Jacquety v. Tena Baptista

Background

Guillaume Jacquety filed a petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, a federal law implementing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. He sought relief concerning his minor child, identified as EJ. Jacquety alleged that Geraldine Helena Tena Baptista took the child from Morocco to New York instead of returning from a trip to Switzerland, and that Yousseff Wadghiri helped plan and carry out the child’s removal and later retention in New York.

Baptista and Wadghiri denied those allegations. They asserted that Jacquety had consented to or accepted the child’s removal and alleged that he had abused drugs and alcohol and had physically abused Baptista and the child. Jacquety denied those allegations. Baptista later told the court that a Moroccan court had issued an interim order awarding her physical custody, but she did not continue with her own proposed summary-judgment motion.

Motion and Arguments

The court treated Wadghiri’s pre-motion letter as a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Wadghiri argued that he was an improper respondent because he was not a relative or custodial parent, lacked control over Baptista or the child, and could not independently comply with an order returning the child to Morocco.

Jacquety argued that the Hague Convention and its implementing statute do not limit respondents to parents or blood relatives. He contended that a person who allegedly helped remove or retain a child, including by providing shelter or other assistance, may be named as a respondent.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the argument that Wadghiri was improper merely because he was not a relative or custodial parent. The International Child Abduction Remedies Act defines a respondent as any person against whose interests a petition seeking relief under the Convention is filed. The court also relied on interpretive reports explaining that responsibility under the Hague Convention is not limited exclusively to parents and that nonparents may be involved in such actions.

The court determined that the record contained evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably infer that Wadghiri had a romantic relationship with Baptista, contemplated a family life with Baptista and the child, and participated in the alleged removal. The court cited an electronic travel authorization form listing Wadghiri’s address and text messages that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that he arranged or funded travel, participated in meetings with lawyers, and directed or encouraged Baptista’s communications with Jacquety.

The court also rejected Wadghiri’s argument that Jacquety lacked standing because Wadghiri could not return the child by himself. The court explained that a favorable ruling need only potentially lessen the alleged harm, not completely remedy it. It concluded that Wadghiri’s knowledge of the child’s location, possible role in the child’s return, and potential responsibility for other remedies such as fees were enough to avoid a jurisdictional defect.

Disposition

The court held that disputed material facts remained concerning Wadghiri’s involvement and control, making summary judgment inappropriate. The court therefore denied the motion for summary judgment deemed filed by Yousseff Wadghiri. The ruling did not decide the ultimate merits of whether the child was wrongfully removed or retained.

Note on the Court Information

The supplied metadata identifies Robert Lehrburger as the judge, but the opinion identifies and is signed by Victor Marrero. This summary uses Victor Marrero, the judge named in the opinion.