Retail Digital Network v. Jacob Appelsmith
842 F.3d 1092
9th Cir.
2016
Check Treatment
Docket

CUSTODIO v. TORRES

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

808 F.3d 1169

custody orders, which are entitled to deference and comity in this court. Further, Custodio argues that by refusing to order return, the district court undermined the aim of the Convention to “deter abduction by ‘depriv[ing] [the abductor‘s] actions of any practical or juridical consequences.‘” (alternations in original) (quoting Pérez-Vera, supra ¶ 16). As Custodio points out, when Torres applied to the Peruvian court for temporary travel authorization, she had no intention of returning the children: She brought all of her belongings to St. Louis and married an American citizen ten days after arrival. Since then, Torres has disobeyed five orders from the Peruvian court compelling her to return the children. Given these facts, it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the district court to return the children, regardless of the mature child defense finding. District courts may decline to apply a defense where doing so would reward a parent for wrongfully removing or retaining the children in violation of a Contracting State‘s custody orders. See ; .

However, while Torres’ actions are concerning, they do not compel a finding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to order return. The district court‘s decision to respect 15-year-old G.‘s opposition to returning to Peru and desire to remain in the United States was not an abuse of discretion. After thorough questioning by the district court and opposing counsel, the court found G. “understood the purpose and significance” of the proceedings and conveyed his “genuine thoughts and feelings” regarding return. The court acted within its discretion in deferring to the objections of an undisputedly mature child. The district court‘s consideration of a mature child‘s views may but need not be affected by the wrongful actions of his or her parent.

Conclusion

This is undoubtedly a close case. But, the district court did not clearly err in considering G.‘s objections to returning to Peru. Whether to apply the mature child defense was within the district court‘s discretion. We see nothing powerful enough in this record to warrant the rejection of its conclusion. We deny as moot the appeal as to M. and affirm the district court‘s judgment as to G.

RETAIL DIGITAL NETWORK, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy GORSUCH, as Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-56069

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

FILED NOVEMBER 16, 2016

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be heard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Owens did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

N.E., BY AND THROUGH his parents C.E. AND P.E.; C.E.; and P.E., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35910

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2016 Seattle, Washington
Filed November 17, 2016

Lauren Rebecca Hruska (argued) and Charlotte Cassady, Cassady Law Firm, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.