Howard v. Danielle Alexandria Davis Howard

Background

Petitioner Pierre Romel Howard filed a Verified Petition for Return of Child to Canada and for Expedited Relief on June 2, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The petition was brought under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the "Hague Convention") and its U.S. enabling legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act ("ICARA"), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. Petitioner alleged that Respondent Danielle Alexandria Davis Howard removed the parties' child from Canada on or about October 24, 2025, in violation of Canadian court orders, and that Petitioner has had no contact with the child since that time.

The U.S. Department of State — which serves as the Central Authority for the United States under the Hague Convention — initially believed Respondent was located at an address in Cleveland Heights, Ohio. When a process server went to that address on June 6, 2026, Respondent's father stated that Respondent did not reside there and that he had not had contact with her for approximately one year. The State Department then confirmed a new address for Respondent and the child in Hopkins, Minnesota.

Legal Framework

ICARA grants federal district courts concurrent original jurisdiction over Hague Convention cases and requires that a petition be filed in a court authorized to exercise jurisdiction where the child is located at the time of filing. 22 U.S.C. § 9003(a)–(b). Petitioner moved to transfer venue under 22 U.S.C. § 9003, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

The court noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) — which allows transfer to a more convenient district — requires that the transferring court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Because Respondent was confirmed to be in Minnesota, the court found it likely lacked personal jurisdiction over her and therefore could not transfer under § 1404(a). Instead, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which permits transfer to a district where the case could have been brought when the finding is that the original court lacks jurisdiction, provided transfer is in the interest of justice.

Ruling

The court found that because the State Department confirmed Respondent and the child are physically located in the District of Minnesota, the petition could have been filed there under ICARA. The court further found that transfer was in the interest of justice, citing the Hague Convention's requirement that contracting states use the most expeditious procedures available to resolve child-return cases. The court granted Petitioner's Motion to Transfer (Doc. 5) and transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under 22 U.S.C. § 9003 and 28 U.S.C. § 1631.