## Facts

- Savvas Charalambous (Cypriot citizen) and Elizabeth Rohnert Charalambous (U.S. citizen) married in 1996, held a religious ceremony in Cyprus in 1998, and lived primarily in Limassol, Cyprus.
- They had two children: N.C. (born 2002) and A.C. (born 2008).
- In June 2010, Elizabeth took the children from Cyprus to Maine, representing the trip as a summer visit and buying return tickets; Savvas expected their return in August 2010.
- Elizabeth did not return the children to Cyprus as represented and retained them in the United States.
- Savvas petitioned in federal district court for return under the Hague Convention and ICARA.
- Elizabeth opposed return under Article 13(b), alleging verbal abuse and a single incident of physical abuse directed at her; the children did not witness the alleged incidents.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Cyprus to be the children’s habitual residence and ordered return, concluding Elizabeth had not proven a grave risk to the children by clear and convincing evidence; the court imposed interim conditions and set a transfer date.
- On appeal, the First Circuit initially stayed removal, expedited briefing and argument, and then addressed whether the return order should stand.

## Issues

1. Whether the respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to Cyprus would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, or place them in an intolerable situation, under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.
2. Whether the district court committed legal or reversible factual error in evaluating the abuse allegations and determining that Article 13(b) did not apply.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s return order and lifted the stay.
- The court held the district court committed no legal error and that its findings and conclusions were supported by the record.
- The court agreed that Elizabeth failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that return to Cyprus posed a grave risk to the children within the meaning of Article 13(b).
- The court ordered the children to be placed in Savvas’s custody by a specified date for their return to Cyprus and returned jurisdiction to the district court for enforcement-related orders if needed.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Convention (as implemented by ICARA) provides a remedy to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed from their habitual residence; it does not decide the merits of custody.
- Once wrongful removal/retention from the child’s habitual residence is shown, return is generally required unless a narrowly construed exception is proven.
- Article 13(b) permits denial of return only if the respondent proves by clear and convincing evidence that return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise create an intolerable situation.
- The grave-risk inquiry centers on risk to the child, not merely the abducting parent’s fears or hardship associated with returning.
- Appellate review is deferential to district court factfinding and credibility determinations in Hague Convention proceedings.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed the return of two children to Cyprus under the Hague Convention, holding that evidence of marital conflict and alleged abuse directed at the taking parent, without clear and convincing proof of grave risk to the children, was insufficient to invoke Article 13(b) and defeat the Convention’s return remedy.


Charalambous v. Charalambous, 627 F.3d 462 (1st Cir. 2010)