Opinion
20-55459
01-09-2023
THEA MARIE ROSASEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARLON ABRAHAM ROSASEN, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 5, 2023 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10742-JFW-AFM John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Marlon Abraham Rosasen appeals pro se the district court's judgment in favor of Thea Marie Rosasen on her petition under the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("Hague Convention") and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's fact findings for clear error, and we review de novo the district court's application of the Hague Convention to those facts. In re ICJ, 13 F.4th 753, 760-61 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
The district court properly exercised its broad discretion in deciding that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary because the parties presented evidence and argument and received a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Hague Convention art. 2, Oct. 25, 1980, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (in deciding Hague Convention petitions, courts must "use the most expeditious procedures available"); Colchester v. Lazaro, 16 F.4th 712, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) (courts "are accordingly vested with broad discretion to fashion appropriate procedures").
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Norway was the habitual residence of the parties' children. See Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S.Ct. 719, 723 (2020) (habitual residence determination is reviewed for clear error). Any agreement between the parents to raise the children in the United States was not dispositive. See id. at 726. The district court properly found that the children were "at home" in Norway because they attended daycare there, the majority of their close relatives lived there, and they had close relationships with Thea Rosasen's parents and other family members in Norway who helped to care for them. See id.
The district court properly found that the exception to the remedy of return set forth in Hague Convention Article 13(a) did not apply because Thea Rosasen did not consent to the children's relocation to the United States. See Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir. 2009) (itemizing consent or subsequent acquiescence as one exception to the Hague Convention's "rule of return").
Marlon Rosasen did not establish that the district court's grant of the petition violated his fundamental rights under Hague Convention Article 20. See Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (Mar. 26, 1986) (advising that the Article 20 exception is to be "invoked only on the rare occasion that return of a child would utterly shock the conscience of the court or offend all notions of due process").
Marlon Rosasen's motion for return of the children pending appeal (Dkt. No. 59) is denied.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).