## Facts

- Felix Blondin (father) and Marthe Dubois (mother) lived in France and had two children, Marie-Eline and François.
- Dubois alleged Blondin subjected her and the children to repeated severe physical and emotional abuse while they lived together in France.
- Dubois previously fled with the children to shelters and later returned; she alleged the violence resumed after reconciliation.
- Dubois ultimately removed the children from France to the United States without Blondin’s consent.
- Blondin petitioned in federal court under the Hague Convention and ICARA for the children’s return to France, their habitual residence.
- After an initial denial based on Article 13(b), the court of appeals remanded for consideration of whether protective measures could enable safe return.
- On remand, the district court credited unrebutted testimony from child psychiatrist Dr. Albert J. Solnit that returning to France “under any circumstances” would likely cause the children to suffer a recurrence of acute, severe post-traumatic stress disorder because they associated France with past abuse.
- The district court found no protective arrangements could sufficiently mitigate the risk and again denied return.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that repatriation to France would likely cause the children severe post-traumatic stress disorder even with safeguards.
2. Whether a high likelihood of recurring PTSD constitutes a “grave risk” of “psychological harm” under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.
3. Whether the district court could consider the children’s settlement in the United States and the older child’s preference to remain as factors supporting the Article 13(b) determination.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment denying Blondin’s petition for return.
- The district court’s finding of likely severe PTSD upon return was not clearly erroneous given the detailed, unrebutted expert testimony.
- Severe psychological injury, including likely recurrence of acute PTSD, can satisfy Article 13(b)’s “grave risk of psychological harm” standard.
- The district court properly concluded that protective measures could not adequately reduce the risk where the harm was triggered by returning to France itself.
- The court permitted consideration of the children’s settled circumstances in the United States and the older child’s expressed wish to stay as supporting factors in the grave-risk analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hague Convention, return is generally required for a child wrongfully removed from the habitual-residence country, unless a proven exception applies.
- Article 13(b) permits denial of return when the opposing party proves a “grave risk” that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
- Interpretation of the Convention is reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and application of the Convention to found facts is reviewed de novo.
- Courts must consider whether conditions or undertakings could permit safe repatriation, but may deny return when the grave risk cannot be sufficiently mitigated.
- Serious, well-supported evidence of severe psychological harm (including PTSD) can meet the Article 13(b) threshold.
- A child’s stability in the requested state and an older child’s stated preference may be weighed as factors when assessing whether return would cause grave psychological harm.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the Hague Convention’s presumption favoring return yields where credible, unrebutted expert evidence shows that repatriation itself would likely inflict severe psychological injury, and it affirmed denial of return because no protective measures could adequately prevent the children’s recurrence of acute PTSD.


Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001)