Steven Neumann v. Julie Neumann
684 F. App'x 471
6th Cir.2017Background
- The Neumanns are American parents who lived in Mexico from Feb 2011 to Dec 2014 with their three children; in December 2014 Julie fled to Michigan with the children after an incident in which Steven, then in Mexico, allegedly held a knife to Julie’s throat and she suffered three broken ribs; Steven is an admitted alcoholic.
- Julie filed for divorce in Michigan and left Mexico with the children on Dec 28, 2014; Steven filed for divorce in Mexico and obtained a unilateral divorce after Julie did not appear.
- Steven sued under the Hague Abduction Convention / ICARA seeking return of the children to Mexico; the district court found Mexico to be the children’s habitual residence, that the removals were wrongful, and ordered the return of the two younger children (the eldest aged out).
- The district court rejected Julie’s affirmative defense that return would pose a “grave risk” of physical/psychological harm, but did not specify logistical details for return (who would receive/supervise the children in Mexico).
- This Court stayed the district-court return order pending appeal; while appeal was pending both parents and the children came to reside in Michigan, materially changing circumstances (notably, neither parent now resides in Mexico).
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed habitual-residence and wrongful-removal findings but vacated the return order and remanded for the district court to reassess, in light of changed circumstances, whether return now poses a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation (including whether Mexican courts could practically or legally adjudicate custody).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Neumann) | Defendant's Argument (Neumann) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mexico the children’s country of habitual residence at time of removal? | Children had lived, schooled, and socialized in Mexico ~4 years → habitual residence Mexico | Removal was flight from abuse; ties to Michigan and temporariness of Mexico stay argued | Held: No clear error — Mexico was the habitual residence (schooling, duration, settled ties) |
| Were the children wrongfully removed under the Hague Convention? | Mexico was habitual residence and Steven’s custodial rights under Mexican law were violated by removal | Julie conceded removal but argued affirmative defenses | Held: Yes — removal was wrongful; burden shifted to Julie to prove an affirmative defense |
| Did Julie prove by clear and convincing evidence that return would pose a “grave risk” of physical or psychological harm? | Steven’s untreated alcoholism and the Dec. 2014 violent incident created grave risk to children and mother; children express fear; psychological expert warned of significant risks | District court: evidence did not show grave risk at time of order (no history of severe neglect of children; risks for custody determination) | Held: Court declined to decide de novo on record’s closeness; remand ordered so district court can reconsider given changed circumstances and may permit undertakings or deny return if grave risk shown |
| Does changed circumstance (neither parent residing in Mexico) raise an intolerable-situation exception because Mexican courts may not be able to adjudicate custody? | Julie: If neither parent resides in Mexico, Mexican court may lack practical or legal ability to resolve custody — returning children would place them in an intolerable situation | Steven: Return to Mexico would still permit Mexican proceedings; parents can return for custody adjudication | Held: Remand required — appellate court recognized Pliego precedent that inability of state of habitual residence to adjudicate custody can create a grave-risk/intolerable-situation exception; district court should evaluate this in first instance given material change |
Key Cases Cited
- Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (grave-risk standard and availability of protective undertakings on remand)
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (scope of Hague/ICARA proceedings — limited to abduction claim, not merits of custody)
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (habitual-residence test: acclimatization and settled purpose; weight of schooling)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 569 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2009) (habitual-residence factors and schooling importance)
- Pliego v. Hayes, 843 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2016) (intolerable-situation exception where state of habitual residence cannot practically or legally adjudicate custody)
- McLeod v. Gen. Elec. Co., 385 U.S. 533 (1967) (remand to district court when material facts change on appeal)
- City of Pontiac Retired Employees Ass’n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2014) (remand where legal and factual circumstances changed significantly)
- Von Kennel Gaudin v. Remis, 282 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2002) (Convention does not rigidly require return to pre‑abduction habitual residence; discussion of return to petitioner’s current residence)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts’ implied powers to manage enforcement and ancillary logistical orders)