The mother relies on Hage v. Bryntwick, 2014 ONSC 4104 in support of her argument that the father’s conduct regarding the green card amounts to subsequent acquiescence. In Hage v. Bryntwick, the father destroyed an immigration application that would have assisted the mother to re-enter the United States. Unlike in this case before me, in Hage v. Bryntwick the immigration papers had not yet been submitted to USCIS at the time the father destroyed them, so no American immigration or border officials ever became aware of “immigrant intent”, in the same way as they have been so made aware in this case before me. However, the mother in Hage v. Bryntwick had previously encountered difficultly at the border when entering the United States and was warned to get her immigration documentation in order. Because of those past difficulties, the father was aware of the importance of submitting the immigration application, and he did not do so.
In those circumstances, at ¶ 58 of Hage v. Bryntwick, Mazza J. found that the father’s actions made it “not possible for the prompt return of the child as required by Article 12”. At ¶ 61, he held that the father’s act of destroying the application, combined with his knowledge that he knew that the mother would not be allowed to return to the United States, was an act of active acquiescence.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.