Velozny v. Velozny
21-1993-cv
2d Cir.Nov 29, 2021Background
- Petitioner Nir Velozny filed under the Hague Convention and ICARA to return three children (R.V., N.V., E.V.) to Israel; the district court granted summary judgment and ordered return.
- Respondent (mother) Tal Velozny removed the children to the U.S.; she did not contest that the removal was wrongful or that petitioner made a prima facie case.
- Tal appealed, arguing the district court should have applied (1) the Article 13(b) "grave risk of harm" defense, (2) the "mature child" exception, and (3) that expedited proceedings and evidentiary limits (including declining in‑camera interviews of the elder children) were improper.
- The district court held two days of live testimony, declined additional testimony and in‑camera interviews as duplicative given expert interviews/reports, and proceeded on an expedited schedule.
- The district court found undisputed facts undermined the grave‑risk claim (including that, shortly before removal, Tal had permitted the children to travel unaccompanied to Israel and be alone with their father) and noted possible ameliorative measures and Israeli court protection.
- The district court also declined to apply the mature child exception to keep all three children together; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nir) | Defendant's Argument (Tal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of expedited proceedings and limits on additional testimony/evidence | Expedited handling and limited live testimony were appropriate given Hague's emphasis on speed and sufficiency of existing evidence | District court erred by restricting witnesses, excluding some evidence, and not interviewing children in camera | Affirmed: expedited procedures and limiting duplicative testimony/in‑camera interviews were proper given expert reports and interest in expedition |
| In‑camera interviews of elder children | Unnecessary because experts had interviewed children and submitted full reports | Court should have interviewed R.V. and N.V. in camera to assess maturity and views | Affirmed: district court permissibly declined in‑camera interviews as likely cumulative and burdensome to children |
| Grave risk of harm (Art. 13(b)) | Return to Israel would not pose grave physical/psychological risk; ameliorative measures and foreign court protection available | Return would expose children to risk from alleged spousal/child abuse and petitioner’s drug use | Affirmed: respondent failed to prove grave risk by clear and convincing evidence; facts (including prior willingness to let children travel to Israel) and possible protections undercut the defense |
| Mature child exception (considered objection by sufficiently mature child) | N/A—court should give effect to any considered objection of mature children | The elder children’s statements show considered objection to return and/or preference to remain in U.S. | Affirmed: even assuming maturity and an objection by N.V., district court acted within discretion to refuse the exception to keep all three children together |
Key Cases Cited
- Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999) (sets burden and narrow application of Article 13(b) grave‑risk exception)
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (addresses mature child exception and standards for considered objection)
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993) (discusses Hague Convention purpose to preserve status quo and deter forum‑shopping)