The Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s order imposing restrictions on international travel for a child whose mother had ties to Russia. In another recent case, however, the Third District Court of Appeals determined there was no error in a trial court’s imposition of travel restrictions for a child in a Texas divorce decree involving a mother with ties to India.
The parties’ son was nine years old when the final divorce decree was signed in 2023. The trial court ordered that the father maintain control and possession of the son’s passport until the child turns 13. The court also prohibited either party from traveling outside the U.S. with the child without the written agreement of the parties, with such agreement not being unreasonably withheld after the child turns 13.
The mother appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in restricting international travel without evidence of a risk of abduction.
The trial court had found the mother had unreasonably withheld the child from the father in India without the father’s consent, from February 2017 through May 2019. The trial court also found the mother had “strong familial, emotional, and cultural ties to India. . .” The court found India is not complaint with the Hague Convention, “presents obstacles to the recovery and return of a child,” and does not have any legal mechanism to immediately and effectively enforce a Texas child custody or visitation order. The court further found it was in the child’s best interest to restrict international travel until he turns 13.
Credible Risk of International Abduction
Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 153.501, a court may take steps to protect a child if there is credible evidence of a risk of parental international abduction. These measures may include ordering “passport and travel controls” to prevent the parent from traveling internationally with the child. In deciding whether to take protective measures, court’s consider the child’s best interest, the public policy of assuring frequent and continuing contact with parents who act in the child’s best interest, the risk of international abduction, obstacles in recovering the child if they are abducted, potential harm to the child if abducted, and the public policies to assure frequent and continuing contact with parents who act in the child’s best interest, to encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising the child, and to provide the child with a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment.
The court considers certain statutory factors to determine if there is a credible risk of international abduction. The court considers whether the parent: has previously violated someone else’s right of possession or access to the child by keeping, taking, withholding or concealing the child or has threatened to do so; can work outside the U.S.; has recently engaged in planning that could facilitate taking the child outside the U.S.; or has a history of domestic violence, criminal activity, or violating court orders. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.502.
If the court finds there is credible evidence of a risk of abduction based on any of the factors, the court then considers evidence of additional factors, including: whether the parent has strong ties to another country, especially one that is not compliant with or a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Internation Child Abduction; whether they lack strong ties to the U.S.; whether they have ties to a country that presents obstacles to recovering and returning a child who is abducted from the U.S.; and whether the country has legal mechanisms to immediately and effectively enforce a Texas custody or visitation order.
The Court’s Analysis
The appeals court concluded there was no abuse of discretion. There was evidence the mother had kept the child in India for almost two-and-a-half years and threatened not to come back. According to the appeals court, she had refused to take the child to appointments to renew his passport and allowed it to expire. The father testified that the mother had previously frequently taken the child to India for agreed-upon periods of time, but would then extend the trip on short notice. The father said part of the reason he petitioned for divorce was the mother’s threat to take the child to India and file for divorce and custody there. He expressed concerns the mother would not bring the child back if she was allowed to take him to India.
The appeals court noted there was evidence the mother had the ability to work in India. There was also evidence she had transferred community assets to family members in India, potentially indicating plans to move there with the child.
The appeals court held there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to impose travel restrictions within its discretion and that it had not acted unreasonably or erred in imposing those discretions.
The appeals court affirmed the final divorce decree.
Contact a Knowledgeable Dallas Family Law Attorney
When a parent has strong ties to another country and the financial resources to travel internationally with the child, the other parent may reasonably be concerned about international abduction. This case illustrates the importance of the statutory factors and the evidence needed to impose travel restrictions. If you are facing a high-net worth divorce with a spouse who has international ties, a skilled Texas custody attorney can help you protect your child. Set up a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200 to discuss your case.