Alain Armand v. Priscilla Moxam Armand

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1998
___________________________
Alain Armand
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Priscilla Moxam Armand
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
------------------------------
Children’s Law Center New York; Lawyers for Children; Saint Louis University
School of Law Children’s Permanency Clinic
lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellant(s)
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: March 4, 2026
Filed: March 9, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
In this matter brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”),1 Priscilla Armand appeals the
district court’s order requiring the return of the parties’ two minor children, ages 14
and 12, to France.
Under the Hague Convention, children who are wrongfully removed are to be
promptly returned to their country of habitual residence “unless one of the narrow
exceptions set forth in the Convention applies.” 22 U.S.C. § 9001(a)(4). The “mature
child defense” provides that a court may “refuse to order the return of the child if it
finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of
maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.” Dubikovskyy v. Goun,
54 F.4th 1042, 1048 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hague Convention, art. 13).
In her answer to the petition, Armand requested that the children be
interviewed, either by the court in camera or by a forensic psychologist, to determine
if they object to return for purposes of the “mature child” defense. She renewed this
request in her pre-hearing brief. Without addressing these requests, the district court
granted the petition for the children’s return.
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the district court’s order
and remand with the instruction that the court first address Armand’s request for an
interview of the children for purposes of establishing a “mature child” defense prior
to ruling on the merits of the petition. See Custodio v. Samillan, 842 F.3d 1084, 1089
(8th Cir. 2016) (noting that ruling on this defense is a “fact-intensive determination
1Pub. L. 100-300 Sec. 2(a)(4), codified as the International Child Abduction
Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. § 9001(a)(4).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

that is based in part on the court’s personal observations of the child”). We express
no opinion on the merits of the petition or the defenses raised by Armand.
The judgment is vacated, the pending motion is denied as moot, and the action
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --