United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term, 2024

(Argued: September 10, 2024 Decided: October 31, 2024)

Docket No. 24-1407-cv

_____________________________________

MARIA ELENA SWETT URQUIETA,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JOHN FRANCIS BOWE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Before:

WALKER, LOHIER, and PARK, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Maria Elena Swett Urquieta appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.), denying her petition for repatriation of her son S.B.S. to Chile pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, reprinted in 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494 (Mar. 26, 1986) (the “Hague Convention”), and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–11. Respondent-Appellee John Francis Bowe, S.B.S.’s father, does not contest Swett’s prima facie case that he wrongfully retained their child, but the District Court found that Bowe established two affirmative defenses under Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention. For substantially the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion and order entered on May 7, 2024, Swett v. Bowe, No. 24-CV-1379, 2024 WL 2034713 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2024), we AFFIRM.

RICHARD MIN (Michael Banuchis, on the brief), Green Kaminer Min & Rockmore LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.

KAREN R. KING (Kathleen E. Cassidy, Jordan L. Weatherwax, Megan Knepka, on the brief), Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C., New York, NY, for Respondent-Appellee. PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-Appellant Maria Elena Swett Urquieta (“Swett”) 1 appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.) denying her petition for repatriation to Chile of her minor son S.B.S. from the United States, where S.B.S. was wrongfully retained by his father, Respondent-Appellee John Francis Bowe. Swett brings her claim under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, reprinted in 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494

1As the District Court noted, the standard practice in Chile is to use a person’s first surname when referring to her in shorthand. Accordingly, we refer to Petitioner- Appellant as “Swett.” 2 (Mar. 26, 1986) (the “Hague Convention”), and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–11. For substantially the reasons articulated by the District Court in its opinion and order entered on May 7, 2024, Swett v. Bowe, No. 24-CV-1379, 2024 WL 2034713 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2024), we AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND

Swett, a Chilean actress, and Bowe, a writer based in the United States, have a son, S.B.S., who was born in Minnesota in 2012. Swett and Bowe separated shortly thereafter but shared legal custody of S.B.S, who lived in Chile with Swett. While Swett enjoyed sole physical custody, she granted travel authorizations that permitted S.B.S. to visit Bowe in New York City. On December 23, 2022, S.B.S. and Bowe traveled from Chile to New York under a travel authorization that expired January 8, 2023. This litigation arose because Bowe refused to return S.B.S. to Chile on January 8. Instead, he wrongfully retain