Blondin v. Dubois
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
238 F.3d 153 (2001)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Felix Blondin (plaintiff) and Marthe Dubois (defendant) had two children, Marie-Eline and François. Blondin emotionally and physically abused Dubois, Marie-Eline, and François. When Marie-Eline was six years old and François was two years old, Dubois abducted them and took them to the United States. Blondin petitioned a district court for an order to return Marie-Eline and François to France, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (convention). Under the convention, an abducted child had to be repatriated to her country of habitual residence, with four exceptions. One exception was found in Article 13(b): a court could refuse repatriation if repatriation would expose the child to a grave risk of psychological harm (GRPH). The district court found that if Marie-Eline and François returned to France, they might be forced to live with Blondin, causing them to be exposed to a GRPH. The district court held that Article 13(b) applied and refused repatriation. Blondin appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the district court to conduct further proceedings to determine whether the GRPH could be mitigated to allow Marie-Eline and François to safely return to France. On remand, the district court heard the expert testimony of Dr. Albert J. Solnit, a widely recognized expert on child psychology. Solnit testified that Marie-Eline and François would experience posttraumatic stress disorder if they returned to France under any circumstances, because they would associate France with Blondin’s abuse. Blondin did not submit any evidence regarding the psychological effect that repatriation would have on Marie-Eline and François. Solnit’s expertise and testimony were uncontroverted, and the district court relied on Solnit’s testimony in making its findings, including the finding that Marie-Eline and François would experience posttraumatic stress disorder if they returned to France. The district court refused repatriation, holding, among other things, that the GRPH could not be mitigated and Article 13(b) applied. Blondin appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erroneously held that Article 13(b) applied.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cabranes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.