Haruno v Haruno 2013 WL 5663070 (D. Nev.) Grave Harm Rejected

Trial court rejects grave harm defense, citing with approval Danaipour v. McClarey, 386 F. 3rd 279 (1st Cir. 2004), which sets burdens of proof and other evidentiary issues:

  “The party opposing return of the children, here, the mother, has the burden of proving the ultimate Article 13(b) exception issue by clear and convincing evidence. Danaipour I, 286 F.3d at 13. Subsidiary facts need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. We review factual determination under the Hague Convention for clear error. Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450, 454 (1st Cir. 2000). We review questions of admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. See Colasanto v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 100 F.3d 203, 212-13 (1st Cir. 1996).”

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *