In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-18-00001-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.E., A CHILD On Appeal from the 307th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015-1240-DR Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2014, Swedish citizens Jorgen Astrand and his wife, Fahimeh Astrand, jointly decided to immigrate to the United States with their eight-year-old daughter, Elin.1 Pursuant to their plan, Fahimeh obtained an F-1 student visa, enrolled at Kilgore College, and moved with Elin to Gregg County, Texas, and settled in, while Jorgen, an orthopedic surgeon, remained in Sweden and attempted to obtain a Texas medical license. Once it became apparent that Jorgen would be unable to obtain a license to practice medicine in the U.S., he requested that his wife and daughter return to Sweden. Fahimeh refused and filed an original petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). Jorgen petitioned for Elin’s return pursuant to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), which “protect[s] children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and . . . establish[es] procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence,” as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA).2 The trial court denied Jorgen’s Hague Convention claim and entered a final order in the SAPCR that named the parties joint managing conservators, with Fahimeh having the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. Although the trial court granted Jorgen possession of and access to Elin, it required all of Jorgen’s visits with the child to occur in the U.S. 1 We use an alias to protect the privacy of the minor child. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9(a)(3). 2 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, pmbl., Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, 1434 U.N.T.S. 48, 19 I.L.M. 1501, codified by the International Child Abduction Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9011 (formerly 42 U.S.C. §§ 11603–11610). 2 On appeal, Jorgen argues that the trial court erred in denying his claim under the Hague Convention and in requiring him to come to the U.S. to exercise his rights to visit Elin, a requirement he characterizes as extreme. We affirm the trial court’s judgment because (1) denying the Hague Convention claim was within the trial court’s discretion and (2) requiring Jorgen’s visits with Elin to be in the U.S. was within the trial court’s discretion. (1) Denying the Hague Convention Claim Was within the Trial Court’s Discretion Fahimeh’s sister, Faezeh Horaney, and Elin’s maternal cousins lived in Gregg County, Texas. In July 2014, Fahimeh moved with Elin into Horaney’s home, enrolled Elin in a local school, and registered herself in a dental hygienist program at Kilgore College. Fahimeh soon decided to rent a house near Horaney’s house. Jorgen covered the cost of the rental home, paid for a car for Fahimeh, and, from August to December of 2014, paid ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals