Teens' strong desire to live with Dad isn't a Hague Convention "objection" issue - SC Fed. Ct.

It's always exciting to see Greer, SC, home of my uncle Doug Crouch, in the news for something other than an elementary school exam requiring a belief in pure, 4004-BC creationism. In Hirst v. Tiberghien, (USDC S.C., Greenville Division, 5/3/13, sent to me by Melissa Kucinski of Global Family Mediation) the children had a strong preference to live with their father who had brought them there from England, but the federal court in Greenville, South Carolina, said that that was an issue for a custody case, and would be amply addressed in a custody case in England. It distinguished this "preference" from the "particularized objection" of a mature child which might properly be cited as a reason not to return a child in a Hague Convention case. The children talked about Manchester as a "cold", stark, unfriendly place, in contrast with South Carolina. The court said that "The children’s preference for the temperate climate and southern hospitality of Greenville, as well as their affinity for their father’s yard, is not sufficient to invoke Article 13’s narrow exception." The children also had taken sides in a dispute between the parents, believing strongly that their mother had lied to them about the father's relationship with another woman, and the judge felt that that seemed to be their main motivation.