RONG v. CAO

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
YI RONG,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-158-MW-MJF
CONG CAO,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant 	to 	the 	International 	Child 	Abduction 	Remedies 	Act,
Petitioner seeks to compel Respondent to return Petitioner’s child to the
United 	States. 	Because 	Petitioner 	acknowledges 	that, 	long 	before
Petitioner initiated this action, Respondent had fled with the child to the
People’s Republic of China, the District Court lacks jurisdiction and must
dismiss this civil action.
B ACKGROUND
Petitioner commenced this action on June 11, 2025. Doc. 1. On
March 11, 2026, Petitioner filed her second amended petition. Doc. 12.
Petitioner asserts a claim under the International Child Abduction
Case 1:25-cv-00158-MW-MJF Document 13 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Remedies Act to force Respondent to return Petitioner’s child to the
United States. Petitioner alleges the following facts:
• 	Her child was “born in December of 2017,” and thus is a minor.
• 	Petitioner and her child previously resided in Alachua County,
Florida.
• 	In July 2023, Respondent took the child to China, where the
child remains.
Id. at 9.
DISCUSSION
A. 	The International Child Abduction Remedies Act
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction is a multilateral treaty that seeks to address “the
wrongful removal and retention of children from their country of habitual
residence.” Marks ex rel. SM v. Hochhauser, 876 F.3d 416, 418 (2d Cir.
2017). The Convention “generally requires courts in the United States to
order children returned to their countries of habitual residence, if the
courts find that the children have been wrongfully removed to or retained
in the United States.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 168 (2013).
Congress implemented the Hague Convention in the International
Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 102 Stat. 437, as amended, 22
Case 1:25-cv-00158-MW-MJF Document 13 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
U.S.C. §§ 9001 et seq. See Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666, 671 (2022).
ICARA authorizes a parent who seeks relief under the Convention to file
in a federal court a petition for return of a child. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(a)–(b).
B. 	The District Court Lacks Jurisdiction
ICARA states in relevant part:
(b) Petitions
Any person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the
Convention for the return of a child . . . may do so by
commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief
sought in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and
which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place
where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.
22 U.S.C. § 9003(b) (emphasis added).
In other words, ICARA requires that a petitioner file a petition only
in the location where the child is located at the time of filing. Lops v.
Lops, 140 F.3d 927, 936 (11th Cir. 1998); 	Peled v. Peled, 2025 WL
2711374, at *5 (S.D. Ohio. Sept. 23, 2025). “Because ICARA requires
reviewing courts to have personal jurisdiction over the abducted child, a
parent can only file a return petition in the district where the child is
located.” Fernandez v. Bailey, 909 F.3d 353, 359 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing
Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2008)). Thus, “a
child’s physical presence in the forum at the time of filing is essential.”
Case 1:25-cv-00158-MW-MJF Document 13 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Peled, 2025 WL 2711374, at *5. A “court in the abducted-to nation has
jurisdiction to decide the merits of an abduction claim,” not a court in the
nation from which a child has been abducted. Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78
F.3d 1060, 1063 (6th Cir. 1996).
In this case, Petitioner states that Respondent took the child to
China in July 2023, long before Petitioner commenced this civil action in
June 2025. Doc. 12 at 9, ¶ 5. The “abducted-to” nation, therefore, is
China, not the United States. Under ICARA, the District Court does not
have jurisdiction in China to compel the return of Petitioner’s child, and
thus does not have jurisdiction to address Petitioner’s ICARA claim.
When a petitioner files an ICARA petition in a district in which the
child was not present at the commencement of the action, the district
court must dismiss the action. See Olagues v. Kousharian, 177 F. App’x
537, 538 (9th Cir. 2006); Franco v. Theroux, 2025 WL 2056156, at *4 (S.D.
Fla. July 9, 2025); Paplacyzk v. Paplacyzk, 2025 WL 1296177, at *4 (S.D.
Ga. May 5, 2025).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
Case 1:25-cv-00158-MW-MJF Document 13 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of May 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. A party who fails to object to the
magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations
contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00158-MW-MJF Document 13 Filed 05/04/26 Page 5 of 5