Velozny v. Velozny, 550 F.Supp.3d 4

Background

Petitioner Nir Velozny (Israeli citizen) and Respondent Tal Velozny (U.S. citizen) lived in Israel with their three children (R.V., 15; N.V., 12; E.V., 4); children were habitual residents of Israel.
In July–September 2019 marital separation occurred; no executed divorce or custody agreement existed though draft terms had been negotiated.
On September 28, 2019 Respondent secretly flew with the children to New York during the Israeli school year without Petitioner’s knowledge or consent; the children have remained in New York since.
Petitioner filed a Hague/ICARA petition seeking return; moved for summary judgment. Respondent asserted defenses: consent/acquiescence, grave risk of harm (domestic violence, drug use), and the mature-child objection.
The court found Petitioner established a prima facie wrongful removal, rejected Respondent’s affirmative defenses, and granted summary judgment ordering repatriation of all three children to Israel by August 31, 2021.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Velozny)	Defendant's Argument (Tal)	Held
1) Prima facie Hague elements: habitual residence, breach of custody rights, petitioner exercising rights	Children were habitually resident in Israel; Petitioner had custody rights under Israeli law and was exercising them when Respondent removed the children	Removal was wrongful because it occurred without consent and during active custody/divorce negotiations	Court: Grant — Petitioner proved all three elements by undisputed evidence; removal was wrongful
2) Consent / Acquiescence (Art.13(a))	No consent: negotiations produced only unsigned drafts and counsel had instructed kids not to leave without Petitioner’s consent; Petitioner promptly sought relief	Tal argues Petitioner (via counsel) consented during negotiations and Petitioner’s prior communications show acquiescence	Court: Deny — no executed agreement, conditional drafts not satisfied, counsel’s instruction and secret removal show no consent; a single text and subsequent actions do not establish formal acquiescence
3) Grave risk of harm (Art.13(b)) — spousal abuse, drug use, risk to children	Return would expose children to physical/psychological harm from Petitioner’s alleged violence and drug use	Petitioner’s incidents were isolated, not witnessed by children; children reported no abuse; drug use was occasional and not around children	Court: Deny — Respondent failed to prove grave risk by clear and convincing evidence; allegations were sporadic/disciplinary and ameliorative measures/Israeli courts could protect children
4) Mature-child objection (Art.13) — children’s objections to return	Older children (R.V., N.V.) object / prefer to remain in U.S.; their views should be considered	Children’s statements reflect preference, anxiety about moving, or adaptability, not unequivocal, particularized objections to repatriation	Court: Deny — statements amount to preferences, not the narrow, particularized objection required; even if considered, court would still order return to avoid separating siblings

Key Cases Cited

Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (Hague Convention enacted to deter international child abductions during domestic disputes)
Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999) (defenses to return under Convention are narrowly construed)
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (grave-risk standard and spectrum of harm for Article 13(b))
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) (definition of exercise of custody rights and acquiescence requirements)
Mota v. Castillo, 692 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (Convention’s focus is prompt return to habitual residence for custody proceedings)
Souratgar v. Lee, 720 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2013) (grave-risk exception requires severe harm and probability of occurrence)
Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014) (spousal abuse relevant when it endangers the child, especially if witnessed)
Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2005) (distinction between consent and acquiescence; consent focuses on prior intent)
Rodriguez v. Yanez, 817 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2016) (mature-child exception must be construed narrowly; preference differs from objection)
Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (Hague actions are not custody determinations; focus on status quo and habitual residence)