Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendants in this case were the Governor of Massachusetts, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF). Six children brought this class action in federal court on behalf of an estimated 8,500 children who are (or will be) committed to Massachusetts foster care custody as a result of their having suffered from abuse or neglect. Plaintiffs asserted that DCF so exposes the plaintiff class to harm or the risk of harm that it is unconstitutional and violates the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Plaintiffs sought a broad injunction preventing Defendants from subjecting the plaintiff children to practices that violate their rights. The district court granted judgment for Defendants on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate class-wide constitutional violations, nor a violation of the AACWA, and so injunctive relief was not warranted. View "Connor B. v. Patrick" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had two minor children. The family lived in Canada for approximately three and a half years before Mother relocated the children to the United States, where the entire family had never lived together. Father filed a petition in a federal district court for the return of his children to Canada pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. A federal district court granted Father’s petition, concluding (1) Canada was the children’s country of habitual residence, and they were wrongfully removed for purposes of the Hague Convention; and (2) there was no grave risk that returning the children to Canada would expose them to physical or psychological harm. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that Canada was the children’s country of habitual residence; and (2) concluding that returning the children to Canada would not involve a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. View "Mauvais v. Herisse" on Justia Law

On October 27, 2011, the McLaughlin Group brought suit against the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as applied to definitions of marriage in Title 10, Title 32, and Title 38 of the United States Code as they affect same-sex military spouses. The district court stayed the proceedings in light of two similar challenges on appeal before the First Circuit. The First Circuit subsequently held Section 3 of DOMA invalid, and the Supreme Court held Section 3 unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court then resumed proceedings in this case and entered summary judgment in favor of the McLaughlin Group. The McLaughlin Group moved for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the government’s position was substantially justified. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the position of the United States was substantially justified and thus properly denied fees as a matter of law. View "McLaughlin v. Hagel" on Justia Law

Mother, a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States illegally, and Father, a naturalized U.S. citizen, married and had a daughter, E.G., born in Massachusetts. When E.G. was two years old Mother and E.G. moved to Columbia, where they lived for two-and-a-half years. E.G. then moved back to the United States to live with Father. When E.G. was five years old, Mother and Father divorced, and Father was granted sole legal and physical custody of E.G. Mother filed a petition pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging that Father wrongfully retained E.G. in the United States. The district court denied Mother’s petition, concluding that the United States was E.G.’s place of habitual residence, and therefore, E.G.’s retention was not wrongful under the Hague Convention. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that E.G.’s habitual residence was the United States, and therefore, Father did not wrongfully retain her under the Hague Convention. View "Sanchez-Londono v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had two daughters that were born in the United States. When the girls were four months and just over one year old, the family moved to Singapore after Father’s employer temporarily relocated him. The family lived in Singapore for approximately one year and a half, after which time Mother traveled with the girls to the United States and refused to return to Singapore. Father petitioned the federal district court for the return of the children pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The district court granted the petition, determining that the children’s place of habitual residence was Singapore, and therefore, Mother’s retention of the children in the United States was wrongful. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded, holding that the district court erred in its habitual-residence analysis by failing to determine whether the parties intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States or whether they intended to retain it while living abroad for a temporary period of fixed duration. View "Neergaard v. Neergaard-Colon" on Justia Law

David Efron and his former wife, Madeleine Candelario-Del-Moral, were engaged in long-running litigation related to their high-stakes divorce. In 2006, a Puerto Rico court in which the divorce proceedings were pending issued an order attaching the funds held in Efron’s UBS Financial Services Inc. accounts. The court subsequently made a ruling that may or may not have vacated the attachment. UBS treated the attachment as void and dispersed the bulk of the funds. Candelario sued UBS in federal district court for negligently releasing the attached funds. Ultimately, at the district court’s suggestion, UBS and Candelario opted to undertake mediation. Thereafter, Efron moved to intervene as of right in the Candelario-UBS litigation. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion and denied Candelario’s motion for appellate sanctions, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine Efron’s interlocutory appeal; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming Efron’s motion to intervene untimely and in refusing to grant it; and (3) although Efron’s case for intervention was weak, it was not frivolous. View "Candelario-Del-Moral v. Efron" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Argentina, and Respondent, a United States citizen from Puerto Rico, had a child together in 2008. The child (“LAD”) was a citizen of both the United States and Argentina. In 2011, the family traveled to the United States, first stopping in Florida and then moving on to Puerto Rico. It was there that Respondent announced that she and LAD would not be returning to Argentina. After Petitioner returned to Argentina, Respondent filed for legal custody of LAD in Puerto Rico state court. Petitioner subsequently filed the instant action with the federal district court in Puerto Rico, alleging that Respondent’s actions amounted to a wrongful retention of his son. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding (1) because Petitioner had custody rights over LAD and was exercising those rights at the time of the retention, Petitioner established wrongful retention by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) Respondent did not introduce sufficient evidence to establish Petitioner’s consent or acquiescence to this retention. View "Darin v. Olivero-Huffman" on Justia Law

This matter began in a New Hampshire family court (“Family Court”) in 2006 and involved Plaintiff’s support obligations to his former wife and son. Due to Plaintiff’s financial evasiveness, the Family Court appointed a commissioner (“Commissioner”) to investigate and report Plaintiff’s gross income from 2006 forward. The Commissioner found Plaintiff’s income was higher than what Plaintiff had previously represented to the court. Consequently, the Family Court held Plaintiff in contempt for failure to pay past-due child support obligations and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff’s ex-wife. The New Hampshire Supreme Court (NHSC) denied Plaintiff’s discretionary appeal. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court seeking to enjoin the orders of the Family Court on constitutional grounds and to reverse the NHSC’s denial of his discretionary appeal. Plaintiff also asserted various claims against the Commissioner. The district court’s dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 3, which classifies appeals from child support orders as discretionary, does not violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) the Commissioner was immune to suit for his acts as Commissioner in the matter. View "D'Angelo v. N.H. Supreme Court" on Justia Law

Mother, an Egyptian citizen, acted in violation of a court order when she, together with her two children, boarded an EgyptAir Airlines Company flight to Cairo, Egypt. The father of the children and Mother's former husband (Father) brought this lawsuit against Mother and EgyptAir. Father claimed EgyptAir was negligent in allowing Mother to board the flight despite "red flags" suggesting she was abducting the children. The district court granted summary judgment for EgyptAir, concluding that the airline did not know of Mother's plan to abduct the children and did not owe Defendant or the children a duty to investigate the red flags. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Father's claims, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction over the claims; and (2) the claims, which challenged airline ticketing, check-in, and boarding procedures, were preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act. View "Bower v. El-Nady Bower" on Justia Law

The Yaman children, ages 10 and 11, have lived with their mother since 2004, having lived with both parents before that. The mother and children have lived in the U.S. since 2010, but the habitual residence of the children was Turkey. The father was given custody of the children by the Turkish courts, but their American mother wrongfully removed the children in 2007 and hid them, preventing their father from locating them. The district court denied the father’s petition for return of his children to Turkey, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494, concluding that the children were "now settled" in the U.S.; the court rejected claims of sexual abuse by the father. The First Circuit affirmed. The Convention does not allow a federal district court to toll equitably the one-year period that must elapse before a parent can assert the "now settled" defense and the evidence supports the conclusion that the children are "now settled." Their father did not seriously contest that holding. The court noted that its decision has no impact on the Turkish courts’ ruling concerning custody. View "Yaman v. Yaman" on Justia Law