Bayerlein v. Anderson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
VANESSA S. BAYERLEIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ARLEN ANDERSON, JR.,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-cv-1027-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Vanessa S. Bayerlein’s motion for
attorney’s fees and costs (Doc. 24). Respondent Arlen Anderson Jr. has responded to the motion
(Doc. 25).
I. Background
Bayerlein is a citizen and resident of Germany; Anderson is a citizen and resident of the
United States. They share a five-year-old daughter, ARB.
In May 2025, Beyerlein brought this action under The Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Abduction, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, and the
International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq., seeking return
of ARB to Germany so custody matters between her and Anderson could be determined in a
German court. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on July 31, 2025, at which Bayerlein and
Anderson testified. On August 1, 2025, the Court granted the petition and ordered Anderson to
return ARB to Germany within 45 days so that a German court could resolve custody issues such as
parenting time/visitation.
Critical to the Court’s decision were its factual findings that in 2024, Bayerlein and
Anderson agreed that Anderson would take ARB to the United States in October 2024 until no later
Case 3:25-cv-01027-JPG Document 29 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
than December 31, 2025. Several weeks after ARB arrived in the United States, Bayerlein reneged
on this agreed timeframe and told Anderson she wanted ARB returned to Germany immediately.
The Court concluded that Anderson had not wrongfully removed ARB from Germany in but
that he wrongfully retained her in the United States beginning when he stated at the hearing that he
had no plans to return ARB to Germany before December 31, 2025. See 22 U.S.C.
§ 9003(e)(1)(A). The Court further found that the custody arrangements between Bayerlein,
Anderson, and ARB should be decided by a court in Germany, the state of ARB’s habitual
residence and ordered ARB to be returned to Germany within 45 days or any other mutually
agreeable date.
II. Costs and Fees
The matter is now before the Court again for a determination of an award of costs and fees
under ICARA’s fee provision:
Any court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under section
9003 of this title shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or
on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care
during the course of proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the
return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly
inappropriate.
22 U.S.C.A. § 9007(b)(3).
Bayerlein has asked for a total award of costs and fees in the amount of $26,440.43
comprising $24,386.00 in attorney’s fees and $2,054.43 in expenses. Anderson argues that an
award of fees and costs would be inappropriate in light of the circumstances of the case.
The Court believes some award of costs and fees is necessary by the plain terms of the
statute. However, for the following reasons, it finds an appropriate award is an award of ten
percent of what was requested.
Case 3:25-cv-01027-JPG Document 29 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
As a preliminary matter, this is at least the fourth ICARA case this Court has considered in
its decades on the bench. This case pales in comparison with the abusive and egregious behavior
of other parents who have been ordered to return their children to other jurisdictions. Those other
parents have essentially kidnapped their children without informing the abandoned parent about the
location of the child or allowing the child to communicate with the abandoned parent. Here,
Anderson brought ARB to the United States with Bayerlein’s permission and documentation
arguably showing that permission was to last until December 31, 2025. He did nothing wrong in
bringing ARB to the United States and beginning to establish her life here. And while ARB was
here, Anderson allowed free communication between ARB and Bayerlein and even encouraged
Bayerlein to come to the United States to visit ARB. Their situation was a far cry from the
kidnapping kind of cases the Court has seen before.
Against this background, the Court considers the testimony from the July 31, 2025, hearing.
Based on their demeanor and the consistency of their testimony with the other evidence in the case,
the Court finds that Anderson’s testimony was credible, but Bayerlein’s less so, especially with
respect to the intentions behind her actions. Anderson’s credible testimony and the inferences the
Court draws from it paint this picture. Anderson reasonably believed leading up to October 2024
that Bayerlein was relinquishing physical custody over ARB for the immediately foreseeable future.
She had told him essentially that she was at the end of her rope and could not handle raising ARB
anymore. And the Court believes that was true. So Anderson stepped up to the plate and agreed
to take physical custody of ARB, which he believed required moving to the United States to his
family support system who could help him, as a single parent, raise a young child. Anderson
reasonably relied on Bayerlein’s position when he quit his job in Germany to take ARB to the
Case 3:25-cv-01027-JPG Document 29 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

4
United States as they had agreed.
Bayerlein completed documents that indicated Anderson had authority to keep ARB in the
United States and to provide appropriate parental care for her until at least December 31, 2025.
The circumstances suggest that Bayerlein and Anderson were trying out a new physical custody
arrangement to see if it would work. The December 31, 2025, date was a random, reasonable date
far enough into the future that it might be a convenient point to reexamine whether the new situation
was going to work, and it satisfied the need to fill in a blank on a form. Relying on Bayerlein’s
acquiescence to the plan to move ARB to the United States for the foreseeable future, Anderson
uprooted his life to give his daughter—and Bayerlein—what was needed at the time.
And then Bayerlein changed her mind, with no regard for Anderson’s reliance interest, only
weeks after ARB arrived in the United States. Ostensibly her reversal was based on the statement
of a four-year-old about where her home was. The Court believes she was suffering buyer’s
remorse about the custody arrangement to which she agreed, and instead of working with Anderson
to come up with a plan to resolve the matter, she yanked him into court through this action.
Anderson incurred moving expenses bringing ARB to the United States, quit his job in
Germany, bore the cost of ARB’s upbringing for the past year, and has had to pay his own
attorney’s fees for this litigation, all for simply complying in good faith with the custody
arrangement to which he and Bayerlein had agreed. And far from being defiant of this Court’s
authority in the face of uncertainty, Anderson stated he would obey any order to return ARB to
Germany if the Court so ordered. He was always ready to obey the Court’s decision, and it appears
he has allowed ARB’s timely return.
In the Court’s opinion, Bayerlein unnecessarily turned a routine custody matter into an
Case 3:25-cv-01027-JPG Document 29 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

5
international case. She could have initiated child custody proceedings at any time in Germany, and
Anderson, who appears to be a reasonable person, very well could have agreed to abide by an order
of that court. We will never know because she did not try before resorting to an ICARA suit.
Under ICARA, the Court was compelled to order ARB to go back to Germany, but that is
only because this custody matter belongs in the German courts. It wishes it could have just made
that determination and then let the parties agree how to implement it. But the statute compels a
return, not just a declaration, so that is what the Court did.
As the Court said in its earlier order, it is unfortunate—and, the Court believes,
unnecessary—that either of these fine parties had to be involved in this ICARA litigation. And it
would be profoundly unfair and clearly inappropriate to make Anderson pay all of Bayerlein’s costs
and fees associated with the litigation. A fair amount would be ten percent of the amount she has
requested.1
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Bayerlein’s motion for fees and costs (Doc.
24) but only in the amount of $2,644.00.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 6, 2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Such a reduction is further reasonable in light of the excessive hourly rate ($400.00 per hour) of
Bayerlein’s counsel and the performance of some secretary or paralegal duties by counsel. The
Court need not pick through the submitted documentation of fees and costs to arrive at a precise
amount because a blanket reduction is appropriate for the foregoing reasons.
Case 3:25-cv-01027-JPG Document 29 Filed 11/06/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>