harm defense to return | Children would face harm from exposure to TFI or neglect. | No grave risk found; evidence insufficient to override return. | No grave risk; return warranted. |
| Finality and jurisdiction of district court order | Appeal timing and fee order affected finality. | Dispositive order was final despite later fees/costs unresolved. | District court order was final and appealable; jurisdiction proper. |
| Standards for reviewing habitual residence | Traditional deference to district findings; de novo review limited. | Treat as mixed standard; de novo on law, clear error on fact. | Adopted Ruiz mixed standard; de novo review of habitual residence conclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (habitual residence analysis under ICARA and the Convention; mixed standard of review)
- Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (U.S. 2014) (abrogated Bekier; gatekeeping role of courts in custody matters)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2010) (preserves focus on forum for custody determinations under the Convention)
- Baran v. Beaty, 526 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (grave risk burden and state custody forum considerations)
- Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (delegation concern in grave risk analysis; distinguishable from this case)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1988) (finality rules for judgments with unresolved fee issues; procedural finality)