Adkins v. Adkins

Background

Artemiz Adkins filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. She sought the return of her and Garrett Adkins’s four-year-old daughter, identified as A.F.A. Artemiz resides in Switzerland. She alleged that, after the parties separated in December 2018, they agreed that A.F.A. would continue living in Switzerland and begin kindergarten there. Artemiz alleged that Garrett, who resides in California, wrongfully retained A.F.A. during a July 2019 visit to the United States.

Artemiz moved for a temporary restraining order, which is emergency temporary relief, including an order preventing Garrett from removing A.F.A. from the court’s jurisdiction while the case proceeded. Because Garrett had not initially received notice of the motion, the court directed Artemiz to serve the motion and supporting materials and directed Garrett to file an expedited response. Garrett opposed the motion, contending that A.F.A. had split time equally between California and Switzerland since the separation. He also stated that he would agree to an order preventing him from removing A.F.A. from California during the case.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the International Child Abduction Remedies Act permits measures protecting the child or preventing further removal or concealment before the petition’s final resolution. It applied the temporary-restraining-order requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): likelihood of success, likely irreparable injury without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and advancement of the public interest.

The court agreed that preventing Garrett from removing A.F.A. from the Northern District of California was appropriate and minimally burdensome. The restriction would allow Artemiz’s treaty claim and claimed custody rights to be meaningfully considered. But, based on the record then before it, the court did not find adequate grounds for the additional temporary relief requested pending a preliminary-injunction hearing and consideration of the merits. The court noted Garrett’s residence in Petaluma, California, his substantial family ties there, and his compliance with court orders and deadlines. It also found that Artemiz had not alleged facts suggesting that Garrett had taken or would take steps to conceal A.F.A. or harm her well-being during the case.

Ruling

The court granted in part Artemiz’s motion for a temporary restraining order by prohibiting Garrett from directly or indirectly removing A.F.A. from the Northern District of California until further order. The court found no reasonable likelihood that Garrett would be harmed by being wrongfully enjoined and therefore ruled that Artemiz did not have to provide security under Rule 65(c). The court ordered Garrett to show cause—meaning to explain why the requested relief should not be granted—by September 20, 2019, including why the child should not be returned to Switzerland. It set a September 23, 2019 hearing and ordered Garrett to bring A.F.W.’s passport and other travel or identification documents. The court otherwise denied Artemiz’s temporary-restraining-order motion. The order did not decide the underlying return petition.