Hague Convention representation / Defending a petition / Consent and acquiescence

Article 13(a)

Consent and acquiescence: permission before, acceptance after.

A court is not bound to order return if the respondent proves that the petitioner consented to the child’s removal or retention, or subsequently acquiesced in it. The distinction is temporal, but both defenses turn on what the petitioner actually accepted—not on an isolated word stripped from its context.

Request a Prompt Consultation Understand the Difference

Burden of proof

Preponderance of the evidence under ICARA, 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B).

Consent generally concerns permission given before the challenged removal or retention. Acquiescence concerns acceptance after it occurred.

Two related defenses

The timing changes the inquiry.

The analysis should identify the precise act alleged to be wrongful and the petitioner’s state of knowledge when speaking or acting. Permission for travel is not necessarily permission to relocate. Agreement to one duration, destination, or condition does not automatically establish agreement to another.

Before removal or retention

Consent

The question is whether the petitioner agreed in advance to the particular removal or retention later challenged.

Was permission limited by dates or conditions?
Was the agreement for travel, a trial period, or a permanent move?
Did later communications clarify or revoke the permission before the relevant act?
Was the apparent agreement voluntary and informed?

After removal or retention

Acquiescence

The question is whether, after learning the material facts, the petitioner accepted the child’s continued presence outside the habitual residence.

What did the petitioner say after learning the child would not return?
Did the petitioner objectively accept the new arrangement?
Were statements part of negotiation, reconciliation, or efforts to recover the child?
Did the petitioner promptly object or pursue return?

The questions courts examine

Context determines what the words meant.

Consent and acquiescence are fact-intensive. Courts may consider writings, testimony, conduct, surrounding circumstances, credibility, and whether the alleged acceptance was qualified, withdrawn, induced, or contradicted by prompt efforts to secure return.

Scope

Permission for a vacation, school term, medical visit, or temporary trial is not necessarily consent to indefinite residence. The defense must fit the actual conduct challenged.

Conditions

Dates, return tickets, immigration limits, housing, financial support, contact, schooling, and other terms may show that permission was conditional or limited.

Knowledge

Acceptance has different significance depending on whether the petitioner knew where the child was, understood the proposed duration, and appreciated that return was being refused.

Voluntariness

Threats, coercion, deception, or pressure may undermine the claim that a statement or signature reflected genuine consent. The respondent retains the burden of proving the defense.

Withdrawal or objection

Before the removal or retention, communications withdrawing permission may defeat a consent theory. Afterward, prompt objections and return efforts may contradict acquiescence.

Later conduct

Financial support, custody discussions, property arrangements, visits, legal filings, and delay may be relevant—but they must be interpreted in the setting in which they occurred.

Building the factual record

Preserve the entire communication—not the favorable excerpt.

Messages, emails, and recordingsComplete threads before and after travel, including metadata, attachments, translated voice messages, and surrounding discussions.

Travel and immigration recordsTickets, return reservations, itineraries, visas, authorizations, passports, entry and exit records, and applications describing the trip’s purpose.

Written permissions and agreementsNotarized consents, custody orders, travel letters, parenting agreements, school forms, and drafts showing changes or disputed language.

Conduct after the disputed dateDemands for return, Central Authority applications, police reports, legal consultations, custody filings, financial arrangements, and settlement discussions.

Witness and translation evidencePeople present for conversations, original-language testimony, qualified translations, and cultural or linguistic context affecting meaning.

A Florida and Eleventh Circuit point

The respondent carries the burden.

In Berenguela-Alvarado v. Castanos, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a decision resting on consent after identifying critical factual and legal errors. The court emphasized that the respondent asserting consent bears the preponderance burden; the petitioner should not be required to disprove the defense.

The case also illustrates why alleged threats or duress, credibility findings, and the evidentiary basis for the trial court’s findings must be addressed precisely.

Settlement talk is not automatically acceptance.
A parent may discuss practical arrangements, temporary contact, or possible compromise while still demanding return. The complete chronology and purpose of the communication matter.

Litigation focus

Define exactly what was authorized.

The strongest presentation usually begins with a precise timeline: what was permitted, for how long, subject to what conditions, when the petitioner learned that the arrangement had changed, and what each parent did next. Ambiguous language should be tested against objective conduct and the full evidentiary record.

Travel is not necessarily relocation.Permission to take the child abroad for a limited purpose does not by itself establish permission to remain indefinitely.

Consent must match the challenged act.A parent might consent to removal but not a later retention, or consent to a stay until a specified date but not beyond it.

Silence and delay require context.They may be relevant, but practical barriers, negotiations, concealment, fear, finances, and efforts to obtain assistance may explain the passage of time.

Proving the defense does not compel non-return.Article 13 states that the court is not bound to order return when an exception is established; the ultimate decision remains governed by the Convention and applicable precedent.

Primary authority and guidance: Article 13(a) of the 1980 Hague Convention, ICARA, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9011, and the Federal Judicial Center’s discussion of Berenguela-Alvarado v. Castanos.

Prompt consent assessment

Bring the full timeline—before and after the child crossed the border.

For an initial conversation, have the relevant travel dates, return date, written permissions, custody orders, complete communications, immigration records, demands for return, and any threats or conditions surrounding the alleged agreement available.

Call(904) 758-4333

Emailwilliam.roelke@gmail.com

Office2788 Oak Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32205

Request a Consultation

Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not include confidential or time-sensitive information unless the firm has agreed to represent you.