Dhooge v. Pronker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
GERADUS GEORGE DHOOGE 	PETITIONER
vs. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-693-JM
ANNA ELISABETH PRONKER 	RESPONDENT
ORDER
On August 14, 2025, the Court entered its order granting the petition of Geradus
Dhooge’s to order his son’s return to Netherlands pursuant to the Hague Convention as
implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). (Doc. 18). Dhooge
filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs on August 28, 2025 (Doc. 19), the response to which
was due by September 11, 2025. Rather than file a response, Anna Elisabeth Pronker’s attorneys,
Kale L. Ludwig and Harry Warden, filed a motion to withdraw on September 10, 2025. (Doc.
21). No response has been filed to either motion.
Motion to Withdraw
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5(f), “[n]o attorney shall withdraw from an action or
proceeding except by leave of Court after reasonable notice has been given to the client and
opposing counsel.” The trial court has discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to
withdraw. See Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir.1994).
In their motion to withdraw, Ms. Pronker’s attorneys advise that their client emailed them
saying she has retained substitute counsel and thus terminated their representation of her. They
also advise that they have informed her of the pending motion for attorney’s fees and costs as
well as their motion to withdraw. They do not indicate the date and manner of service of these
motions on their client or the date that she notified them she had retained substitute counsel. To
Case 4:25-cv-00693-JM Document 22 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 4

2
date, no other counsel has entered an appearance for Ms. Pronker.1 The motion to withdraw is
denied without prejudice at this time. If new counsel enters an appearance, present counsel can
refile the motion. Ms. Pronker left the Netherlands without notifying her son’s father or the
Dutch court. She stopped responding to Mr. Dhooge at all. She did not file any responsive
pleadings in this Court. Continued legal representation will assist with better communication
between the parties and with the Court.
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Pursuant to ICARA, any court ordering the return of a child under the Hague Convention
is required to award fees and costs to the petitioner “unless the respondent establishes that such
order would be clearly inappropriate.” Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369, 373 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing
what is now 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3)). The “clearly inappropriate” inquiry is fact-dependent and
involves consideration of such factors as whether an award would significantly impair the
respondent's ability to care for the child2 and whether a respondent had a good faith belief that
her actions in removing or retaining a child were legal or justified.3 However, the burden of
proof is on the losing respondent to overcome the presumption that an award of fees and costs is
appropriate. As Petitioner has not responded to the motion for fees and costs, she has not
established that the requested fees and costs would be clearly inappropriate.
In making an award, Court is guided by “the same general standards that apply when
‘attorney's fees are to be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of the court's discretion.’”
Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 375 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S.
1 The Court does not know what fee arrangements counsel made with Ms. Pronker for their representation in this
case, but they do not suggest that they have not been paid.
2 See Whallon v. Lynn, 356 F.3d 138, 139-140 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing cases); and Norinder v. Fuentes, 657 F.3d 526,
536–37 (7th Cir. 2011).
3 See Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 375 (2d Cir. 2013); Rath v. Marcoski, 898 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2018).
Case 4:25-cv-00693-JM Document 22 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 4

3
517, 534 (1994)). Mr. Dhooge attached the declaration of his attorney, Kathryn Platt, to his
motion. (Doc. No. 19-pp. 5-9). Ms. Platt outlines her experience in cases of this type, including
her membership in the Hague Convention Attorney Network since 1997 and twenty-eight years
of handling or consulting on Hague cases. Her knowledge was apparent at the hearing on this
matter. Based on its familiarity with fees customarily charged by experienced counsel that appear
before it, the Court finds her rate of $450/hour reasonable.
Ms. Platt also attached a detailed billing statement showing the time she spent on this
case and costs incurred. Having carefully considered each of the line items billed, the Court finds
them to be reasonable. While the total time she spent on this case was 89.5 hours, she voluntarily
reduced her time by 22 hours (representing twelve hours of driving time from Fayetteville to
Little Rock and ten work hours). She did not attempt to charge for any clerical or administrative
expenses. Her total fee request is $ 30,375.00. The Court finds this to be a reasonable award
based on the lodestar method.4 Her costs incurred include the $ 405.00 filing fee, $ 140.00 for
service, $800.00 for the Dutch interpreter, and $268.80 for mileage. The total costs incurred total
$ 1,613.80. 	The Court awards the full amount of fees and costs requested, for a total of
$31,988.80.
In making this award, the Court considers that while the litigation was brief, it was
expedited, intense, and international. Mr. Dhooge’s counsel was required to significantly curtail
her work on other cases from the time she accepted this case until its conclusion. It was not a
close call for the Court to find that Ms. Pronker had wrongfully removed the parties’ son from
his place of habitual residence. While the parties had been extensively involved in visitation
issues through the Dutch proceedings, Ms. Pronker chose to move their son to Arkansas without
4 See Bhattacharjee v. Craig, No. 4:21-CV-00826-SEP, 2022 WL 2915545, at *5 (E.D. Mo. July 25, 2022).
Case 4:25-cv-00693-JM Document 22 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 4

4
a word to anyone. Finally, ICARA’s fee-shifting provision is “intended not only intended to
compensate the bearers of the expenses incurred but also to provide an additional deterrent to
wrongful international child removals and retention.” Salazar v. Maimon, 750 F.3d 514, 520 (5th
Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation omitted.)
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above,
1. 	Petitioner’s motion for fees and costs (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED, and
Petitioner is awarded $31,988.80 in attorney’s fees and costs.
2. 	The motion to be relieved filed by Respondent’s attorneys (Doc. No. 19) is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2025.
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00693-JM Document 22 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 4