Duran v. Beaumont 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

06-5614-cv
Duran v. Beaumont
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term, 2010
(Argued: March 4, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2010)
Docket No. 06-5614-cv
HUGO ALEJANDRO VILLEGAS DURAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
–v.–
J OHANA I VETTE ARRIBADA BEAUMONT ,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before:
WINTER and WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and COGAN , District Judge.*
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari,
vacated our prior decision that affirmed the district court, and remanded the case to us for
reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbott v. Abbott, --- U.S.---, 130 S.
Ct. 1983 (2010).
32
Duran v. Beaumont, 130 S. Ct. 3318 (2010). We remand the case to the district
court for it to consider, in the first instance, whether any of the Hague Convention exceptions
apply.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
TURNER P. SMITH , Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, for Appellant,
ROBERT D. ARENSTEIN, New York, N.Y., for Appellee.
* The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM: 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Appellant, Hugo Alejandro Villegas Duran, sought an order compelling Appellee, Johana
Ivette Arribada Beaumont, to return their daughter, Valentina Almendra Villegas Arribada, to
Chile under the Hague Convention. He contended that Appellee’s violation of Chilean law –
removing their daughter to the United States and keeping her there past the three months
authorized by a Chilean court – constituted a “wrongful” removal, as defined by the Hague
Convention. The district court agreed that Appellee violated a Chilean court’s order, but held
that it could not order her return because Appellant was neither granted nor exercised custodial
rights.
We affirmed, agreeing with the district court that Appellant’s bundle of rights did not
amount to rights of custody within the meaning of the Hague Convention. While Chile was the
habitual place of the child’s residence, and Appellant had a statutory ne exeat right – the right to
determine whether the child can leave the country – Appellant failed to establish the custody
requirement by a preponderance of the evidence. At that time, Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d
Cir. 2000), which stood for the proposition that a ne exeat right is not a right of custody under
the Hague Convention, was good law.
14
15
16
Most recently, the Supreme Court decided Abbott v. Abbott, --- U.S.---, 130 S. Ct. 1983
(2010). In
17
Abbott, the Court overturned a decision by the Fifth Circuit, which held that a
mother’s violation of a ne exeat right did not constitute a breach of the father’s rights of custody
as defined by the Hague Convention. By overturning the Fifth Circuit, the Court abrogated our
decision in
18
19
20
Croll. That a ne exeat right does not fit within traditional notions of physical
custody, the Court found, was beside the point; it still falls within the “rights of custody” as
defined by the Convention. As the Court noted, however, even if a petitioner shows that the
21
22
23

-- 2 of 3 --

child was habitually resident in a state from which the abducting parent removed her, and the
removal was in violation of the petitioner’s custody rights – such as a ne exeat right – that he was
exercising at the time of the removal, a return order is not automatic. This is so because the
abducting parent can establish that a Hague Convention exception applies.
1
2
3
4
5 The Supreme Court has subsequently vacated our prior decision in the instant case and
remanded it to us for reconsideration in light of Abbott. Duran v. Beaumont, 130 S. Ct. 3318
(2010). We find that a remand is appropriate solely to address Part IV of
6
Abbott – i.e., to
determine whether any of the Hague Convention’s exceptions apply. The district court does not
need to address the three elements required for removal; it has already properly found that the
child’s habitual residence was Chile,
7
8
9
see Duran v. Beaumont, 534 F.3d 142, 147 (2d Cir. 2008), 10
Abbott has concluded that the very same ne exeat right that Appellant had is a right of custody
under the Hague Convention, and under
11
Abbott, he exercised that right when he refused consent, 12
see Duran, 534 F.3d at 145. 13
14
15
16
Therefore, we remand the matter for further proceedings in the district court consistent
with this decision.

-- 3 of 3 --