Souratgar v. Fair
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11875
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Lee Jen Fair removed her child from Singapore to New York in violation of a Singapore court order.
- Souratgar, the child’s father, filed a Hague Convention petition in the SDNY for repatriation to Singapore.
- The district court granted repatriation after an extensive evidentiary hearing and guardian ad litem appointment.
- Lee asserted affirmative defenses under Articles 13(b) and 20 of the Convention, arguing grave risk and human-rights concerns, respectively.
- The risks Lee raised included spousal abuse exposure, risk from the father, and potential loss of the mother; the court found no grave risk to the child.
- The court and the appellate panel held that the district court correctly applied the Convention and denied Lee’s defenses, affirming repatriation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 13(b) grave risk existence | Lee contends repatriation would place Shayan in grave risk. | Souratgar argues no grave risk to Shayan if returned. | No grave risk shown; district court upheld repatriation. |
| Article 20 human-rights defense | Lee asserts compliance with human-rights protections would be violated by repatriation. | Souratgar argues Article 20 does not bar repatriation here. | Article 20 defense rejected; repatriation affirmed. |
| Scope and standard of Article 13(b) burden | Lee argues broad application of Article 13(b) to prevent return based on abuse dynamics. | Souratgar contends narrow, high-threshold standard requires clear evidence. | District court’s narrowing interpretation affirmed; not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999) (frames core purpose and limits of Hague defenses; 'mutual confidence' principle)
- Blondin v. Blondin, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (Blondin IV; strict and narrow application of defenses; grave risk standard)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (S. Ct. 2010) (definition of wrongful removal; return focus on custody questions)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (S. Ct. 2013) (habituated-residence framework and return remedies)
- Charalambous v. Charalambous, 627 F.3d 462 (1st Cir. 2010) (Article 13(b) grave-risk evaluation; child-focused inquiry)
- Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (caution against expanding Article 13(b) defenses)
- Van de Sande v. Van de Sande, 431 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005) (grave-risk assessment in parental-abuse context)
- Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000) (PTSD and abuse context in Article 13(b) analysis)