INMATTER OF AGO v. ODU

3 Citing cases

  1. Fernandez v. Bailey

    Case No. 8:16-cv-2444-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Sep. 21, 2016)

    Importantly, the mature objection of a child must address his or her particularized reasons for wishing to remain in their new country, rather than the child's preference for the parent with whom he or she wishes to live. Haimdas, 720 F. Supp. 2d at 208 ("[child who was nearly ten years old] sees this as a choice of which parent he wants to live with, not which country he wants to grow up in; his stated preference to remain in New York is not a particularized, mature objection that should be part of the Court's Hague Convention analysis."); cf. Ago v. Odu, No. 8:09-cv-976-T-17TBM, 2009 WL 2169857, at *14 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 20, 2009)(applying mature child exception when "[a]s [the 14-year old child] sees it, life is better here and he is more comfortable in his surroundings. This is not a choice of parents but as he sees it a choice of country.").

  2. Mertens v. Kleinsorge-Mertens

    157 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (D.N.M. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Cf.Falk v. Sinclair, Civ. No. 09–346–P–S, 2009 WL 4110757, at *2 (D.Maine Nov. 23, 2009) (“research discloses that at least one court, on the strength of the Mozes analytical construct, has in fact taken a child's testimony into account in determining the threshold issue of habitual residence, although the court did not deem the child's testimony controlling.”); Ago v. Odu, No. 8:09–cv–976–T–17TBM, 2009 WL 2169857, at *10 (M.D.Fla. July 20, 2009) (considering child's testimony). Stated simply, if the Hague Convention presumes that “mature” children may testify that they do not wish to return a country, surely they may testify to the contrary.

  3. Falk v. Sinclair

    692 F. Supp. 2d 147 (D. Me. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Finding acclimization where seven-year old had spent one year in country of habitual residence, and "the amount of time during which [the child] lived primarily in Germany . . . is consistent with a finding of acclimization for a child of her age"

    Her unhappiness and difficulty at school in Germany, her communication, commencing on June 28, 2008, of a desire to remain in the United States, and the ease with which she adjusted to living in the United States in the summer of 2008 do not undermine a finding that she was habitually resident in Germany as of August 5, 2008. See, e.g., AGO v. Odu, No. 8:09-cv-976-T-17TBM, 2009 WL 2169857, at *10 (M.D.Fla. July 20, 2009) (while 14-year-old child reacclimated quickly to the United States during summer visit to respondent's home and expressed desire to remain there, those "positive contacts" alone were insufficient to show change in habitual residence in view of parents' last shared settled intention that he live in the United States only during summers).