Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kyle Alexander Jodoin, an Australian citizen, and Breanna Michelle Wilkins, an American citizen, are the parents of A.J., who was born in Victoria, Australia. Wilkins traveled with A.J. to Texas in December 2025 for what Jodoin maintained was a temporary family visit. On January 28, 2026, the scheduled return date, Wilkins informed Jodoin that she and A.J. would remain in the United States.
Jodoin petitioned under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its federal implementing statute, ICARA, seeking A.J.’s return to Australia. At an evidentiary hearing, Wilkins stipulated that the elements of wrongful retention were established but argued that Jodoin had consented to the retention and that returning A.J. would create a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Jodoin’s petition and ordered A.J. promptly and safely returned to Australia. Based on the parties’ stipulation and the evidence, it found that Australia was A.J.’s habitual residence, Wilkins’s retention of A.J. violated Jodoin’s Australian custody rights, and Jodoin was exercising those rights when the wrongful retention occurred.
Wilkins failed to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence. Although Jodoin had earlier sent messages suggesting that Wilkins should leave with A.J. and not return, the court credited evidence that he later changed his mind and consented only to a brief visit. The return tickets, subsequent messages, his objection when Wilkins announced she would remain in Texas, and his prompt pursuit of Hague relief showed that he neither consented to nor acquiesced in the permanent retention.
Wilkins also failed to establish the grave-risk defense by clear and convincing evidence. Assuming her accounts of Jodoin’s outbursts and mistreatment were true, the court found no evidence of violence toward A.J. sufficient to meet the Convention’s demanding standard and no adequate connection between the incidents involving Wilkins and an imminent grave risk to the child. The cited living conditions, Jodoin’s former membership in the National Socialist Network, his political views, and the psychologist’s vague and conclusory testimony likewise did not establish that returning A.J. to Australia would expose the child to grave harm or an intolerable situation.
Key Takeaways
- Consent to a temporary international visit does not establish consent to a child’s permanent retention abroad.
- The Hague Convention’s grave-risk exception requires clear and convincing evidence of a grave risk to the child, not merely evidence of troubling parental conduct or poor living conditions.
- A Hague proceeding determines the proper country for resolving custody, not the merits of the underlying custody dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow scope of defenses to a proven wrongful retention under the Hague Convention. Earlier statements appearing to support relocation may not establish consent when later evidence shows that the parent authorized only a limited visit and promptly objected to permanent retention.
The ruling also emphasizes that allegations of domestic mistreatment, extremist affiliation, or unsuitable living conditions must be tied by sufficiently strong evidence to a grave risk arising from the child’s repatriation. The court left substantive custody questions for the appropriate Australian tribunal and permitted Jodoin to seek eligible costs and fees within 30 days after A.J.’s return.