Short Notice International Relocation Order

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: Illinois

Background:
Family of 5 originally living in Australia. Mother U.S. citizen, father Australian. Children currently aged 15, 13, and 11. Family moves to U.S., parents seperate one month later, father returns to Australia. Parents get divorced, custody battle ensues. Children have spent two years in U.S., want to stay. Evidence that the father has history of abusing the children. Mother and three kids are living with Mother's parents. Some of the following details are hazy...Illinois state judge rules that children can stay with mother. Father goes to the international court accusing mother of child kidnapping. Today, Friday, at the very end of the day, a U.S. Federal Judge ruled in favor of the father and said the children had to be out of the U.S. by Sunday night. Also, the eldest daughter is set turn 16 on Monday, allowing her to choose which parent she wishes to live with. She absolutely wishes to remain in the U.S.

Question 1: Is 48 hrs. notice for leaving the country normal in these sorts of cases? If not, is it likely that the reason for the short notice is the fact that the eldest child is turning 16 on Monday.

Question 2: The mother's lawyer cannot file an appeal until Monday, after the children are out of the country and the case is in the hands of the international court. Are there any delaying tactics by which the mother can hold of putting the children on the plane in order to allow her lawyer to file an appeal on Monday? Even if it meant her going to jail?

Question 3: If the case goes to international court, is there anything to stop the husband from simply drawing out the proceedings so that he can have de facto custody?

As it says in the background, time is of the essence here and any advice would be truly appreciated. The mother's lawyer said that he cannot legally give her any advice in this situation. Thank you in advance.

1. There's really no "normal".

2. If Mom tries anything, she'll likely ruin ANY chance of getting the kids back to the US.

3. Nope - nothing stopping him and/or his attorney filing continuances.

Why is Mom's attorney refusing to give her legal advice?

I believe the attorney's comments to the mother were with regards to him advising her to defy the judge's order, which you have just pointed out to be a bad idea. Thank you for your reply. Frankly, our whole family is stunned and are worried the kids will never return from Australia.

By the way, in which jurisdiction allows a 16 year old to choose where they want to live?

I'm missing what would be so "magical" about a sixteenth birthday. A sixteen year old's wishes do not control a judge's decision, nor do they supersede it. Though certainly a judge may consider the wishes of a child of that age. But going from 15 and 364 days old to 16 is so magical because....?

- - - Updated - - -

Ahh, I.definitely type too slowly!

I am not sure...that was just what the mother told me.

Sounds like mother is either confused about how things work or isn't telling you the complete truth.

Mom is mistaken. There is NO state where a 16 year old's wishes are the deciding factor. At various ages, the court may listen to the child. But again there is no state where the child's wishes override everything else.

Even Georgia changed their mind about that. Turns out not every teen always knows what's best for themselves. :)

However, SINCE the oldest is 16, at the very worst, if Mom doesn't end up with custody, then that child is free to come back to the U.S. in 2 years to live with Mom once she turns 18. And that's at worst.

I'm not directly involved in the case so it is entirely possible that I'm mistaken on that detail. To my eyes, the real issue appears to be the fact that the Judge issued his order at the end of the day Friday to be executed by the end of the day Sunday, thus disallowing any chance of appeal.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not a state case. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is this. This is a Federal Judge, making a determination under the conventions of the International Court whether custody hearings should be held in the United States or Australia and in whose custody the children should remain during the the hearings.

Mom may still be able to appeal and should discuss with her attorney (or hire another if she isn't satisfied with the current one). The timing of the new order beginning before the chance to file the appeal really doesn't matter because, at least in most cases, judges would not grant any kind of "stay" until after the appeal was heard. The children would be with dad regardless by the time any appeals could be heard.

- - - Updated - - -

International issues are bordering on beyond the scope of this board, although some members have some knowledge of them. I'm not going to claim to be one of them, just so that's clear.

In any case, mom's best bet is to have a good attorney who has experience in international cases. She may need to find a different one. She may also want to consider having two - one in the US and one in Australia.

I believe that once the children are outside the United States the matter then either goes to the Australian courts or the international court in the Hague. I have just learned that the mother's lawyer filed some sort of emergency appeal that may or may not be heard before the kids leave.

- - - Updated - - -

I know the mother's lawyer has dealt with the father's lawyers in the past and has even filed a malpractice suit against them and won.

With all due respect, Burke - I think you're overinvolved here and you don't have the actual facts.

Have Mom sign up if she has questions. Thanks!

This is my family who I live across the street from and spend time with every day. I am aware of all of the actual facts, what I don't understand and want to learn about are the legal ramifications.

- - - Updated - - -

I apologize, I got emotional and your probably right. Anyway, there's nothing I can do. Thank you all for your replies.