Blondin v. Dubois,
189 F.3d 240 (1999).


Facts: Felix Blondin (P) filed an action against Marthe Dubois (D) for wrongfully removing their two children from France to the United States in violation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. D admits that she "wrongfully removed" the children within the meaning of the Convention, but raises one of the Convention's exceptions: there is a grave risk that the children's return would expose the children to physical or psychological harm. The district court denied P's petition after making the finding that returning the children to P's custody would expose them to a "grave risk" of harm. P appeals.

Issue:Must a court consider protective measures in the foreign country if it is determined that there is a grave risk to a child to be returned to that country under the Hague Convention?

Rule:On petition brought under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, defenses to showing of wrongful removal are meant to be narrow, and they do not authorize court to exceed its Hague Convention function by making determinations, such as who is the better parent, that remain within purview of the court with plenary jurisdiction over the question of custody

Holding:The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, denied petition. Father appealed. Addressing issues of first impression, the Court of Appeals, held that: (1) evidence supported district court's factual determination that returning children to father's custody would expose them to “grave risk” of physical abuse within meaning of Hague Convention, but (2) remand was required for further consideration of range of remedies that might allow both return of the children to their home country and their protection from harm, pending custody award in due course by French court with proper jurisdiction.


AnalysisThe doctrine of stare decisis should not be followed if experience demonstrates that a rule needs modification to serve justice better or if reason so requires. Recognizing the tort of custodial interference when both parents have joint custody may play an important role in encouraging the speedy return of abducted children. When one parent purposely deprives the other joint custodial parent of their joint lawful custody of the child, a de facto sole custody arrangement is effectively created.