ÿWPC[ E ^ŽZí'‡¸pÍ+5¸ãf±.0""eM ¢s¹ù^Š'ÂRu~£q×/ ñÃ2cÑÃöDG$sõ ê½g Ãæ#àØÐ¾‹•„™J|ˆÜí'ßÁª’ßúŒXEKß´ šö”×ÜËQ3cûǰ¤Xp²çL³ k_ü_ þ²Sé˜j׺ï|ËŽ;úFt°´«ôþâà¦÷Zâ¯/´ÇÎ,Ææ¼ß€ÆY«¡œEµ4Âî£)Š#¼v ÛN?æ¾—ìÁ.c¤óEõì…ë㌧D¼hö„ y11:êOá˜}ûŠ]™Ô=Óšëž® oå0êÂiÄ-1ÚZò¨¤À`JœíX1£Ä ·ÝÍøóµ sm½ðhÍß°èÊK»­µ˜…²#8í(5×Õ;Âñy…ƒa9{6²ñèe¦feH°ªSÑë™,º5-z7èbIh§ÅÏwEƒI2²6á Yhko=£;ùB£Ðʰ¤þ]&ž"‡njÆûÑ3³n×Aãâ#tÅóêd Ù øú­ †ÎíæÆnê° a =Qö Œt‹ÜÈçÊ//8nƒËç±îE×…ö—1SÜMD2®rÐHf€ýÜK•¿Ñ Y÷xÙJÆÕib˜Ú^#!$UGNE %“ 0(™UJÁU: Uƒ>E ^ ƒ w@ 4Ï ã ò mô : 0ªE 0Dï 3 š4åÎ ³ ³ )¿$¿$‹è) 1‡s. 1uú. 0co/ Ò/<ß13373ËÇ7Ç7Z’<U>ì=ë*>…CU>šFUNØFUF&GElG%nGU>“WNÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑWÑW-ÓWÓWÓWÓWÓWÓWÓWÓWÓWÓW B[˜HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ô4  2Times New RomanBoldTT„†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular´èÀ( 9Z+&Courier Regular”[)Æ N0eO0eP0€Q0R0ES0T0U0V0EW0Ò‰T)ing$“Š3|xW0ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 0Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àWhallon€alleged€only€wrongful€removal,€and€not€wrongfulÐ ° Ðretention.(Z(2Aê$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XhäXXXÔÔ€XhäXXXhäÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÷Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àWhile€the€Hague€Convention€provides€remedies€for€aÐ ° Ðviolation€of€access€rights,€òòseeóóòòid.óó,€art.€21,€19€I.L.M.€at€1503,Ð xÈ Ðsuch€remedies€do€not€include€an€order€of€return€to€the€place€ofÏhabitual€residence.€€Rather,€such€remedies€include,€inter€alia,Ïordering€that€the€custodial€parent€who€removed€the€child€from€theÏchild's€habitual€residence€reimburse€the€other€parent€forÏexpenses€incurred€in€exercising€his€or€her€rights€of€access.€òòId.óóÐ ` ° Ðart.€26,€19€I.L.M.€at€1503„04. Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=ÓThe€Hague€Convention€is€implemented€by€theÐ ° ÐInternational€Child€Abduction€Remedies€Act€("ICARA").€€òòSeeóó42Ð xÈ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€11601€òòet€seq.óó ÛÝ ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àPatria€potestas€is€a€concept€derived€from€Roman€law€andÐ ° Ðoriginally€meant€paternal€power.€€It€referred€to€a€father's€"nearÏabsolute€right€to€his€children,€whom€he€viewed€as€chattel,"€aÏright€with€which€courts€were€powerless€to€interfere.€€Kathryn€L.ÏMercer,€òòA€Content€Analysis€of€Judicial€Decision„Making:€HowÐ Ð  ÐJudges€Use€the€Primary€Caretaker€Standard€to€Make€a€CustodyÏDeterminationóó,€5€Wm.€&€Mary€J.€Women€&€L.€1,€14€(1998);€òòseeÐ ` ° ÐalsoóóBlack's€Law€Dictionary€1188€(7th€ed.€1999)€(defining€patriaÐ ( x Ðpotestas€as€"[t]he€authority€held€by€the€male€head€of€a€familyÏover€his€children€and€further€descendants€in€the€male€line,Ïunless€emancipated,"€initially€including€"the€power€of€life€andÏdeath").€€In€contrast,€the€Roman€legal€tradition€did€not€provideÏwives€with€rights€of€parental€authority.€€òòSeeóó€Sibylla€Flugge,€òòTheÐ `  ÐHistory€of€Fathers'€Rights€and€Mothers'€Duty€of€Careóó,€3€CardozoÐ Ø(  ÐWomen's€L.J.€377,€383€(1996).€Ì€Ìà  àIn€the€Anglo„American€legal€tradition,€the€doctrine€ofÏpatria€potestas€was€eroded€by€the€emergence€in€the€seventeenthÏcentury€of€the€conflicting€doctrine€of€parens€patriae,€whichÐ À  Ðrecognized€the€state's€interest€in€and€responsibility€forÏchildren.€€òòSeeóó€Mercer,€òòA€Content€Analysis€of€Judicial€Decision„Ð xÈ ÐMakingóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€14„15.€€"Courts,€as€a€second€stakeholder,€beganÐ @ Ðto€intervene€in€custody€matters€to€protect€the€welfare€of€theÏchild,"€and€became€the€"final€arbiter€of€familial€disputes"€inÏthe€American€colonies.€€òòId.óó€at€15.€€In€the€early€nineteenthÐ ˜è Ðcentury,€American€courts€began€to€award€custody€in€accordanceÏwith€the€judicially€determined€best€interests€of€the€child.€€€InÏpractice,€however,€this€rejection€of€the€paternal€preferenceÏembodied€in€the€patria€potestas€doctrine€merely€paved€the€way€forÏthe€emergence€of€the€maternal€preference€embodied€in€the€tenderÏyears€doctrine,€which€provided€that€a€mother,€unless€shown€to€beÏunfit,€deserved€custody€of€young€children€in€light€of€her€uniqueÏmaternal€bond€to€her€children.€€òòSeeóó€Amy€D.€Ronner,€òòWomen€whoÐ Ø(  ÐDance€on€the€Professional€Track:€Custody€and€the€Red€Shoesóó,€23Ð  ð  ÐHarv.€Women's€L.J.€173€(2000).ÌÌà  àHowever,€patria€potestas€appears€to€have€followed€a€somewhatÏdifferent€path€of€development€in€legal€traditions€based€on€civilÏcodes.€€òòCf.óó,€òòe.g.óó,€Flugge,€òòThe€History€of€Fathers'€Rightsóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð ˆØ Ðat€383€(discussing€influence€of€patria€potestas€on€Germany's€codeÏestablished€in€the€nineteenth€century).€€Other€Latin€AmericanÏcountries€with€civil€code€traditions€appear€to€recognize€someÏform€of€patria€potestas€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòPesinóó€v.€òòRodriguezóó,€77€F.Ð ¨ø ÐSupp.€2d€1277,€1286€€(S.D.€Fla.€1999)€(noting,€in€HagueÏConvention€case,€that€under€Venezuela's€code€father€and€motherÏ"'are€vested€with€the€parental€authority€until€a€judicialÏdecision€establishes€otherwise'"€and€that€"father€and€mother€whoÏexercise€parental€authority€have€custody€of€their€children€.€.€.Ïshall€elect€by€mutual€consent€their€place€of€domicile,€residenceÏor€domicile€[sic]";€finding€that€mother's€removal€of€childÏbreached€father's€rights€of€custody€under€the€Convention).€€ThisÏcase€highlights€the€difficulties€in€imposing€Anglo„AmericanÏdefinitions€of€custody€on€legal€systems,€like€Mexico's,€that€haveÏdifferent€origins€and€traditions.€€Baja€California€Sur's€codeÏsuggests€the€continuing€resilience€of€patria€potestas€rightsÏ(albeit€in€a€diluted€form)€under€Mexican€law,€despite€theÏpresumption€that€physical€custody€of€children€under€age€seven€beÏawarded€to€the€mother,€at€least€in€cases€of€divorce.€ Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àThis€provision€was€deliberately€left€vague€due€to€theÐ ° Ðdrafters'€failure€to€agree€on€a€more€precise€definition.€ÏòòSeeóóElisa€Perez„Vera,€Explanatory€Report:€Hague€Conference€onÐ @ ÐPrivate€International€Law€ðð€84,€in€3€Acts€and€Documents€of€theÏFourteenth€Session€426,€451„52€("Explanatory€Report")€("[S]inceÏall€efforts€to€define€custody€rights€in€regard€to€[particularÏsituations]€failed,€one€has€to€rest€content€with€the€generalÏdescription€given€[in€the€text].").€€States,€however,€might€wishÏto€take€the€principles€of€the€Convention€into€account€whenÏredrafting€national€legislation€on€custody€matters.€€òòSeeóó€Paul€R.Ð ¸   ÐBeaumont€&€Peter€E.€McEleavy,€òòThe€Hague€Convention€onÐ € Ð  ÐInternational€Child€Abductionóó€49€(1999). Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àLynn€also€relies€on€the€Second€Circuit's€recentÐ ° Ðdecision€in€òòCrollóó,€òòsupraóó,€where€the€court€held€that€òòóóthe€motherÐ xÈ Ðwas€not€required€to€return€the€child€to€Hong€Kong€because€she€didÏnot€violate€the€father's€rights€of€custody€under€the€Convention.€ÏIn€contrast€to€the€situation€here,€in€òòCrollóó€there€had€been€aÐ Ð  Ðclear€determination€of€custody€rights€by€a€court€of€the€countryÏof€habitual€residence€awarding€sole€custody€to€the€mother€andÏgranting€only€rights€of€access€to€the€father.€€òòId.óó€at€*1.€Ð ( x ÐMoreover,€while€the€custody€order€in€òòCrollóó€contained€a€ne€exeatÐ ð @ Ðclause€prohibiting€the€child's€removal€from€Hong€Kong€until€sheÏattained€the€age€of€eighteen€years€without€leave€of€court€orÏconsent€of€the€other€parent,€such€clause€represented€only€aÏnegative€right€or€veto,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€*7,€as€opposed€to€the€affirmativeÐ `  Ðgrant€of€custody€rights€to€Whallon€under€Mexican€law€and€theÏample€evidence€of€Whallon's€actual€exercise€of€those€rights. Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àThe€Convention€allows€the€party€seeking€the€return€ofÐ ° Ðthe€child€to€request€that€the€central€authority€of€a€contractingÏState€provide€an€explanation€of€its€law.€€òòSeeóó€Hague€Convention,Ð @ Ðart.€15,€19€I.L.M.€at€1503.€€Here,€Whallon€put€into€evidence€aÏletter€from€the€Mexican€Central€Authority€for€Child€Abduction€toÏthe€National€Center€for€Missing€and€Exploited€Children.€€AlthoughÏthe€letter€contains€significant€factual€mistakes€„„€for€example,Ïit€incorrectly€refers€to€Lynn,€an€American€citizen,€as€a€GermanÏcitizen€„„€it€nevertheless€states€that€"patria€potestas€(custody)Ïwill€be€exercised€by€both€parents"€under€Baja€California€Sur'sÏCivil€Code.€€The€letter,€however,€takes€no€position€as€to€whetherÏpatria€potestas€rights€amount€to€custody€rights€under€theÏConvention,€nor€does€it€reveal€what€question€had€been€put€to€theÏMexican€Central€Authority.€€We€give€it€little€weight€as€a€result.(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àFurthermore,€the€cases€on€which€Lynn€relies€for€thisÐ ° Ðargumentòòóó€involved€the€bonds€between€a€child€and€her€mother,€notÐ xÈ Ðher€sibling.€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòSteffen€F.óóv.€òòSeverina€P.óó,€966€F.€Supp.Ð @ Ð922,€928€(D.€Ariz.€1997). 2Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àThe€district€court's€opinion€did€not€explicitly€addressÐ ° Ðthis€issue. WHALLON †Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àLynn's€reliance€on€òòShalitóó€v.€òòCoppeóó,€òòsupraóó,€isÐ ° Ðmisplaced.€€In€òòShalitóó,€a€wrongful€retention€case,€the€mother€keptÐ xÈ Ðthe€child€in€Alaska€after€the€child€had€come€to€visit€her€on€aÏtwo„week€vacation,€despite€an€oral€agreement€„„€never€approved€byÏany€court€„„€that€the€child€would€live€temporarily€with€theÏfather€in€Israel.€€òòShalitóó,€182€F.3d€at€1126.€€The€Ninth€CircuitÐ ˜è Ðaffirmed€the€district€court's€decision€denying€the€father'sÏreturn€petition.òòóó€€The€court€relied€on€the€determination€of€anÐ ( x ÐAlaska€state€court€that€predated€the€oral€agreement€and€thatÏgranted€the€mother€sole€legal€and€physical€custody.€€òòId.óó€at€1130„Ð ¸   Ð31.€€Here,€by€contrast,€there€has€been€no€such€judicialÏdetermination€of€custody.€€Moreover,€the€law€of€Baja€CaliforniaÏSur€demonstrates€the€existence€of€rights€of€custody€in€Whallon. ÁÝ ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àElisa€Perez„Vera€served€as€"the€official€HagueÐ ° ÐConference€reporter€for€the€Convention,"€and€her€explanatoryÏreport€"is€recognized€by€the€Conference€as€the€official€historyÏof€and€commentary€on€the€Convention€and€is€a€source€of€backgroundÏon€the€meaning€of€the€provisions€of€the€Convention."€€òòSeeóó€HagueÐ Ð  ÐInternational€Child€Abduction€Convention;€Text€and€LegalÏAnalysis,€51€Fed.€Reg.€10494,€10503€(1986);€òòaccordóó€òòShalitóó€v.Ð ` ° ÐòòCoppeóó,€182€F.3d€1124,€1127„28€(9th€Cir.€òòóó1999).€"Because€a€treatyÐ ( x Ðratified€by€the€United€States€is€not€only€the€law€of€this€land.€.Ð ð @  Ð.€.€but€also€an€agreement€among€sovereign€powers,€we€haveÏtraditionally€considered€as€aids€to€its€interpretation€theÏnegotiating€and€drafting€history€(travaux€preparatoires)€and€theÏpostratification€understanding€of€the€contracting€parties."ÏòòZichermanóó€v.€òòKorean€Air€Lines€Co.óó,€516€U.S.€217,€226€(1996). PÝ ƒÏ"$ÝÔ€$Xt9XXXÔÔ€$Xt9XXXt9Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€$t9XÐXdÐd=Óà ` àÔ_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€alleged€only€wrongful€removal,€and€not€wrongfulÐ ° Ðretention.´èÀ( 9Z+&Courier Regular áÝ ƒÏ"$ÝÔ€'Xt9XXXÔÔ€'Xt9XXXt9Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€'t9XÐXdÐd=Óà ` àÔ_ÔElisaÔ_Ô€Perez„Vera€served€as€"the€official€HagueÐ ° ÐConference€reporter€for€the€Convention,"€and€her€explanatoryÏreport€"is€recognized€by€the€Conference€as€the€official€historyÏof€and€commentary€on€the€Convention€and€is€a€source€of€backgroundÏon€the€meaning€of€the€provisions€of€the€Convention."€€òòSeeóó€HagueÐ Ð  ÐInternational€Child€Abduction€Convention;€Text€and€LegalÏAnalysis,€51€Fed.€Reg.€10494,€10503€(1986);€òòaccordóó€òòShalitóó€v.Ð ` ° ÐòòCoppeóó,€182€F.3d€1124,€1127„28€(9th€Cir.€òòóó1999).€"Because€a€treatyÐ ( x Ðratified€by€the€United€States€is€not€only€the€law€of€this€land.€.Ð ð @ € Ð.€.€but€also€an€agreement€among€sovereign€powers,€we€haveÏtraditionally€considered€as€aids€to€its€interpretation€theÏnegotiating€and€drafting€history€(travaux€preparatoires)€and€theÏpostratification€understanding€of€the€contracting€parties."ÏòòZichermanóó€v.€òòKorean€Air€Lines€Co.óó,€516€U.S.€217,€226€(1996). {Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àThe€parties€agree€that€Mexican€choice€of€law€rulesÐ ° Ðrequire€that€Mexico€apply€the€law€of€the€State€in€which€the€childÏwas€habitually€resident€immediately€prior€to€the€child's€removal,Ïi.e.,€the€law€of€Baja€California€Sur.€€òòCf.óó€òòShalitóó,€182€F.3d€atÐ X Ð1128„29€(stating€that€Hague€Convention's€references€to€the€"'lawÏof€the€State€in€which€the€child€was€habitually€resident'"Ïincludes€"the€conflict€of€law€rules€of€[that€State]").€€While€theÏparties€hotly€contest€the€nature€of€rights€of€custody€under€theÏlaw€of€Baja€California€Sur,€they€do€not€dispute€that€law'sÏapplicability€to€this€case€under€Mexico's€choice€of€law€rules.€´èÀ( 9Z+&Courier Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular Ý ƒÏ"$ÝÔ€,Xt9XXXÔÔ€,Xt9XXXt9Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€,t9XÐXdÐd=Óà ` àÔ_ÔPatriaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpotestasÔ_Ô€is€a€concept€derived€from€Roman€law€andÐ ° Ðoriginally€meant€paternal€power.€€It€referred€to€a€father's€"nearÏabsolute€right€to€his€children,€whom€he€viewed€as€chattel,"€aÏright€with€which€courts€were€powerless€to€interfere.€€Kathryn€L.ÏMercer,€òòA€Content€Analysis€of€Judicial€Decision„Making:€HowÐ Ð  ÐJudges€Use€the€Primary€Caretaker€Standard€to€Make€a€CustodyÏDeterminationóó,€5€Wm.€&€Mary€J.€Women€&€L.€1,€14€(1998);€òòseeÐ ` ° ÐalsoóóBlack's€Law€Dictionary€1188€(7th€ed.€1999)€(defining€patriaÐ ( x Ðpotestas€as€"[t]he€authority€held€by€the€male€head€of€a€familyÏover€his€children€and€further€descendants€in€the€male€line,Ïunless€emancipated,"€initially€including€"the€power€of€life€andÏdeath").€€In€contrast,€the€Roman€legal€tradition€did€not€provideÏwives€with€rights€of€parental€authority.€€òòSeeóó€Sibylla€Flugge,€òòTheÐ `  ÐHistory€of€Fathers'€Rights€and€Mothers'€Duty€of€Careóó,€3€CardozoÐ Ø(  ÐWomen's€L.J.€377,€383€(1996).€Ì€Ìà  àIn€the€Anglo„American€legal€tradition,€the€doctrine€ofÏpatria€potestas€was€eroded€by€the€emergence€in€the€seventeenthÏcentury€of€the€conflicting€doctrine€of€parens€patriae,€whichÐ À – Ðrecognized€the€state's€interest€in€and€responsibility€forÏchildren.€€òòSeeóó€Mercer,€òòA€Content€Analysis€of€Judicial€Decision„Ð xÈ ÐMakingóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€14„15.€€"Courts,€as€a€second€stakeholder,€beganÐ @ Ðto€intervene€in€custody€matters€to€protect€the€welfare€of€theÏchild,"€and€became€the€"final€arbiter€of€familial€disputes"€inÏthe€American€colonies.€€òòId.óó€at€15.€€In€the€early€nineteenthÐ ˜è Ðcentury,€American€courts€began€to€award€custody€in€accordanceÏwith€the€judicially€determined€best€interests€of€the€child.€€€InÏpractice,€however,€this€rejection€of€the€paternal€preferenceÏembodied€in€the€patria€potestas€doctrine€merely€paved€the€way€forÏthe€emergence€of€the€maternal€preference€embodied€in€the€tenderÏyears€doctrine,€which€provided€that€a€mother,€unless€shown€to€beÏunfit,€deserved€custody€of€young€children€in€light€of€her€uniqueÏmaternal€bond€to€her€children.€€òòSeeóó€Amy€D.€Ronner,€òòWomen€whoÐ Ø(  ÐDance€on€the€Professional€Track:€Custody€and€the€Red€Shoesóó,€23Ð  ð  ÐHarv.€Women's€L.J.€173€(2000).ÌÌà  àHowever,€patria€potestas€appears€to€have€followed€a€somewhatÏdifferent€path€of€development€in€legal€traditions€based€on€civilÏcodes.€€òòCf.óó,€òòe.g.óó,€Flugge,€òòThe€History€of€Fathers'€Rightsóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð ˆØ Ðat€383€(discussing€influence€of€patria€potestas€on€Germany's€codeÏestablished€in€the€nineteenth€century).€€Other€Latin€AmericanÏcountries€with€civil€code€traditions€appear€to€recognize€someÏform€of€patria€potestas€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòPesinóó€v.€òòRodriguezóó,€77€F.Ð ¨ø ÐSupp.€2d€1277,€1286€€(S.D.€Fla.€1999)€(noting,€in€HagueÏConvention€case,€that€under€Venezuela's€code€father€and€motherÏ"'are€vested€with€the€parental€authority€until€a€judicialÏdecision€establishes€otherwise'"€and€that€"father€and€mother€whoÏexercise€parental€authority€have€custody€of€their€children€.€.€.Ïshall€elect€by€mutual€consent€their€place€of€domicile,€residenceÏor€domicile€[sic]";€finding€that€mother's€removal€of€childÏbreached€father's€rights€of€custody€under€the€Convention).€€ThisÏcase€highlights€the€difficulties€in€imposing€Anglo„AmericanÏdefinitions€of€custody€on€legal€systems,€like€Mexico's,€that€haveÏdifferent€origins€and€traditions.€€Baja€California€Sur's€codeÏsuggests€the€continuing€resilience€of€patria€potestas€rightsÏ(albeit€in€a€diluted€form)€under€Mexican€law,€despite€theÏpresumption€that€physical€custody€of€children€under€age€seven€beÏawarded€to€the€mother,€at€least€in€cases€of€divorce.€´èÀ( 9Z+&Courier Regular #Ý ƒAê$ÝÔ€XHæXXXÔÔ€XHæXXXHæÔà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ=€HæXÐXdÐd=Óà ` àIn€contrast,€cases€where€courts€have€granted€thisÐ ° Ðaffirmative€defense€have€all€involved€clear€instances€of€wavierÏby€the€party€seeking€the€child's€return.€€òòCf.óó€òòJourneóó€v.€òòJourneóó,Ð @ Ð911€F.€Supp.€43,€47„48€(D.P.R.€1995)€(voluntary€dismissal€ofÏunderlying€action€for€divorce€and€custody€of€children);€òòIn€reÐ Ð  ÐPonathóó,€829€F.€Supp.€363,€368€(D.€Utah€1993)€(petitioner€failed,Ð ˜è Ðfor€almost€six€months,€to€make€any€meaningful€effort€to€obtainÐ ` ° B Ðreturn€of€the€minor€child). dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xr^XXXÔÔ‡¼f »XXr^ÔÑ8€ˆùXXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ=€ˆùXÐXdÐd=ÓÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà@‹ ‹ ìàÔ#†Xr^X»¼f J#ÔÔ#†XÕXXXr^+#Ôò òÔ‡(XÞXXXÕÔÔ‡(°i°X(XÞÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†(XÞX°(°iµ#ÔÔ‡(„“Ñ„X(XÞԈР° ÐÓ  ÓFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ#†„®Ò „„(„“Ñ–#ÔÔ‡)„ÔŸ „ „„®ÒÔÔ#†)Xx X „)„ÔŸ#ÔÔ‡)°…~ ° X)XxÔÐ „Ô ÐÔ#†)Xx X °)°…~Ó#ÔÔ€)„ÔŸ „ X)XxÔÌÔ#†„®Ò „ „)„ÔŸ‘#ÔÓJÓÔ‡(„“Ñ„ „„®ÒÔà  àà ` àßA€]*) °°` dE<! ` AßÐ " r Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÔ#†„®Ò „„(„“Ñ}#ÔÔ‡„|„ „„®ÒÔÔ‡Šçè‹„„|ÔÌÔ#†ŠÂ@‹‹ŠçèQ#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔNo.€00„2041Ð - } ÐÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌà@ ìàRICHARD€CHARLES€WHALLON,€JR.,ˆÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà@<< ìàPetitionerÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆù³#ÔÔ#†„®Ò „‹ŠÂ@p#ÔÔ‡„ò:„ „„®ÒÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:Ô,€AppelleeÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆùö#ÔÔ#†„®Ò „„„ò:×#ÔÔ‡„ò:„ „„®ÒÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ԈРe  ÐÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@ìì*ìàÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆùe#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆù„#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔˆÌÓ  ÓDIANA€LYNN,ÌÓjÓÌà@ÄÄìàRespondent,€AppellantÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆù#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆùI#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:Ô.Ô#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆùÝ#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆù#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ԈРU¥ Ðà@<< ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ m ÐÌÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÌÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÌÌà@Œ Œ ìà[Hon.€Rya€W.€Ô_ÔZobelÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ •å ÐÌà@<< ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ %u ÐÌÓ  Óà@@„„'ìàBeforeÌÌLynch,€òòCircuit€Judgeóóà@@ ìà,Ô#†„ò:„XŠˆù¤#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆùb#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔÐ E•  ÐCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ô#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆù #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆùÄ #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔÐ  ]! Ðand€à @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àÔ_ÔLipezÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð Õ %" ÐÓN ÓÌà@<< ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ e"µ$ ÐÌÌòòà  àBarry€S.€Pollackóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔDechertÔ_Ô€Price€&€Ô_ÔRhoadsÔ_Ôóó,€òòTodd€&Ð ½$ ' ÐWeldóó,Ô#†„ò:„XŠˆù #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆù€ #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@Ô€òòElaine€M.€Epsteinóó,€òòGary€O.€Toddóó,€and€òòCharlene€A.€Ô_ÔCaldeiraÔ_ÔóóÐ …%Õ ( Ðwere€on€brief€òòóófor€appellantÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆù¤ #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆùæ #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@Ô.Ð M&!) ÐÌà  àòòMary€A.€Ô_ÔAzzaritoÔ_ÔñV0ññU0ñ,ñU0ññV0ñÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆùÊ#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆù #ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@ÔóóñW0ñ,ñW0ñ€with€whom€òòTucker€and€Ô_ÔCinquegranaÔ_Ôóó,€òòStephenÐ Ý'-#+ ÐJ.€Ô_ÔCullenÔ_Ôóó,€and€òòMiles€&€Ô_ÔStockbridgeÔ_Ôóó€were€on€brief€for€appelleeòòóóÔ#†„ò:„XŠˆù¹#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX„„ò:ÔÔ#†ŠÂ@‹XŠˆùû#ÔÔ‡ŠˆùX‹ŠÂ@Ô.ò òó óÐ ¥(õ#, ÐÌà@<< ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ 5*…%. ÐÌñP0ñà@,,"ìàñP0ññQ0ñOcñQ0ññR0ññQ0ñoñQ0ññR0ññS0ñtober€27,€2000ñS0ññR0ññQ0ñtñQ0ññQ0ñbñQ0ññQ0ñeñQ0ññQ0ñrñQ0ññQ0ñ€ñQ0ññR0ñˆÌà@<< ìàòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóˆÐ  ,Ý'1 ÐÓÓÔ#†„Ò„XŠHæ_#ÔÔ€XHæX„„ÒÔÑ  ÑÓ=€HæXÐXdXÐXd=Óà  àà ` àò òLYNCH,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó óÔ#†XûXXXHæ¡#Ô€€Ô‡XHæXXXûÔ€IÔ#†XûXXXHæú#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔn€May€2000,€Richard€CharlesÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô,€Jr.€petitioned€for€the€return€of€his€five„year„oldÏdaughter,€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€Lynn€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€King,€to€Mexico€pursuant€to€theÏHague€Convention€on€the€Civil€Aspects€of€International€ChildÏAbduction.€€òòSeeóó€Hague€Convention€on€the€Civil€Aspects€ofÐ h ¸ ÐInternational€Child€Abduction,€Ô_ÔT.I.A.S.Ô_Ô€No.€11,670,€19€Ô_ÔI.L.M.Ô_ÔÏ1501€(1980).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€had€been€taken€by€her€mother,€Diana€Lynn,Ð ˆØ  Ðfrom€Mexico,€where€all€three€had€lived,€to€Massachusetts.€€LynnÏsays€that€she€was€entitled€to€do€so,€inter€alia,€because€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_ÔÏnever€had€the€type€of€"rights€of€custody"€as€to€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€that€areÏprotected€by€the€Convention.€€The€parties€agree€that€this€in€turnÏrequires€an€inquiry€into€what€rights€under€Mexican€law€anÏunmarried€parent€(here€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô)€has€under€the€doctrine€"Ô_ÔpatriaÔ_ÔÏÔ_ÔpotestasÔ_Ô,"€a€doctrine€with€ancient€roots€in€Roman€law.Ìà  àà ` àWe€conclude€that€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€has€established€that€he€hasÏÔ_ÔprotectableÔ_Ô€rights€of€custody€under€the€Convention,€that€he€didÏnot€acquiesce€in€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô's€removal,€and€that€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€does€notÏfall€within€the€exception€to€the€Convention€for€situations€whereÏthere€is€a€grave€risk€that€the€child's€return€would€expose€theÏchild€to€physical€or€psychological€harm€or€otherwise€place€theÏchild€in€an€intolerable€situation.€€We€affirm€the€districtÏcourt's€order€that€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€must€be€returned€to€Mexico,€herÏcountry€of€habitual€residence.€€If€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€and€Lynn€then€wish€toÏdispute€who€has€what€custody€over€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€or€where€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€shouldÐ )h$.W ÐÔ_Ôlive,€those€disputes€may€be€heard€in€the€Mexican€courts.Ìò òÓ  ÓI.ó óÐ @ ÐÓxÓà  àà ` àMicheli€was€born€in€Mexico€on€July€4,€1995.€€Micheli'sÏparents,€Diana€Lynn€and€Richard€Charles€Whallon,€Jr.,€bothÏAmerican€citizens,€never€married,€and€they€separated€towards€theÏend€of€1995.€€Micheli€lived€with€her€mother€and€her€half„sisterÏLeah€in€Cabo€San€Lucas,€Baja€California€Sur,€Mexico.€€FollowingÏthe€separation,€Whallon€continued€to€spend€time€with€Micheli.€€AtÏno€time€did€Whallon€and€Lynn€enter€into€a€formal€custodyÏagreement;€neither€has€sought€a€custody€determination€as€to€hisÏor€her€own€status.Ô#†XûXXXHæ>#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ  ð Ðà  àà ` àÔ#†XûXXXHæé#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔLynn€alleged€that€Whallon€performed€only€a€limitedÐ 0€ Ðparental€role€and€provided€only€sporadic€child€support€during€theÏlast€two€years€all€three€of€them€were€in€Mexico.€€Additionally,ÏLynn€accused€Whallon€of€subjecting€her€and€Leah€to€significantÏverbal€abuse€and€of€allowing€matters€to€escalate€to€physicalÏviolence€against€Lynn€herself.€€Lynn€made€no€such€claim€thatÏWhallon€acted€that€way€towards€Micheli.€€Ìà  àà ` àIn€fact,Ô#†XûXXXHæX #ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€the€record€reflects€that€Whallon€wasÐ  !p$ Ðsignificantly€involved€in€his€daughter€Micheli's€life.€€From€theÏtime€of€Micheli's€birth,€Whallon€saw€her€on€an€almost€dailyÏbasis.€€And€from€the€time€Micheli€was€three€years€old,€she€spentÏevery€other€weekend,€overnights,€with€Whallon.Ô#†XûXXXHæf"#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€Indeed,€in€AugustÐ `'°", Ð1997,€Whallon€moved€to€within€one€hundred€yards€of€where€Lynn€andÏMicheli€lived€to€be€closer€to€Micheli.€€Ô#†XûXXXHæÎ##ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔWhallon€also€paid€Lynn€atÐ €*Ð%0 Ðleast€$500€of€child€support€for€Micheli€each€month,€money€thatÐ ,`'2 Ðwas€used€to€pay€for€dental€and€medical€work€for€Micheli.Ô#†XûXXXHæ¢$#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€WhallonÐ ° Ðdid€the€types€of€things€that€one€Ô#†XûXXXHæ%#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔgenerally€expects€an€attentiveÐ @ Ðand€mindful€parent€to€do:€driving€Micheli€to€and€from€nurseryÏschool€every€day€for€almost€two€years;€buying€Micheli€clothes;Ïhelping€her€with€homework€and€art€projects;€attending€variousÏschool€activities;€and€taking€Micheli€to€the€doctor€when€she€wasÏsick.Ô#†XûXXXHæ&#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€Additionally,€Whallon€took€Micheli€„„€with€Lynn's€approvalÐ `  Є„€to€San€Diego€for€medical€and€dental€appointments€and€toÏArizona€in€1998€to€meet€Micheli's€paternal€grandfather.Ìà  àà ` àIn€late€September€1999,€Whallon€learned€that€Lynn€wasÏplanning€to€take€Micheli€with€her€to€Texas€to€visit€Lynn'sÏparents.€€Whallon€filed€a€petition€in€the€court€of€the€State€ofÏBaja€California€Sur€in€Mexico€to€permanently€deprive€Lynn€of€allÏcustody€rights€over€Micheli€and€to€grant€him€all€such€rights.€ÏThe€Mexican€court€eventually€denied€the€petition€in€April€2000,Ïconcluding€that€Whallon€had€failed€to€establish€the€imminentÏdanger,€absolute€abandonment,€or€sort€of€corruption€orÏmistreatment€required€to€terminate€a€mother's€custody€of€a€childÏunder€seven€years€of€age.€€In€the€interim,€Whallon's€attorneyÏattempted€to€block€the€departure€of€Lynn,€Micheli,€and€Leah.€€AsÏa€result,€there€was€an€ugly€incident€in€which€Lynn€and€the€twoÏchildren€were€held€at€gunpoint€at€the€airport€until€a€high„levelÏofficial€enabled€Lynn€and€her€daughters€to€leave.€€Whallon,Ïhowever,€denies€ever€having€instructed€his€attorney€to€orderÏgunmen€to€prevent€their€departure€or€having€any€prior€knowledgeÏthat€the€gunmen€had€been€hired.€€On€October€1,€1999,€Lynn€tookÐ À+'2 ÐMicheli€and€Leah€with€her€to€the€United€States.€€Whallon€thenÏpetitioned€the€district€court€in€Massachusetts€for€Micheli'sÏreturn€to€Mexico.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓII.ó óÐ ð @ ÐÓQ-Óà  àà ` àFollowing€a€two„day€evidentiary€hearing,€the€districtÏcourt€granted€the€petition€and€then€denied€respondent€DianaÏLynn's€motion€for€a€stay€pending€appeal.€€The€district€courtÏreasoned€that€under€the€Hague€Convention€Lynn€had€physicalÏcustody€over€Micheli€but€that€Whallon€also€exercised€"rights€ofÏcustody"€over€Micheli€within€the€meaning€of€the€Convention.€ÏSpecifically,€the€court€found€that€Whallon€exercised€patriaÏpotestas€rights,€a€concept€of€parental€custody€rights€distinctÏfrom€physical€custody€rights€on€the€one€hand€and€mere€visitationÏrights€on€the€other.€€Accordingly,€it€concluded€that€Lynn'sÏremoval€of€Micheli€violated€Whallon's€actual€exercise€of€rightsÏof€custody€under€Mexican€law,€and€was€thus€wrongful€under€theÏConvention.€Ìà  àà ` àThe€district€court€also€determined€that€Lynn€did€notÏqualify€for€the€exception€to€the€Convention's€return€requirementÏthat€applies€where€there€is€a€grave€risk€that€the€child's€returnÏwould€expose€her€to€physical€or€psychological€harm€or€otherwiseÏplace€her€in€an€intolerable€situation.Ô#†XûXXXHæ”'#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔò ò€ó ó€The€district€courtÐ `'°", Ðconsidered€the€alleged€pattern€of€verbal€abuse€against€Lynn€andÏLeah.€€It€also€took€account€of€the€alleged€pattern€of€physicalÏabuse€against€Lynn€herself,€including€an€altercation€in€JanuaryÐ `,°'2 Ð1999€in€which€Whallon€allegedly€pushed€Lynn€as€she€was€departingÏwith€Micheli€and€then€threw€a€rock€in€the€direction€of€Lynn'sÏcar.€€Additionally,€the€court€considered€the€substantially€moreÏserious€and€violent€incident€in€which€armed€gunmen€waylaid€LynnÏand€her€two€daughters€while€they€were€en€route€to€the€airport.€€ÏAlthough€the€district€court€found€these€incidents€regrettable,€itÏnoted€that€none€was€directed€at€Micheli€and€concluded€that€theyÏdid€not€amount€to€the€kind€of€grave€risk€of€physical€orÏpsychological€harmÔ#†XûXXXHæâ1#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€required€to€trigger€the€exception.€€The€courtÐ 0€  Ðalso€found€no€risk€that€Whallon€would€disregard€the€order€of€aÏcourt,€whether€Mexican€or€American.Ìà  àà ` àOn€September€15,€2000,€this€court€granted€a€stay€of€theÏdistrict€court's€order,€required€that€Whallon€have€reasonableÏaccess€rights€to€Micheli,€and€ordered€an€expedited€appeal.Ô#†XûXXXHæ25#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ P Ðò òÓ  ÓIII.ó óÐ à ÐÓ7Óà  àà ` àLynn€makes€a€number€of€arguments,€and€we€outline€theÏessence€of€them.€€First,€she€argues€that€her€removal€of€MicheliÏwas€not€wrongful€under€the€Convention€because€Whallon€did€notÏestablish€that€he€possessed€any€rights€of€custody€under€MexicanÏlaw,€and€the€district€court€wrongly€placed€the€burden€on€her€toÏdisprove€he€had€any€such€rights.€€Second,€Lynn€contends€that€theÏdistrict€court€failed€to€make€the€necessary€factual€findings€inÏconsidering€the€exception€to€the€return€provisions€of€theÏConvention€where€such€return€would€subject€a€child€to€a€graveÏrisk€of€physical€or€psychological€harm,€or€otherwise€place€theÏchild€in€an€intolerable€situationÔ#†XûXXXHæâ6#Ôò òó óÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ.€€Finally,€Lynn€maintains€thatÐ ,`'2 Ðthe€district€court€erred€in€failing€to€recognize€the€existence€ofÏan€affirmative€defense€under€the€Convention€where€the€partyÏseeking€return€(Whallon)€had€previously€acquiesced€in€theÏremoval.Ìà  àà ` àWe€review€the€district€court's€factual€findings€forÏclear€error€and€its€interpretation€of€the€Convention€òòde€novoóó.€Ð € Ð  ÐòòSeeóó€òòWalshóó€v.€òòWalshóó,€221€F.3d€204,€218€(1st€Cir.€2000);€òòFriedrichóóÐ `  Ðv.€òòFriedrichóó,€78€F.3d€1060,€1064€(6th€Cir.€1996).Ô#†XûXXXHæ:#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔòòóóÐ  ð  ÐÌòòA.€Wrongful€RemovalóóÐ À Ðà  àà ` àThe€Hague€Convention€seeks€"to€protect€childrenÏinternationally€from€the€harmful€effects€of€their€wrongfulÏremoval€or€retention€and€to€establish€procedures€to€ensure€theirÏprompt€return€to€the€State€of€their€habitual€residence,€as€wellÏas€to€secure€protection€for€rights€of€access."€€Hague€Convention,ÏÔ#†XûXXXHæž<#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔpreamble,€19€I.L.M.€at€1501.€€Under€Article€3€of€the€Convention,Ð  p Ðthe€removal€or€retention€of€a€child€is€wrongful€if:ÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#à(a)€it€is€in€breach€of€rights€of€custody€attributed€toÏa€person,€an€institution€or€any€other€body,€eitherÏjointly€or€alone,€under€the€law€of€the€State€in€whichÏthe€child€was€habitually€resident€immediately€beforeÏthe€removal€or€retention;€andÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à(b)€at€the€time€of€removal€or€retention€those€rightsÏwere€actually€exercised,€either€jointly€or€alone,€orÏwould€have€been€so€exercised€but€for€the€removal€orÏretention.Ð ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÓ?ÓòòId.óó€art.€3,€19€I.L.M.€at€1501.ñN0ñ׃×ñN0ññN0ñ׃#×ñN0ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€petitioner€bears€the€burdenÐ Ø'(#- Ðof€proving€"wrongful€removal"€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.Ð h)¸$/ Ð42€U.S.C.€ðð€11603(e)(1).€€If€the€petitioner€demonstrates€that€theÏchild€was€wrongfully€removed,€the€court€must€order€the€child'sÏreturn€to€the€country€of€habitual€residence€unless€the€respondentÏdemonstrates€that€one€of€four€narrow€exceptions€applies.€€òòId.óó€ððÐ ` ° Ð11601(a)(4).Ô#†XûXXXHæp>#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûԀРð @ Ðà  àà ` àMicheli's€place€of€habitual€residence€at€the€time€ofÏher€removal€was€Cabo€San€Lucas,€Mexico€and€she€was€indeed€removedÏby€Lynn,€facts€agreed€on€by€all.€€The€central€issues€are€whetherÏWhallon€has€"rights€of€custody"€over€Micheli€under€the€ConventionÏand,€if€so,€whether€he€was€actually€exercising€those€rights€priorÏto€her€removal.€€The€parties€agree€that€our€determination€ofÏWhallon's€rights€of€custody€rests,€as€it€must,€on€ourÏunderstanding€of€relevant€Mexican€law,€the€principles€underlyingÏthe€Hague€Convention,€and€the€record€in€this€case.€€WhetherÏWhallon€has€the€requisite€custodial€rights€is€an€issue€of€law.Ìà  àÌòò1.€€Whether€Whallon€has€Rights€of€Custody€under€the€ConventionóóÐ °  Ðà  àà ` àThe€Hague€Convention€states€that€rights€of€custodyÏ"shall€include€rights€relating€to€the€care€of€the€person€of€theÏchild€and,€in€particular,€the€right€to€determine€the€child'sÏplace€of€residence€.€.€.€."€€€Hague€Convention,€art.€5(a),€19ÏI.L.M.€at€1501.€€The€Convention€then€contrasts€"rights€ofÏcustody"€with€the€far€more€limited€"rights€of€access,"€whichÏinclude€"the€right€to€take€a€child€for€a€limited€period€of€timeÏto€a€place€other€than€the€child's€habitual€residence."€€òòId.óó€art.Ð 0*€%0 Ð5(b),€19€I.L.M.€at€1501.€€It€reserves€the€remedy€of€return€solelyÐ À+'2 Ðfor€violations€of€rights€of€custody.Ô#†XûXXXHæD#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àWhile€the€Hague€Convention€itself€provides€no€furtherÏdefinition€of€the€term€"rights€of€custody,"€and€deliberately€so,׃Ð×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  Ðcourts€have€commonly€looked€to€the€background€report€of€theÏConvention€for€further€guidance.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWalshóó,€221€F.3d€atÐ ð @ Ð217.€€That€report€states€that€"the€law€of€the€child's€habitualÏresidence€is€invoked€in€the€widest€possible€sense,"€and€that€theÏsources€from€which€custody€rights€derive€are€"all€those€uponÏwhich€a€claim€can€be€based€within€the€context€of€the€legal€systemÏconcerned."€€Explanatory€Report,€ðð€67Ô#†XûXXXHæÔI#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ,€at€446.ñN0ñ׃!ø×ñN0ññN0ñ׃%ø×ñN0ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XûXXXHæ@M#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€The€Report€alsoÐ À Ðstates€that€the€Convention€favors€"a€flexible€interpretation€ofÏthe€terms€used,€which€allows€the€greatest€possible€number€ofÏcases€to€be€brought€into€consideration."Ô#†XûXXXHæN#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€ò òó ó€òòId.óóÔ#†XûXXXHæO#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ Ð  Ðà  àà ` àTwo€important€and€closely€related€principles€underlyingÏthe€Hague€Convention€also€inform€our€approach€here.€€First,€aÏcourt€deciding€a€petition€for€return€of€a€child€plainly€hasÏjurisdiction€to€decide€the€merits€of€a€wrongful€removal€claim,Ïbut€it€may€not€decide€the€merits€of€the€underlying€custodyÏdispute.€€òòSeeóó€Hague€Convention,€art.€19,€19€I.L.M.€at€1503€("AÐ 0€  Ðdecision€under€this€Convention€concerning€the€return€of€the€childÏshall€not€be€taken€to€be€a€determination€on€the€merits€of€anyÏcustody€issue.");€42€U.S.C.€ðð€11601(b)(4).òòóó€€Second,€theÐ à0 ÐConvention€is€generally€intended€to€restore€the€pre„removalÏstatus€quo€and€discourage€a€parent€from€crossing€internationalÏborders€in€search€of€a€more€sympathetic€forum.€€òòSeeóó€òòWalshóó,€221Ð à ÐF.3d€at€218„19;€òòBlondinóó€v.€òòDuboisóó,€189€F.3d€240,€246€(2d€Cir.Ð  p Ð1999);€òòFriedrichóó,€78€F.3d€at€1064.€€As€the€Explanatory€ReportÐ °  Ðinstructs:ÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#à[F]rom€the€Convention's€standpoint,€the€removal€of€aÏchild€by€one€of€the€joint€holders€without€the€consentÏof€the€other,€is€.€.€.€wrongful,€and€this€wrongfulnessÏderives€in€this€particular€case,€not€from€some€actionÏin€breach€of€a€particular€law,€but€from€the€fact€thatÏsuch€action€has€disregarded€the€rights€of€the€otherÏparent€which€are€also€protected€by€law,€and€hasÏinterfered€with€their€normal€exercise.€€TheÏConvention's€true€nature€is€revealed€most€clearly€inÐ '`", Ðthese€situations:€it€is€not€concerned€with€establishingÏthe€person€to€whom€custody€of€the€child€will€belong€atÏsome€point€in€the€future,€nor€with€the€situations€inÏwhich€it€may€prove€necessary€to€modify€a€decisionÏawarding€joint€custody€on€the€basis€of€facts€which€haveÏsubsequently€changed.€€It€seeks,€more€simply,€toÏprevent€a€later€decision€on€the€matter€being€influencedÏby€a€change€of€circumstances€brought€about€throughÏunilateral€action€by€one€of€the€parties.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÓ¥SÓExplanatory€Report€ðð€71,€at€447„48.€€Ìà  àà ` àThus,€to€assess€whether€Whallon€possesses€"rights€ofÏcustody"€under€Article€5€of€the€Convention,€the€court€must€notÏsimply€look€to€the€relevant€provisions€of€Mexican€law€but€alsoÏmust€interpret€those€provisions€in€light€of€the€Convention'sÏbasic€principle€that€a€child's€country€of€habitual€residence€isÏbest€placed€to€decide€upon€questions€of€custody€and€access,Ïunless€an€exception€applies.€€òòId.óó€ðð€34,€at€434„35.Ô#†XûXXXHædO#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ pÀ Ðà  àà ` àThe€law€of€the€State€of€Baja€California€Sur,€the€placeÏof€Micheli's€habitual€residence,òòóó€is€the€relevant€source€of€lawÐ à Ðhere.€€òòSeeóó€Hague€Convention,€art.€3,€19€I.L.M.€at€1501.׃&×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThatÐ  p Ðposes€its€own€difficulties€for€a€court€of€the€United€States,€aÏcourt€which€comes€from€a€different€legal€tradition.€€Care€must€beÏtaken€to€avoid€imposing€American€legal€concepts€onto€anotherÏlegal€culture.€€Differently€from€many€laws€in€this€country,Ð `"°& ÐMexican€law€appears€to€embody€two€concepts€of€importance€here.ÏThe€first€is€a€preference€in€divorce€cases€toward€placing€what€isÏcalled€"custody"€of€a€child€under€age€seven€with€the€mother.€ÏThat€preference€is€negated€in€"exceptional€cases"€such€as€thoseÏinvolving€"serious€and€contagious€illness,€vice,€mistreatment€orÏdesertion."€€Codigo€Civil€del€Estado€de€Baja€California€SurÏ("Civil€Code"),€art.€322.Ô#†XûXXXHæÉY#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€Ô#†XûXXXHæ^#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€The€preference€is€embodied€in€theÐ `  ÐCivil€Code,€and€while€it€applies€specifically€to€divorces€(andÏthere€has€been€no€divorce€here€since€there€was€never€a€marriage),Ïthe€Mexican€court€looked€to€this€provision€in€informing€itsÏdecision€about€whether€to€terminate€Lynn's€custodial€rights.€€Ô#†XûXXXHæY^#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔAndÐ P  Ðso€we€find€that€maternal€preference,€as€well€as€the€Code's€use€ofÏthe€term€"custody,"€relevant€to€our€determination€of€whetherÏWhallon€has€rights€of€custody€under€the€Convention.Ìà  àà ` àThe€second€concept€is€embodied€in€the€doctrine€ofÏpatria€potestas,ñO0ñ׃×ñO0ññO0ñ׃+×ñO0ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XûXXXHæÍ_#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€and€represents€a€more€generalized€concept€ofÐ  p Ðparental€authority.€€Although€historically€the€doctrine€protectedÏthe€father's€rights€as€to€the€child,€originally€absolute€rightsÏunder€Roman€law,€the€Baja€California€Sur€Civil€Code€refers€to€itÏas€encompassing€the€rights€of€both€parents.€€Article€474€providesÏgenerally€that€patria€potestas,€or€parental€authority,€"isÏunderstood€to€mean€the€relationship€of€rights€and€obligationsÐ € Ð  Ðthat€are€held€reciprocally,€on€the€one€hand,€by€the€father€andÏthe€mother€or€in€some€cases€the€grandparents€and,€on€the€otherÏhand,€the€minor€children€who€are€not€emancipated."€€Civil€Code,Ïart.€474.€€The€concept€of€patria€potestas€is€defined€broadly:ÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àPaternal€authority€is€exercised€over€the€person€and€theÏproperty€of€the€children€subject€to€it.€€The€purpose€ofÏits€exercise€is€the€comprehensive€physical,€mental,Ïmoral€and€social€protection€of€the€minor€child,€and€itÏincludes€the€obligation€for€[the€child's]€guardianshipÏand€education.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÓœdÓòòÌId.óó€art.€479.€€Additionally,€those€exercising€patria€potestasÐ 0€  Ð"have€the€obligation€to€comport€themselves€in€a€manner€that€setsÏa€good€example€for€the€children€and€shall€teach€them€appropriateÏstandards€of€social€interaction."€€òòId.óó€art.€486.Ð à0 Ðà  àà ` àThe€Civil€Code€explicitly€discusses€patria€potestasÏrights€in€situations€where,€as€here,€the€parents€of€a€child€bornÏoutside€of€wedlock€separate.€€It€provides€that€in€suchÏsituations,€"òòbothóó€[parents]€shall€continue€to€exercise€paternalÐ  p Ðauthority."€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€art.€478€(emphasis€added).€€The€Code€thenÐ °  Ðdistinguishes€patria€potestas€from€"custody,"€which€may€beÏdecided€by€agreement€or,€failing€such€agreement,€by€a€judge.€€òòId.óó€Ð Ð $ ÐIndeed,€the€existence€of€divisible€custody€rights€under€MexicanÏlaw€„„€i.e.,€of€physical€custody€and€patria€potestas€ñO0ñ„„ñO0ññO0ñð!ðñO0ñ€isÐ ð#@( Ðentirely€consistent€with€the€Hague€Convention's€statement€thatÏcustody€may€be€held€"jointlÔ#†XûXXXHæ­a#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔy€or€alone."€€òòóóHague€Convention,€art.Ð '`", Ð3,€19€I.L.M.€at€1501;€Explanatory€Report€ðð€71,€at€447„48Ô#†XûXXXHæzj#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ  (ð#. ÐÔ#†XûXXXHæ6k#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ(characterizing€joint€custody€as€"dividing€the€responsibilitiesÐ 0*€%0 Ðinherent€in€custody€rights€between€both€parents")Ô#†XûXXXHæk#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòCrollóóÐ À+'2 Ðv.€òòCrollóó,€No.€99„9341,€2000€WL€1357742,€at€*6€(2d€Cir.€Sept.€20,Ð ° Ð2000)Ô#†XûXXXHæTl#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€("rights€of€custody"€under€Convention€"references€a€bundleÐ @ Ðof€rights€exercised€by€one€or€more€persons€having€custody").Ô#†XûXXXHæ'm#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àLynn€says€that€Whallon's€patria€potestas€rights€areÏcloser€to€what€the€Convention€means€by€"rights€of€access"€than€toÏwhat€it€means€by€"rights€of€custody."€€We€disagree.€€Ô#†XûXXXHæõm#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔArticle€329Ð € Ð  Ðof€the€Civil€Code€states€that€"[i]ndependently€of€who€exercisesÏpatria€potestas€or€custody,€the€relatives€obliged€by€law€toÏprovide€support€have€the€right€to€visit€their€descendants€orÏcollateral€relatives,€and€to€have€an€adequate€communication€withÏthem."€€Civil€Code,€art.€329.€€Thus,€patria€potestas,€likeÏphysical€custody,€plainly€means€something€"independent"€from€mereÏvisitation€rights.€€Importantly,€the€Code€describes€theseÏvisitation€rights€in€terms€of€"adequate€communication,"€òòid.óó,€butÐ P Ðdescribes€patria€potestas€rights€through€the€stronger€language€ofÏ"adequate€connection,"€òòid.óó€art.€323,€which€implies€a€meaningful,Ð  p Ðâ âdecisionmaking€role€in€the€life€and€care€of€the€child,€and€notÐ °  Ðthe€mere€access€to€the€child€associated€with€visitation€rights.òòóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âà  àà ` àAdditionallyÔ#†XûXXXHæbo#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ,€Whallon€submitted€into€evidence€theÐ @ Ðaffidavit€of€Mexican€attorney€Omar€Quijano€Martinez€furtherÏcorroborating€that€both€parents€exercise€patria€potestas€rightsÏover€a€child€under€Mexican€law€and€stating€that€both€parents€mustÏconsent€to€the€removal€of€such€child€under€Mexican€law.€€SuchÏaffidavits€are€an€acceptable€form€of€proof€in€determining€issuesÏof€foreign€law,€òòseeóó€Rule€44.1,€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.,€and€are€likewiseÐ  ð  Ðpermitted€under€the€Hague€Convention,€òòseeóóExplanatory€Report€ððÐ 0€  Ð101,€at€456„57€("proof€of€the€substantive€law€of€the€State€of€theÏchild's€habitual€residence€may€be€established€by€eitherÏcertificates€or€affidavits").Ô#†XûXXXHæ¥s#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ à0 Ðà  àà ` àLynn€also€relies€heavily€on€the€decision€of€the€MexicanÏcourt€rejecting€Whallon's€petition€to€terminate€her€parentalÏrights.€€That€decision,€however,€has€limited€relevance€to€thisÏaction.€€At€issue€in€the€Mexican€court€action€was€whether€WhallonÏhad€demonstrated€the€necessary€exceptional€circumstances€toÏterminate€Lynn's€custodial€rights.€€Although€the€Mexican€courtÐ @" Ðconcluded€that€Whallon€had€not€met€his€heavy€burden,€it€neverÏstated€or€even€suggested€that€Whallon€lacked€custody€rights€orÏotherwise€determined€what€those€custody€rights€were.€€Whether€orÏnot€a€Mexican€court€ultimately€decides€the€matter€of€custodyÏdifferently€following€Micheli's€return€to€Mexico,€Whallon€didÏpossess€rights€of€custody€under€the€law€of€Micheli's€habitualÏresidence€at€the€time€of€her€removal.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XûXXXHæ¬v#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€Ô#†XûXXXHæz#ÔòòóóÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ `  Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€Lynn€contends€that€the€district€court,€thoughÏacknowledging€at€trial€that€Whallon€had€the€burden€of€proof€toÏestablish€a€wrongful€removal,€òòóófailed€to€acknowledge€that€burdenÐ À Ðin€its€written€opinion€and€failed€to€impose€that€burden€onÏWhallon€in€its€analysis.€€€Ô#†XûXXXHæÙz#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔThis€argument€fails.€€The€districtÐ à0 Ðcourt€approached€the€issue€of€wrongful€removal€by€firstÏconsidering€Whallon's€arguments€regarding€patria€potestas€rightsÏunder€Mexican€law.€€After€closely€analyzing€the€relevantÏprovision€of€Baja€California€Sur's€Civil€Code€and€Lynn's€counter„¼arguments,€the€court€concluded€that€there€had€been€a€wrongfulÏremoval.Ô#†XûXXXHæn|#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€It€acknowledged€that€Whallon€had€the€burden€of€proof€onÐ @" Ðthis€issue,€weighed€the€burden€in€light€of€the€law€and€Ô_ÔevidenceÐ Ð $ Ðpresented,€and€found€that€the€burden€had€been€satisfied.€Ìà  àà ` àIn€sum,€the€evidence€of€Ô_ÔpatriaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpotestasÔ_Ô€rights€underÏMexican€law€leads€us€to€conclude€that€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô's€rights€wereÏ"rights€of€custody"€under€the€Convention.€€€Ô#†XûXXXHæ!~#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔWhile€Lynn€had€actualÐ ` ° Ðcustody€of€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô,€both€parents€exercised€Ô_ÔpatriaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpotestasÔ_Ô€rightsÏover€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô.€€Indeed,€to€date€no€Mexican€court€has€given€LynnÏexclusive€custody€or€denied€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpatriaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpotestasÔ_Ô€rights€overÏÔ_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô.€€€The€pending€Massachusetts€custody€proceedingsÏcommenced€by€Lynn€after€her€removal€of€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€are€inapplicableÏto€this€action€because€the€Convention€refers€specifically€toÏ(Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô's)€rights€of€custody€at€"the€time€of€removal."Ô#†XûXXXHæd€#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€HagueÐ P  ÐConvention,€art.€3(b),€19€Ô_ÔI.L.M.Ô_Ô€at€1501;€òòsee€alsoóó€Beaumont€&Ð à0 ÐÔ_ÔMcEleavyÔ_Ô,€òòHague€Conventionóó,€at€53€(subsequently€rendered€custodyÐ pÀ Ðorders€inapplicable€to€return€proceedings).Ô#†XûXXXH澃#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ P ÐÌòò2.€€Whether€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔActualñT0ñlyñT0ñÔ_Ô€Exercised€Rights€of€CustodyóóÔ#†XûXXXHæ:…#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ  p Ðà  àà ` àLynn€argues€that€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€was€not€"actually€exercising"Ïhis€rights€of€custody€over€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô€at€the€time€of€her€removal€byÏLynn,€as€required€by€the€Convention.€€òòSeeóóHague€Convention,€art.Ð Ð $ Ð3(b).€€Here,€there€is€no€question€that€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô€was€actuallyÏexercising€his€rights€of€custody€prior€to€Ô_ÔMicheliÔ_Ô's€removal,€asÏthe€description€of€the€facts€of€this€case€makes€amply€clear.€ÏAccordingly,€Lynn's€removal€of€custody€violated€Ô_ÔWhallonÔ_Ô's€rightsÏof€custody€under€the€Convention.Ô#†XûXXXHæ†#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔò òó óÐ  (ð#. ÐòòÌB.€€Exception€for€Grave€Risk€of€Physical€or€Psychological€HarmóóÐ À+'2 ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àLynn€argues€that€Micheli€should€still€not€be€returnedÏto€Mexico€because€she€falls€within€the€exception€to€returnÏcontained€in€article€13(b)€of€the€Convention.Ìà  àà ` àThe€wrongful€taking€of€a€child€from€his€or€her€countryÏof€habitual€residence€normally€requires€the€child's€return.€ÏòòSeeóóHague€Convention,€art.€12,€19€I.L.M.€at€1502.€€€Courts,Ð € Ð  Ðhowever,€are€"not€bound€to€order€the€return€of€the€child€if€theÏperson,€institution€or€other€body€which€opposes€its€returnÏestablishes€that€.€.€.€there€is€a€grave€risk€that€his€or€herÏreturn€would€expose€the€child€to€physical€or€psychological€harmÏor€otherwise€place€the€child€in€an€intolerable€situation."€€òòId.óóÐ P  Ðart.€13(b),€19€I.L.M.€at€1502.€€A€respondent€who€opposes€theÏreturn€of€the€child€by€asserting€the€article€13(b)€exception€hasÏthe€burden€of€proving€this€exception€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€11603(e)(2)(A);òòWalshóó,€221€F.3d€atÐ à Ð217.€€The€article€13(b)€exception€is€a€narrow€one.€€òòSeeóó42€U.S.C.Ð  p Ððð€11603(a)(4);òòWalshóó,€221€F.3d€at€217.€€Ô#†XûXXXHæ‰#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ °  Ðà  àà ` àTo€meet€her€burden€under€the€article€13(b)€exception,Ïthe€respondent€must€establish€that€the€alleged€physical€orÏpsychological€harm€is€"a€great€deal€more€than€minimal."€€òòWalshóó,Ð `"°& Ð221€F.3d€at€218.€€€Indeed,€the€harm€must€be€"something€greaterÏthan€would€normally€be€expected€on€taking€a€child€away€from€oneÏparent€and€passing€him€[or€her]€to€another."€€òòId.óó€(internalÐ '`", Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€Courts€are€not€to€engage€in€a€custodyÏdetermination€or€to€address€such€questions€as€who€would€be€theÏbetter€parent€in€the€long€run.€€òòId.óóÐ À+'2 Ðà  àà ` àWe€previously€addressed€this€exception€to€theÏConvention€in€òòWalshóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Ô#†XûXXXHærŽ#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔIn€òòWalshóó,€we€reversed€the€decisionÐ @ Ðof€the€district€court€and€held€that€the€respondent€wife€hadÏdemonstrated€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€return€ofÏher€children€to€Ireland€posed€a€grave€risk€of€physical€andÏpsychological€harm.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€219„21.€€In€òòWalshóó,€the€husbandÐ € Ð  Ðhad€severely€beaten€his€wife€over€the€years,€including€when€sheÏwas€pregnant.€€Many€of€the€beatings€took€place€in€front€of€herÏtwo€small€children,€as€did€a€beating€of€his€older€son€by€anotherÏmarriage.€€The€husband€fled€this€country€when€charged€withÏthreatening€to€kill€another€(a€neighbor),€refused€to€return€whenÏa€fugitive€warrant€was€entered,€and€violated€Irish€court€ordersÏthat€he€stay€away€from€the€marital€residence.€€òòId.óó€at€209„12.€€WeÐ pÀ Ðfound€that€the€district€court€"inappropriately€discounted€theÏgrave€risk€of€physical€and€psychological€harm€to€children€inÏcases€of€spousal€abuse;€.€.€.€failed€to€credit€[the€petitionerÏfather's]€more€generalized€pattern€of€violence,€includingÏviolence€directed€at€his€own€children;€and€.€.€.€gaveÏinsufficient€weight€to€[the€petitioner€father's]€chronicÏdisobedience€of€court€orders."€€òòId.óóat€219.€€Such€a€high€quantumÐ `"°& Ðof€risked€harm€barred€the€child's€return€under€article€13(b).€ÏòòId.óóÐ €%Ð * Ðà  àà ` àHere,€by€contrast,€the€district€court€found€that€theÏalleged€instances€of€verbal€abuse€of€Lynn€and€her€older€daughterÏLeah,€and€of€physical€abuse€of€Lynn,€while€regrettable,€neitherÏwere€directed€at€Micheli€nor€rose€to€the€level€of€the€conduct€ofÐ À+'2 Ðthe€petitioner€father€in€òòWalshóóòò.óó€€€We€agree.€€€Lynn's€allegationsÐ ° Ðof€verbal€abuse€and€an€incident€of€physical€shoving€are€distinctÏfrom€the€"clear€and€long€history€of€spousal€abuse"€presented€inÏòòWalshóó.€€òòId.óó€at€220.€€Lynn€has€never€alleged€that€Whallon€abusedÐ °  ÐMicheli,€either€physically€or€psychologically.€€€Indeed,€whileÏthe€two€experts€who€testified€disagreed€as€to€whether€returningÏMicheli€to€Mexico€would€expose€her€to€a€grave€risk€of€physical€orÏpsychological€harm€or€otherwise€place€her€in€an€intolerableÏsituation,€they€both€agreed€as€to€the€love€that€Whallon€andÏMicheli€have€for€each€other€as€father€and€daughter.€€As€to€theÏdeplorable€attempt€to€keep€Lynn€and€Micheli€in€Mexico€atÏgunpoint,€the€district€court€found€credible€Whallon's€denial€thatÏhe€ever€instructed€his€attorney€to€hire€the€gunmen€or€knew€thatÏthe€gunmen€had€been€hired.€€Furthermore,€in€contrast€to€òòWalshóó,Ð P  Ðthere€is€no€evidence€that€Whallon€would€disregard€an€order€of€theÏcourt,€whether€Mexican€or€American.Ìà  àà ` à€Lynn€argues€that€the€district€court€ignored€theÏpsychological€harm€prong€of€article€13(b).€€That€is€not€so.€€TheÏcourt€considered€the€alleged€psychological€harm€to€Micheli€fromÏthe€abuse€and€correctly€found€that€any€such€harm€did€not€to€riseÏto€the€level€required€for€sustaining€an€article€13(b)€exception.€ÏòòSeeóóòòWalshóó,€221€F.3d€at€218„19.òòóó€€Lynn€also€contends€that€theÐ Ð% !* Ðdistrict€court€ignored€the€harm€resulting€from€the€separation€ofÏMicheli€from€her€half„sister€Leah.€€Whether€there€is€a€separationÏis€Lynn's€choice.€€She€may€return€to€Mexico€with€both€herÏdaughters.€€We€do€not€doubt€that€a€separation,€if€any,€wouldÐ ,`'2 Ðcause€difficulty.€€The€logic,€purpose,€and€text€of€the€ConventionÏall€mean€that€such€harms€are€not€per€se€the€type€of€psychologicalÏharm€contemplated€by€the€narrow€exception€under€article€13(b).€ÏTo€conclude€otherwise€would€risk€substituting€a€best€interest€ofÏthe€child€analysis€for€the€analysis€the€Convention€requires.€ÏThis€would€undercut€the€Convention's€presumption€of€return€whereÏrights€of€custody€have€been€violated€by€wrongfully€removing€aÏchild€in€situations€where€that€child€had€a€sibling€who€was€notÏwrongfully€removed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XûXXXH殑#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔÐ 0€  ÐÌØØÓL€ н(3LÓòòC.€Failure€to€Recognize€"Acquiescence"€DefenseóóÐ P  Ðà  àà ` àLynn€argues€that€the€district€court€erred€in€ignoringÏher€other€affirmative€defense€that€Whallon€had€previouslyÏacquiesced€in€Micheli's€removal€to€the€United€States.€€òòSeeóó€HagueÐ P ÐConvention,€art.€13(a),€19€I.L.M.€at€1502€(return€not€requiredÏwhere€person€opposing€return€establishes€that€"the€person€.€.€.Ïhaving€the€care€of€the€person€of€the€child€.€.€.€had€consented€toÏor€subsequently€acquiesced€in€the€removal").׃°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XûXXXH湡#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€€While€WhallonÐ @" Ðdoes€not€literally€come€within€these€terms€as€the€one€"havingÏcare€of€the€person€or€child,"€we€assume€arguendo€that€Lynn€mayÏmake€an€acquiescence€argument,€at€least€in€terms€of€whether€theÏremoval€was€in€fact€wrongful.€€Lynn€must€prove€acquiescence€by€aÐ €%Ð * Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€11603(e)(2)(B).€Ô#†XûXXXHæé¤#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔ€LynnÐ ° Ðargues€that€she€repeatedly€told€Whallon€that€she€would€eventuallyÏbe€taking€Micheli€to€the€United€States€for€her€education€but€thatÏWhallon€failed€to€institute€any€formal€custody€proceedings€inÏMexico€until€after€he€had€learned€that€Lynn€was€planning€toÏremove€Micheli.€€Lynn€also€points€to€a€note€written€by€WhallonÏsometime€in€1997€in€which€Whallon€purportedly€acknowledged€thatÏLynn€could€relocate€with€Micheli€to€the€United€States€as€along€asÏMicheli€flew€back€to€Mexico€during€a€few€holidays€each€year.Ìà  àà ` àWe€find€no€acquiescence€by€Whallon€in€Micheli's€removalÏhere.ò òó ó€€Whallon's€failure€to€institute€formal€custody€proceedingsÐ P  Ðdoes€not€itself€constitute€acquiescence.€€€Indeed,€a€similarÏargument€may€be€turned€against€Lynn:€that€her€failure€to€seek€aÏformal€custody€declaration€from€the€Mexican€courts€indicates€herÏown€acceptance€of€Whallon's€custody€rights,€including,€but€notÏlimited€to,€the€right€to€determine€Micheli's€place€of€residence.Ïò òó óThe€1997€handwritten€note€on€its€face€does€not€constitute€aÐ °  Ðwaiver€by€Whallon€of€his€custody€rights.€€The€argument€also€failsÏto€take€account€of€the€subsequent€period€during€which€timeÏWhallon€played€an€increasingly€important€role€in€Micheli's€life,Ïand€is€countered€by€Whallon's€prompt€and€persistent€actionsÏseeking€Micheli's€return€to€Mexico€following€her€removal.׃S×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XûXXXHæ ¦#ÔÐ €%Ð * Їò òÓ  ÓÔ‡XHæXXXûÔIV.Ð ° ÐÓ׬Óó óà  àà0 ` àTÔ#†XûXXXHæã¬#ÔÔ‡XHæXXXûÔhe€decision€of€the€district€court€is€affirmed€and€the€Ðà` (#` (# Ðstay€entered€by€this€court€on€September€15,€2000€is€lifted.€€SoÏordered.Ô#†XûXXXHæi­#Ô