An Illinois federal court "returned" a newborn to a country he had never been to, but where his parents undisputedly lived when he was born, in Uzoh v. Uzoh (N.D. Ill. 5/2/12 & 5/3/12). It said the parents' joint actions and intent were that the boy would be born in the U.S. to gain citizenship, but would reside in the family's home in England.
The court also rejected a request to bar the petitioner from seeking any relief because he had "unclean hands", i.e., he had done something wrong himself. While there is a traditional rule in "equity" cases that someone who asks a court for relief must have "clean hands", there is no such rule in the Hague Convention:
"it is not appropriate to consider the details of the parties' messy domestic disputes beyond their relevance to those defenses explicitly provided by the Hague Convention".
Personally, I have long been bothered by attempts to raise "unclean hands" defenses for another reason, too: They are usually about things done in another country, the evidence about them is not convenient to collect in a Hague case in the country the child was taken to, and since the treaty does not make them relevant, the petitioner and attorney should not have to take the time and expense of preparing to defend against every possible allegation about the history of the marriage or, in many cases, the many years since the separation and divorce.
Comments