In re Marriage of Witherspoon
66 Cal.Rptr.3d 586, 155 Cal.App.4th 963 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a trial court must make specific factual findings regarding asserted exceptions to a child's return, such as grave risk of harm or parental consent, before ordering the child's return to their country of habitual residence.
Facts:
- Danny Witherspoon, a high school teacher, began a relationship with his 16-year-old student, Julie.
- The couple moved to Florida, and later married in Las Vegas when Julie was 17 and Danny was 52.
- The couple had two children and later moved to Germany when Julie, who had joined the Army, was deployed there.
- In July 2006, while in Germany, Julie exhibited intoxicated and threatening behavior, leading to her brief involuntary commitment and German authorities (the Jugendamt) taking custody of the children.
- The Jugendamt and Julie both contacted Danny in California, informing him the children were in foster care and that he should come to Germany to take them.
- After Danny traveled to Germany to speak with authorities, the children were sent to live with him in Orange County, California, in August 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 8, 2006, Danny Witherspoon filed for divorce in Orange County Superior Court, a trial court, seeking sole custody of his two children.
- On October 20, 2006, Julie Witherspoon filed an order to show cause in the same court, seeking the return of the children to Germany under the Hague Convention.
- The trial court granted Julie's petition, ordered the children returned to Germany, declared California an inconvenient forum, and granted Julie temporary emergency custody.
- Danny Witherspoon (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal, with Julie Witherspoon as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by ordering a child's return under the Hague Convention without making factual findings on asserted exceptions, such as a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, parental consent, or the child's own objections?
Opinions:
Majority - Aronson, J.
Yes. A trial court errs when it fails to make factual findings regarding asserted exceptions to the Hague Convention's return requirement. The Convention obligates the court to consider evidence and determine whether returning a child would expose them to a grave risk of harm, whether the petitioning parent consented to the removal, or whether the child objects to returning. The trial court had jurisdiction to ascertain the reliability of the allegations against Julie, including her documented history of alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and neglect, which Danny argued created a grave risk of harm under Article 13b. The court also failed to resolve the factual dispute over whether Julie consented to the children moving to California with Danny (an exception under Article 13a). Finally, the court should have considered the views of the children, aged 11 and 13, as permitted by the Convention. Therefore, the order to return the children is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that while the Hague Convention aims for the prompt return of wrongfully removed children, this goal does not override a court's duty to protect children from harm. It clarifies that a court cannot sidestep its fact-finding responsibility by declaring it lacks jurisdiction to assess allegations of misconduct that occurred in the foreign country. The case establishes that when a respondent presents credible evidence supporting one of the Convention's narrow exceptions—particularly the 'grave risk of harm' exception—the court must fully consider that evidence and make explicit findings before issuing a return order. This precedent ensures that Hague Convention proceedings, though intended to be expeditious, include essential safeguards for child welfare.
Unlock the full brief for In re Marriage of Witherspoon