Escaf v. Rodriguez , 52 F. App'x 207 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    AMALIN HAZBUN ESCAF,                  
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 02-1487
    ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
    (CA-01-1926-A)
    Argued: October 29, 2002
    Decided: December 11, 2002
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    COUNSEL: Isidoro Rodriguez, THE RODRIGUEZ LAW FIRM,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Patrick Hanley Stiehm, STIEHM
    LAW OFFICE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Ste-
    phen J. Cullen, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Towson, Maryland,
    for Appellee.
    2                        ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    This case is brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil
    Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No.
    11,670, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (Hague Convention). Isidoro Rodriguez
    appeals the district court’s order requiring (pursuant to the Hague
    Convention) the return of his thirteen-year-old son, Isidoro, to Colom-
    bia, Isidoro’s country of habitual residence and the residence of his
    mother. We affirm.
    I.
    Amalin Hazbun Escaf (Hazbun), a Colombian citizen, married Isi-
    doro Rodriguez (Rodriguez), a U.S. citizen, in Colombia in 1988.
    They lived in Barranquilla, Colombia after the marriage. In 1989 the
    couple had a son, Isidoro Rodriguez Hazbun (Isidoro), and Isidoro has
    joint Colombian-U.S. citizenship. Hazbun and Rodriguez divorced in
    1997, and both continued to live in Barranquilla. Rodriguez claims
    that he and Hazbun had an initial oral agreement providing that Isi-
    doro would split his time evenly between his parents; Hazbun dis-
    putes this. In August 1997 a Colombian family court approved a
    different custody agreement entered into between Hazbun and Rodri-
    guez. The court-approved agreement provided that Isidoro would live
    primarily with his mother, but would spend every other weekend with
    his father.
    Rodriguez returned to the United States in January 2000, taking up
    residence in Virginia. Later in 2000 Isidoro spent summer and Christ-
    mas vacations with Rodriguez in the United States. After Isidoro
    returned to the United States for a visit during the summer of 2001,
    Rodriguez filed (in Isidoro’s name) a petition for a change of custody
    in the Fairfax County, Virginia, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
    Court. Rodriguez then sent a facsimile transmission to Hazbun, telling
    ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ                          3
    her that Isidoro would be staying in the United States and would not
    be returning to Colombia. Included in the transmission to Hazbun was
    (1) a letter from Isidoro to his mother, saying that he wanted to stay
    with his father and (2) a copy of the petition for change of custody.
    In August 2001 Hazbun filed a Hague Convention Return Applica-
    tion with the Colombian Civil Authority, seeking Isidoro’s return to
    Colombia under the Hague Convention. In December 2001 Hazbun
    sued Rodriguez in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia,
    asking for an order requiring Isidoro’s immediate return to Colombia
    under the Hague Convention and its implementing legislation, 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 11601
     et seq. (West 1995 & Supp. 2002).
    Rodriguez filed a motion to dismiss Hazbun’s complaint, raising
    several issues that were thoroughly considered by the district court.
    First, the district court rejected Rodriguez’s argument that it lacked
    subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that jurisdiction was proper
    under 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 11603
    (a). Second, the district court rejected
    Rodriguez’s argument that Isidoro was an indispensable party in the
    federal lawsuit and that the failure to join him was grounds for dis-
    missal. Because a Hague Convention proceeding deals with the rights
    of those claiming custody, Hazbun and Rodriguez in this case, the
    court determined that it could afford complete relief to the parties
    without joining Isidoro. The court thus concluded that Isidoro was not
    an indispensable party, although the court was careful to note that his
    rights and wishes could be taken in account. Third, the district court
    rejected Rodriguez’s arguments that it should abstain from deciding
    the Hague Convention case while a state custody proceeding was
    pending. The court determined that Younger v. Harris, 
    401 U.S. 37
    (1971), did not require it to abstain. The court noted that Younger
    calls for federal courts to abstain from decision when (1) a concurrent
    state proceeding is pending, (2) an important state interest is impli-
    cated, and (3) the parties may seek review of their federal claims in
    state court. The court concluded that Rodriguez’s argument failed on
    the second Younger requirement because Hague Convention cases
    implicate only the international movement of children, which is a fed-
    eral, rather than a state, interest. The district court also declined to
    abstain based on Colorado River Water Conservation District v.
    United States, 
    424 U.S. 800
     (1976), which applies only when ongoing
    federal and state proceedings are parallel. Because the federal and
    4                         ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ
    state proceedings here do not involve the same parties and issues, the
    court concluded that they are not parallel and that Colorado River
    does not apply.
    After denying Rodriguez’s motion to dismiss, the district court held
    a bench trial to determine whether Isidoro had been "wrongfully
    removed or retained in" the United States, a country that is a party to
    the Hague Convention. In its final opinion, which set forth findings
    of fact and conclusions of law, the district court found that Colombia
    was Isidoro’s habitual residence and that he had been wrongfully
    retained in the United States. The court then considered and rejected
    possible defenses to Hazbun’s claim that Isidoro should be returned
    to Colombia. First, the district court determined that Rodriguez had
    not presented clear and convincing evidence that Isidoro would be at
    grave risk if he returned to Colombia. Second, the court determined
    that Isidoro — who said that his preference was to remain in the
    United States for now, but that later he wanted to spend equal time
    in the United States and Colombia — was not of a sufficient age and
    maturity for his views to be given conclusive weight. The district
    court ultimately concluded that the Hague Convention and 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 11603
     et seq. required that Isidoro be returned to Colom-
    bia forthwith, and an order to that effect was entered. After Rodriguez
    was unsuccessful in his efforts in this court and in the Supreme Court
    to obtain a stay pending appeal, Isidoro was returned to Colombia on
    June 11, 2002, pursuant to the district court’s order.
    II.
    Rodriguez appeals, challenging the district court’s decision that Isi-
    doro is not an indispensable party, its refusal to abstain, and its deter-
    mination that Rodriguez did not establish a defense under the Hague
    Convention. Rodriguez also asserts that the proceedings in district
    court violated his parental rights and Isidoro’s due process rights.
    The district court noted that this case arises from "an exceptionally
    difficult situation" for Isidoro and for the parties. We agree. Accord-
    ingly, we have carefully considered the briefs, the joint appendix, and
    the oral arguments. We conclude that the proceedings in district court
    did not violate either Rodriguez’s or Isidoro’s rights. As to the other
    issues, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hazbun
    ESCAF v. RODRIGUEZ                       5
    v. Rodriguez, 
    191 F. Supp. 2d 685
     (E.D. Va. 2002) (opinion denying
    motions to dismiss); Hazbun v. Rodriguez, 
    200 F. Supp. 2d 603
     (E.D.
    Va. 2002) (memorandum opinion containing findings of fact and con-
    clusions of law).
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1487

Citation Numbers: 52 F. App'x 207

Judges: Wilkins, Michael, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/11/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024