## Facts

- Lori Al-Silham (plaintiff) married Reda Al-Silham (defendant), a citizen of Saudi Arabia and a permanent resident of the United States.
- The couple had a child, Layla.
- Lori filed for divorce in an Ohio trial court.
- During the divorce and custody proceedings, the trial court became concerned that Reda might remove Layla from the United States to Saudi Arabia and not return her.
- The trial court considered evidence that Saudi Arabia did not have a reciprocal extradition treaty with the United States and that, at the time, there was no effective process to secure a child’s return if wrongfully taken from the United States to Saudi Arabia.
- The trial court also considered evidence of major differences between Reda’s Muslim culture and Lori’s Christian culture as part of the broader context for the court’s assessment of the risk of non-return.
- The court heard evidence suggesting Reda was prepared to leave with Layla, including that he regularly carried a large amount of cash, possessed Layla’s Saudi passport, and had a ticket for a flight to Saudi Arabia.
- Lori asserted that Reda told her that if she filed for divorce, she would lose Layla.
- The trial court granted the divorce, awarded custody of Layla to Lori, and granted parenting time to Reda subject to strict conditions.
- The parenting-time order required visits to occur only in the Ohio county where Lori and Layla lived and required supervision by Lori or a person Lori selected.
- Reda appealed, arguing (among other points) that the restrictions violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection because, in his view, they were imposed solely due to his Saudi citizenship.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court violated the father’s Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights by restricting his parenting time based on the asserted risk he would take the child to Saudi Arabia and prevent her return.
2. Whether the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing supervised, county-limited parenting time based on evidence of potential international abduction and the difficulty of securing a return from Saudi Arabia.
3. Whether the trial court could consider evidence about the practical enforceability of custody rights and return options if the child were removed to Saudi Arabia when setting parenting-time conditions.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s parenting-time restrictions.
- The court rejected the equal-protection challenge, treating the restrictions as based on case-specific risk evidence rather than nationality alone.
- The court upheld the requirement that parenting time occur only in the child’s county of residence and be supervised by Lori or her designee as a permissible child-welfare measure in light of the record.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio domestic-relations courts have broad discretion to set parenting-time conditions in the child’s best interests, including supervision and geographic limits when supported by evidence.
- A court may consider the risk of international child abduction, including the likelihood of non-return and the real-world obstacles to recovering a child from a foreign country, when crafting custody and parenting-time orders.
- Parenting-time limits do not violate equal protection merely because a parent’s foreign citizenship is part of the factual setting; the constitutional analysis turns on whether the restrictions rest on individualized facts showing risk, not on citizenship alone.
- Evidence bearing on the feasibility of enforcing custody rights or obtaining a child’s return from a foreign jurisdiction may be relevant to deciding whether preventive parenting-time conditions are warranted.

## Conclusion

In *Al-Silham v. Al-Silham*, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a divorce court’s order granting the mother custody while limiting the father to supervised visitation within the county where the child lived, based on evidence suggesting a real risk that he would take the child to Saudi Arabia and that securing her return would be difficult; the court treated the restrictions as justified by child-welfare concerns and rejected the claim that they amounted to unequal treatment based solely on the father’s Saudi citizenship.


Al-Silham v. Al-Silham, 1994 WL 102480 (1994)