by Jeremy D. Morley

An appeal court in Texas has upheld a trial court's refusal to impose measures intended to prevent the abduction of a child to Russia by a Russian parent, even though the United States has refused to accept Russia as a treaty partner under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Hale v. Hale, --- S.W.3d ----, 2025 WL 271165 (Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), January 23, 2025.

The case highlights three fundamental factors that must be considered and addressed in any case in which an application is made to prevent international child abduction. 

First, applicable standards vary considerably from state to state. The provisions of such statutes must be carefully considered and applied. Even in states that have adopted the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (“UCAPA”), the implementing statutes vary in their specific language, which is especially so in the case of Texas.

Section 7 of UCAPA sets forth a comprehensive list, based on well-established research, of the factors to be considered in determining whether a particular parent presents a significant risk of abducting a child overseas. But the Texas statute, Tex. Fam. Code §§ 153.501 et seq., is most unusual. It provides a two-step assessment process. In the first step, the courts must consider evidence concerning only some of the relevant risk factors. Only if the court finds that there is credible evidence of a potential abduction based upon those risk factors may the court then consider the remaining risk factors – including the extent of the parent's ties to the foreign country and to the United States, whether the parent has taken any of a list of specified actions concerning that parent's status, and factors concerning the laws of the foreign country and conditions in that country.

Second, the proponent of restrictions on international travel must present evidence at trial in full compliance with the standards in the governing statute. But in the Hale case, when the father was asked at the trial why he asked for controls regarding international travel, his only response was, “I'm afraid for the safety of my son especially with what's going on in the world today. I don't want him anywhere near a war zone or in the country of Russia because it would be very difficult for me to retrieve him even with State Department contacts.” The appeal court stated that “this is putting the cart before the horse,” because the father was required to prove the first-step factors before the court could evaluate the second-step factors. 

Third, it is usually necessary in such cases to offer expert evidence concerning the risk factors and the foreign legal system. 

For further information, see e.g. Jeremy D. Morley, International Family Law Practice, 2024 edition, Chapter 11 (International Travel: Preventing International Child Abduction), available on Westlaw.