Thea Marie Rosasen v. Marlon Abraham Rosasen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEA MARIE ROSASEN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARLON ABRAHAM ROSASEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-55459
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10742-JFW-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 5, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Marlon Abraham Rosasen appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in
favor of Thea Marie Rosasen on her petition under the Convention on Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”) and the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
International Child Abduction Remedies Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s fact findings for clear error, and we
review de novo the district court’s application of the Hague Convention to those
facts. In re ICJ, 13 F.4th 753, 760–61 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
The district court properly exercised its broad discretion in deciding that an
evidentiary hearing was not necessary because the parties presented evidence and
argument and received a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Hague
Convention art. 2, Oct. 25, 1980, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (in deciding Hague Convention
petitions, courts must “use the most expeditious procedures available”); Colchester
v. Lazaro, 16 F.4th 712, 729 (9th Cir. 2021) (courts “are accordingly vested with
broad discretion to fashion appropriate procedures”).
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Norway was the habitual
residence of the parties’ children. See Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 S. Ct. 719, 723
(2020) (habitual residence determination is reviewed for clear error). Any
agreement between the parents to raise the children in the United States was not
dispositive. See id. at 726. The district court properly found that the children were
“at home” in Norway because they attended daycare there, the majority of their
close relatives lived there, and they had close relationships with Thea Rosasen’s
parents and other family members in Norway who helped to care for them. See id.
The district court properly found that the exception to the remedy of return

-- 2 of 3 --

3
set forth in Hague Convention Article 13(a) did not apply because Thea Rosasen
did not consent to the children’s relocation to the United States. See Asvesta v.
Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir. 2009) (itemizing consent or subsequent
acquiescence as one exception to the Hague Convention’s “rule of return”).
Marlon Rosasen did not establish that the district court’s grant of the petition
violated his fundamental rights under Hague Convention Article 20. See Hague
International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg.
10,494, 10,510 (Mar. 26, 1986) (advising that the Article 20 exception is to be
“invoked only on the rare occasion that return of a child would utterly shock the
conscience of the court or offend all notions of due process”).
AFFIRMED.1
1 Marlon Rosasen’s motion for return of the children pending appeal (Dkt.
No. 59) is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --