Guenther v. McPherson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-CV-61838-DAMIAN/VALLE
SEBASTIAN GUENTHER,
Petitioner,
v.
ELIZABETH VICTORIA MCPHERSON,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner’s: (i) Verified Complaint and Petition
Under Hague Convention for the Return of the Child to Petitioner in Germany, Including
Provisional Orders (ECF No. 1) (the “Petition”); and (ii) Ex Parte Motion Under the Hague
Convention Requesting Injunctive Relief, for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, for
Warrant Seeking Physical Custody of Minor Child, and Scheduling an Expedited Hearing
(ECF No. 3) (the “Motion”). 	U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian referred the matter to the
undersigned “to take all action necessary in connection with case, including hearings and taking
evidence, 	for 	rulings 	on 	all 	non-dispositive 	matters 	and 	for 	issuance 	of 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation on any dispositive matters.” (ECF No. 5).
Having reviewed the Petition, the Motion, and being otherwise duly advised in the
matter, including having held two ex parte evidentiary hearings, the undersigned respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the Court: (i) GRANT the Motion and issue a renewed temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) requiring, among other things, that Respondent Elizabeth Macpherson
and Child (as defined below) be ordered to return to and remain in the Southern District of
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 1 of 15

2
Florida pending resolution of this action; (ii) enter an Order holding Respondent and the Child’s
maternal grandmother Kathy Horsford in civil contempt for failure to obey this Court’s Order
requiring each to appear before the Court to address the merits of the Petition; (iii) issue arrest
warrants 	for 	Elizabeth 	Macpherson 	and 	Kathy 	Horsford; 	and 	(iv) order 	that 	Elizabeth
Macpherson and Kathy Horsford be held in custody until each purges herself of contempt by
appearing before the Court to adjudicate the merits of the Petition. 	Lastly, if Respondent and
Kathy Horsford continue to fail to appear, the undersigned recommends that the Petition be
granted by default and order the immediate return of the Child.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. Events in Germany Predating the Petition
Petitioner, Sebastian Guenther (“Father” or “Petitioner”) and Respondent Elizabeth
Victoria McPherson (“Mother” or “Respondent”) are parents to minor child, Z.G.M. (the
“Child”), born in Broward County, Florida on February 16, 2021. (ECF No. 3 at 2). The Child
is a dual citizen of the United States and Germany. 	Id. 	From November 2023 until August
2024, the parents and Child lived together in Hanover, Germany. Beginning in August 2024, the
Mother moved with the Child into a separate nearby residence and the Child continued to have
substantial and regular contact with the Father, in his home in Germany. Id. In May 2025, the
Mother accepted a job as a kindergarten teacher in Florida, to commence on June 26, 2025.
(ECF No. 1 at 34).
Sometime in early to mid-2025, the Mother commenced custody proceedings in Hanover,
Germany, seeking the sole right to determine the Child’s place of residence. Id. at 35. On June
22, 2025, a Hanover Court denied the Mother’s request and transferred the right to determine
residence for the Child exclusively to the Father. 	Id. at 34. 	Although the Mother appealed the
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 2 of 15

3
Hanover Court decision, she nonetheless left Germany and traveled to the United States with the
Child without the Father’s consent or court approval just days after issuance of the Hanover
Court decision. Id. at 30; (ECF No. 3 at 2). Thereafter, the Appellate Court denied the Mother’s
appeal noting that the Mother left for the United States immediately after receiving the Hanover
Court decision and was unlawfully withholding the Child from the Father, contrary to the valid
order from the Hanover Court. (ECF No. 1 at 30). The Father filed a police report in Germany
and the German authorities have commenced a preliminary investigation against the Mother for
abduction of a minor. (ECF Nos. at 58, 60).
The Father’s last contact with the Child was on August 9, 2025. 	(ECF No. 3 at 3).
According to the Father, although the U.S. State Department has requested that Respondent
voluntarily return the Child, Respondent has failed to do so. Id.
B. The Petition and Proceedings before this Court
On September 12, 2025, the Father filed the Petition and, days after, the Motion.
(ECF Nos. 1. 3). 	Through the Petition and Motion, the Father seeks the return of the Child,
provisional orders, an ex parte TRO, and a warrant seeking the physical custody of the Child. Id.
On September 24, 2025, the undersigned recommended, and the District Judge subsequently
adopted, the initial recommendation to partially grant the TRO.1 (ECF Nos. 9, 11). The District
Judge ordered that:
1. Respondent and Child shall remain in the Southern District of Florida pending
resolution of this action. Further, Respondent (or any person acting in concert with
Respondent) shall be prohibited from removing the Child from the jurisdiction of the
1 At that time, Petitioner withdrew his request to arrest Respondent and the Child and the initial
recommendation granted other relief. (ECF No. 9 at 7).
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 3 of 15

4
Southern District of Florida and shall take no action to remove the Child from the
jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida, pending further Order of the Court
2. The United States Marshals Service shall serve Respondent with a copy of the Verified
Petition, 	the 	Motion 	and 	accompanying 	memorandum 	of 	law, 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation [ECF No. 9], this Order, and any other documents filed by Petitioner in
this action. Service should be made to 25 Spinning Wheel Lane, Tamarac, Florida,
33319, ATTN. Elizabeth Victoria McPherson. The United States Marshals Service shall
be authorized and directed to take all reasonable efforts to serve and enforce this Order in
the daytime or the nighttime, to effectuate the provisions of this Order, including
inquiring about Respondent’s location if she is not found at the above address.
3. Respondent shall relinquish the Child’s passport to the United States Marshals Service
at the time she is served with the documents above (if she has the Child’s passports with
her at that time). 	Alternatively, if Respondent does not have possession of the Child’s
passport at the time of service, she shall tender the Child’s passport to the District Court
by delivering it to the Clerk of Court at the Fort Lauderdale Federal Courthouse, 299
E. Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, by 4:00 PM the next business
day.
(ECF No. 11 at 3).
Pursuant to Federal Rule 65(b)(2), the initial TRO expired on October 15, 2025—14 days
from the date it was issued by the District Judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). On October 16,
2025, the undersigned required the Petitioner to submit a status report to advise the Court
whether: (i) Respondent had been served with the pleadings; and (ii) the TRO could be extended
by consent of the parties or upon a showing of good cause. (ECF No. 13). On October 20, 2025,
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 4 of 15

5
Petitioner advised that although the U.S. Deputy Marshal had attempted service on Respondent
at the Tamarac, Florida address at least four times, personal service had not been effectuated.
(ECF No. 14.) 	Nevertheless, the filings that had been left at the mailbox of Respondent’s last
known address (Kathy Horsford’s home) had been retrieved. 	(ECF No. 14 at 1). 	Because
service had not been 	effected on Respondent 	before expiration of the initial TRO, the
undersigned recommended that the TRO be extended. See (ECF No. 15).
On October 27, 2025, the District Judge adopted the undersigned’s recommendation and
extended the TRO. 	See (ECF No. 17). 	Thereafter, despite the U.S. Marshal’s numerous
attempts to effect personal service, service was not effectuated. See (ECF No. 18) (declaration of
Deputy U.S. Marshal listing numerous efforts to serve Respondent through October and early
November 2025 at various locations); (ECF No. 14) (report explaining that U.S. Marshal has
made at least four attempts to serve Respondent at her last known residence in Tamarac,
Florida). 	Consequently, Petitioner requested and the undersigned permitted Petitioner to serve
Respondent 	by 	email 	at 	her 	two 	known 	email 	addresses. 	See 	(ECF 	Nos. 	19, 	20).
Simultaneously, the undersigned scheduled an evidentiary hearing for December 18, 2025, and
recommended that the District Judge again extend the TRO. (ECF No. 21).
On 	November 	4, 	2025, 	Petitioner 	traveled 	from 	Germany 	to 	the 	United 	States.
(ECF No. 36) (12/18/2025 Hr’g Tr. at 13:4). 	Petitioner has remained in the United States to
assist his lawyer in prosecuting the action and to obtain the return of the Child.
On December 1, 2025, the District Judge issued a third TRO. 	(ECF No. 25). 	On
December 4, 2025, Petitioner filed a notice of service confirming that counsel had, in fact, served
Respondent’s known email addresses, but all emails bounced back. (ECF No. 26 at 1). Counsel
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 5 of 15

6
also served Respondent by certified mail and sent the various Orders regarding the December 18,
2025 hearing to Respondent’s mother, Kathy Horsford, via text. Id. at 2.
On December 18, 2025, the undersigned commenced the evidentiary hearing on the
Petition and Motion. (ECF No. 28). Although Petitioner and his counsel appeared, Respondent
failed to appear. At the December 18th hearing, the undersigned heard testimony from Petitioner
and witness Mona Vogal regarding Respondent’s alleged whereabouts. See generally (ECF No.
36). 	More specifically, “Petitioner testified about communications between: (i) Respondent’s
mother and Petitioner’s counsel; and (ii) Respondent’s mother and a mutual friend. See Exhibit
1 in evidence at the hearing. Petitioner also referenced the Declaration of U.S. Deputy Marshal
David Steinberg regarding his attempts at service, including one occasion when the Deputy
returned to the residence and found that documents he had previously left in the mailbox had
been retrieved. 	See ECF Nos. 14 and 18.” 	(ECF No. 30). 	Petitioner also testified regarding
Respondent’s flight from the Southern District of Florida to New York. 	See generally (ECF
No. 36). 	In continuing the hearing to give Respondent another opportunity to appear, the
undersigned 	also 	found: 	“[t]hese 	communications 	[and 	testimony] 	provide 	convincing
circumstantial evidence that Respondent is, at best, evading service or, at worst, has fled the
jurisdiction with the minor child.” (ECF No. 30). The Court continued the evidentiary hearing
to January 5, 2026. (12/18/25 Hr’g Tr. 62:1).
The undersigned also ordered, among other things, that Petitioner’s counsel: (i) issue
necessary subpoenas for the in-person appearance of witnesses at the continued hearing,
including the maternal grandmother Kathy Horsford. 	(ECF No. 	29). 	The undersigned
referenced: (i) potentially finding Respondent in civil contempt of Court, see, e.g., American
University v. Tien, No. 04-20834-WPD (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022) (issuing arrest warrant for civil
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 6 of 15

7
contempt based on undersigned’s recommendation that individual failed to comply with Court
orders) and issuing a warrant for her arrest; (ii) instructing the proper authorities to add the minor
child to the national police computer missing persons section, see Brooke v. Willis, 907 F. Supp.
57 (1995); (iii) instructing that a United States peace officer bring the minor child before the
Court without consent of Respondent; and (iv) finding any third-party acting in concert with
Respondent 	as 	being 	in 	contempt 	of 	Court. 	Id. 	Contemporaneously, 	the 	undersigned
recommended to the District Judge that the TRO be extended through the January 5, 2026
continued hearing date. (ECF No. 29). The District Judge adopted the recommendation, and the
TRO was extended through January 5, 2026. (ECF No. 34).
In advance of the January 5th hearing, Petitioner filed several Notices regarding service
on Respondent and third parties, including Kathy Horsford. (ECF Nos. 35, 37, 40). On January
5, 2026, the undersigned held the continued evidentiary hearing. 	(ECF No. 42). 	Although
Petitioner, counsel, and private investigator Daniel Reimer appeared, no one else appeared at the
hearing. The Court heard testimony. This Report and Recommendation follows.
II. 	RENEWAL OF THE TRO
This Hague Convention action commenced in September 2025. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Courts
should take steps to decide these cases as expeditiously as possible for the sake of the children
and parents. Chafin v. Chafin, 742 F.3d 934, 936 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, the Hague Convention
contemplates a six-week time frame from the initial filing of the petition to a decision regarding
the child’s return. Id. 	The recommended six-week period expired on October 24, 2025. 	Since
the filing of the Petition, on five prior occasions, the undersigned has recommended that the
District Judge enter a TRO requiring, among other things, that Respondent and Child be remain
in the Southern District of Florida pending resolution of the Petition. See (ECF Nos. 9, 15, 21,
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 7 of 15

8
27, 30). 	The District Judge has adopted the undersigned’s prior recommendations. 	See (ECF
Nos. 11, 17, 24, 34). 	The prior R&Rs are incorporated by reference. 	The most recent of these
TROs expired on January 5, 2026. To date, however, Respondent has not appeared in this action
or complied with Court Orders.
Under these circumstances, and given the evidence that Respondent is actively evading
service, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Judge renew the TRO
for an additional 14 days to allow Respondent one last opportunity to appear before the Court in
the Southern District of Florida to adjudicate the merits of the Petition. 	Failure to personally
appear before this Court should result in a warrant for Respondent’s arrest for civil contempt, as
discussed below.
Alternatively, the Court should consider entering a default judgment against Respondent
for failure to appear before the Cour to determine the merits of the Petition and Order the
immediate return of the Child to Petitioner.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
The District Court’s power to find a Defendant in civil contempt for disobeying the
Court’s orders stems from the Court’s inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful
orders. United States v. Pierre, No. 04-CV-21129, 2007 WL 5268245, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21,
2007) (citations omitted). 	A finding of civil contempt must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence. 	S.E.C. v. Pension Fund of Am., L.C., 396 F. App’x 577, 580 (11th Cir.
2010). The clear and convincing evidence must establish that: (i) an order was violated; (ii) the
allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (iii) the order was clear and unambiguous; and
(iv) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order. 	Id. 	A party subject to a
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 8 of 15

9
contempt order must show that he has “made in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.” Id.
at 582 (citations omitted).
IV. 	FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING CIVIL CONTEMPT
The undersigned makes the following findings of fact in support of civil contempt:
A. Respondent’s Noncompliance with Court Orders
1. 	On five prior occasions, this undersigned has ordered Respondent to appear
before this Court to adjudicate the merits of the Petition. 	More specifically, in adopting the
undersigned’s recommendations, the District Judge has issued TROs on October 1, 2025,
October 27, 2025, December 1, 2025, and December 22, 2025. (ECF Nos. 11, 17, 24, 34)
2. 	The TROs required Respondent to remain in the Southern District of Florida
pending resolution of this action. 	Further, Respondent (or any person acting in concert with
Respondent) was prohibited from removing the Child from the jurisdiction of the Southern
District of Florida and shall take no action to remove the Child from the jurisdiction of the
Southern District of Florida, pending further Order of the Court. 	Id. 	Respondent was also to
relinquish the Child’s passport to the United States Marshals or alternatively, tender the Child’s
passport to the District Court by delivering it to the Court the business day after being served
with the TRO. Id.
3. 	Respondent was also required to appear before this Court on December 18, 2025.
(ECF No. 25). 	The Court advised that failure to appear at the hearing may result in a
recommendation that: (i) Respondent be found in contempt of Court; (ii) a writ and/or warrant be
issued for Respondent’s arrest; and (iii) the child be entered into the national police computer
system missing persons section, among other appropriate relief. Id.
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 9 of 15

10
4. 	Respondent was next required to appear for the continued evidentiary hearing
held on January 5, 2026, with the same admonition regarding possible consequences if she failed
to appear. (ECF No. 29).
5. 	Although personal service has not been possible, there is substantial evidence that
Respondent has received the Petition, Motion, and Court Orders requiring her appearance. 	For
example, the Petition and Motion were left by the U.S. Marshal at Respondent’s last known
address in Tamarac, Florida and have been retrieved when the Deputy returned. 	(ECF No. 14)
(10/20/2025 Status Report).
6. 	There is also substantial evidence that Respondent is on notice of the Court’s
Orders and the proceedings through direct service attempts and communications from third
parties. 	More specifically, counsel for Petitioner has sent all Court filings and Orders to
Respondent’s mother (the maternal grandmother) Kathy Horsford via text. 	(ECF No. 23 at 2).
Filings and Court Orders have also been sent via certified mail return receipt to Respondent’s
last known address in Tamarac, Florida, the home of Kathy Horsford. 	Id. at 1. 	Most recently,
Petitioner testified that he notified Respondent of the January 5, 2026 hearing via Respondent’s
PayPal account, which the parties had previously used to wire monies between themselves.
Petitioner 	also 	messaged 	Kathy 	Horsford 	through 	the 	Broward 	County 	Public 	School’s
messaging portal, because she is a school employee. 	(1/5/2026 hearing incorporated by
reference).2
2 Note, “both state and federal courts have found service to be sufficient and proper under similar
circumstances. In an interstate custody case where personal service was impossible due to the
flight of the respondent, the court allowed substituted service in any manner ‘reasonably
effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.’” 	Brooke v. Willis, 907 F. Supp. 57, 60
(S.D.N.Y. 1995). Although there was no personal service, the record reflected the respondent’s
actual knowledge of the pending litigation and the court found service to be proper where the
father sent papers to the mother’s parents and specifically informed 	the mother of the
proceedings over the phone. Id. (citations omitted).
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 10 of 15

11
7. 	Despites these and other efforts discussed during the two ex parte hearings (held
on December 18, 2025 and January 5, 2026), Respondent has failed to comply with the TROs
and Court Orders to appear.
8. 	There is no evidence in the record that Respondent is unable to comply with this
Court’s Orders to appear before the Court to adjudicate the merits of the Petition.
9. 	These Orders are valid and lawful. 	Relevant here, the Hague Convention is an
international treaty designed to protect custody rights of parents on a global scale. 	Meredith v.
Meredith, 759 F. Supp. 1432, 1434 (D. Ariz. 1991). 	The objective of the Convention is “to
secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State”
and “to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are
effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” Meredith v. Meredith, 759 F. Supp. 1432,
1434 (D. Ariz. 1991) (citation omitted). 	Thus, the Court is empowered to determine the merits
of an alleged abduction, it does not determine the merits of the underlying custody claims or
issues. 	The Court’s focus is solely whether Petitioner may invoke the protection of the
Convention for what he alleges is a wrongful abduction of the Child from Germany to South
Florida. 	The Court, therefore, appropriately set the matter for an evidentiary hearing on
December 18, 2025 and January 5, 2026. 	See, e.g., Application of McCullough on Behalf of
McCullough, 4 F. Supp. 2d 411, 416 (W.D. Pa. 1998) (setting an evidentiary hearing on a
petition pursuant to ICARA).
10. 	The 	undersigned’s 	Orders 	were 	also 	unambiguous, 	unequivocally 	directing
Respondent to appear before the Court to adjudicate the merits of the Petition. 	However, the
evidence presented at the hearings reflects that Respondent is, at best, evading service or, at
worst, has fled the jurisdiction with the minor child.
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 11 of 15

12
11. 	On 	this 	record, 	the 	undersigned 	finds 	that 	Petitioner 	has 	established 	the
requirements for a finding of civil contempt as to Respondent by clear and convincing evidence.
12. 	Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the only way to obtain compliance with
its prior Orders is to find Respondent in civil contempt and hold her in custody until she purges
herself of contempt by appearing before this Court to address the merits of the Petition.
B. Kathy Horsford’s Noncompliance with Court Orders
13. 	Upon absconding with the minor child from Germany and arriving in the United
States, the evidence reflects that Respondent and Child arrived and resided at the home of Kathy
Horsford, the maternal grandmother living in Tamarac, Florida.
14. 	Petitioner testified credibly that upon last speaking with his daughter on August 9,
2025, the Child said that she was with her “grandmother Kathy.” (12/18/25 Hr’g Tr. 16:23-24.
15. 	Further, the Father credibly testified that, on the morning of November 19, 2025,
he received a Whatsapp call from a number associated with Mrs. Horsford and, shortly after, an
email confirming that she “received a message” and inquiring about how things were going for
Petitioner. 	(12/18/25 Hr’g Tr. 38:8-41:8). 	Although Petitioner does not know what “message”
the caller was referring to, the message came from a number associated with Kathy Horsford. Id.
39:4-5.
16. 	Petitioner also testified credibly that, in approximately late November or early
December 2025, Kathy Horsford texted his mother (the paternal grandmother living in Germany)
stating that the Child missed her. Id. 23:8-24:13.
17. 	Based on the evidence, the undersigned Ordered that Petitioner subpoena Kathy
Horsford to appear before the Court at the January 5, 2026 hearing to testify regarding
Respondent’s whereabouts.
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 12 of 15

13
18. 	Although the process server attempted personal service of the subpoena on
Kathy Horsford on several occasions, he was unable to effectuate personal service. 	(ECF
No. 40). 	Nevertheless, Petitioner’s counsel sent copies of the subpoena and information about
the hearing via text. Id.
19. 	The private investigator Dan Reimer testified that Kathy Horsford has been
parking at another residence, near her house in Tamarac, Florida, purportedly to evade service.
(1/5/2026 hearing).
20. 	Mrs. Horsford failed to appear at the January 5, 2026 hearing.
21. 	The undersigned’s Orders that Mrs. Horsford appear to testify as a witness to the
whereabouts of Respondent and Child are valid and lawful.
22. 	The 	undersigned’s 	Order 	was 	also 	unambiguous, 	unequivocally 	directing
Kathy Horsford to appear before the Court to testify regarding Respondent’s whereabouts.
23. 	There is no evidence that Kathy Horsford is unable to comply with the Court’s
Order to appear. Nonetheless, Kathy Horsford failed to appear.
24. 	The undersigned finds that Petitioner has established the requirements for civil
contempt as to Kathy Horsford by clear and convincing evidence.
25. 	Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the only way to obtain compliance with
the Court’s prior Orders is to find Kathy Horsford in civil contempt for failure to appear before
the Court and holding her in custody until she purges herself of contempt by appearing before
this Court.
V. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, and incorporating the prior R&Rs and the testimony at
the evidentiary hearings, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Judge:
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 13 of 15

14
(i) 	find 	Respondent 	Elizabeth 	Macpherson 	and 	maternal 	grandmother 	Kathy
Horsford in CIVIL CONTEMPT for failure to obey this Court’s Orders requiring each to
appear before this Court to address the merits of the Petition;
(ii) 	Issue a WARRANT for Respondent’s arrest for civil contempt of Court, see, e.g.,
American University v. Tien, No. 04-20834-WPD (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022) (issuing arrest
warrant for civil contempt based on undersigned’s recommendation that individual failed to
comply with Court orders);
(iii) 	Issue a WARRANT for Kathy Horsford’s arrest for civil contempt (helping
Respondent evade service and personally evading service of a subpoena to testify at the hearing
on 1/05/26);
(iv) 	ORDER that Respondent and Kathy Horsford be held in custody until each
individual purges herself of contempt by complying with Court Orders, including bringing the
Child before the Court to address the merits of the Petition;
(v) 	INSTRUCT the proper authorities to add the minor child to the national police
computer missing persons section. See Brooke, 907 F. Supp. at 57.
(vi) 	INSTRUCT that a United States peace officer bring the Child before the Court
without consent of Respondent;
(vii) 	FIND any third-party knowingly acting in concert with Respondent as being in
contempt of Court;
(viii) 	GRANT the Motion (ECF No. 3) and issue a new TRO to expire within 14 days
of the date of issuance, unless otherwise extended to by the parties, requiring, among other
things, that Respondent Elizabeth Macpherson and Child be ordered to remain in (or return to)
the Southern District of Florida pending resolution of the Petition; and
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 14 of 15

15
(ix) 	Alternatively, the Court should consider entering a DEFAULT JUDGMENT
against Respondent for failure to appear before the Court to address the merits of the Petition and
Order the immediate return of the Child to Petitioner.
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any
party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as
provided by the Local Rules for this District. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b).
Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation.
11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2025); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Petitioner shall serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on Respondent
and Kathy Horsford, by all available means, and file a Notice of Compliance regarding
service.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida on January 9, 2026.
___________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian
All Counsel of Record
Case 0:25-cv-61838-JMS Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2026 Page 15 of 15