## Facts

- William Edward England and Deborah Carol England, both U.S. citizens, lived in Texas and moved to Australia in 1997 due to William’s job transfer.
- They had two daughters: Karina (13, adopted) and Victoria (4, born in Texas).
- In June 1999, the family left Australia for an extended trip and entered the United States in July 1999, with plans for all to return to Australia on July 15, 1999.
- William returned to Australia on July 15, 1999; Deborah and the children stayed in the United States, citing Deborah’s father’s serious illness.
- Deborah later filed for divorce in Texas and told William that she and the children would not return to Australia.
- William filed a federal petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by ICARA, seeking the children’s return to Australia.
- An Australian court determined Australia was the children’s habitual residence and that the children were wrongfully removed.

## Issues

1. Whether the respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to Australia would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b).
2. Whether the older child’s objection to return should bar return because she had attained an age and degree of maturity warranting reliance on her views under the child-objection exception.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the return petition and remanded with instructions to return the children to Australia.
- The court held the record did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that return would create a grave risk of psychological harm.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion in relying on the older child’s objections because the evidence did not sufficiently show the maturity required for the exception to apply.
- The court emphasized that Hague proceedings determine the proper forum for custody, not custody on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Once wrongful removal from the child’s habitual residence is shown, return is required unless a Convention exception is established.
- The Article 13(b) grave-risk defense is narrow and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; ordinary distress, relocation adjustment problems, and hardship from family conflict generally do not satisfy the standard.
- The child-objection exception requires both an actual objection and proof that the child has attained an age and degree of maturity making it appropriate to take account of the child’s views; application is discretionary and requires careful scrutiny of the objection’s independence and reliability.
- Hague Convention remedies aim to restore the pre-removal status quo and deter parents from seeking a more favorable custody forum through international removal or retention.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ordered the children’s return to Australia because the respondent did not meet the Convention’s demanding burdens for the grave-risk or child-objection exceptions, and custody was to be addressed in the courts of the children’s habitual residence.


England v. England, 234 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2000)