Pawananun v. Pettit
| Citation | 508 F.Supp.3d 207 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20CV1081 |
| Parties | Nawaporn PAWANANUN, Petitioner, v. Michael A. PETTIT, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Amy Berman Hamilton, John D. Sayre, Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
Adam Justin Thurman, Rosenthal Thurman Lane, Cleveland, OH, Alexis Marie Gacey, Rosenthal Thurman & Lane, Cleveland, OH, for Respondent.
In this action under the Hague Convention, Petitioner Nawaporn Pawananun seeks the return of her two daughters who Respondent Michael Pettit removed from Thailand. The parties agree that Respondent wrongfully removed their children from their habitual residence of Thailand. But Respondent claims that the children would be exposed to a grave risk of harm or placed in an intolerable situation should they return to Thailand. The question for the Court is whether an "equivocal case" of child abuse is enough to prevent the children's return to Thailand. The Court holds no, and, for the following reasons, GRANTS Petitioner's Petition.
Petitioner (a Thai citizen) and Respondent (an American citizen), met in Thailand in 2009. Their relationship grew and they informally married in Thailand. The couple formalized their marriage in the United States in December of 2011. For the first few years of their marriage, the two resided in Ohio. In 2013, Petitioner gave birth to a daughter, M.P.
In 2014, the family of three relocated to Saraburi, Thailand. Petitioner had family in the area and the opportunity to operate her uncle's wedding business. The parties and their daughter moved into a residence with Petitioner's parents. In 2015, Petitioner gave birth to a second daughter, Z.P.
Towards the end of 2016, the family relocated to Chiang Mai, Thailand. The parties disagree as to the exact reason for the move, but it appears to have been at Respondent's insistence. Petitioner continued her job as a wedding planner, which required frequent travel, mainly back to Saraburi.1 They enrolled M.P. in Tonkla School in Chiang Mai. Z.P. joined her sister at the same school later.
In early March of 2019, Petitioner asked Respondent for a divorce. Reluctant at first, Respondent ultimately agreed. The parties amicably finalized their divorce in April of 2019. They agreed to joint custody of M.P. and Z.P. They also agreed the children would continue to reside in Chiang Mai, Thailand until the age of eighteen.
A few months before their divorce, the parties met Dr. Roger Ian Hardy ("Hardy"), an American citizen living in Chiang Mai with his Thai wife (Umy) and their children, including H.H. The Pettits and Hardys met at Tonkla School, where H.H. also attended. As an American, Petitioner believed a friendship between Respondent and Hardy would be beneficial for Respondent, so the two initiated a friendship. Together they ate breakfast, joined the same gym and watched the New England Patriots win their sixth Super Bowl in February of 2019.
However, Respondent did not completely trust his new compatriot. For one thing, Hardy (unprompted) discussed life back in the United States and the successful fertility practice he left behind. With his interest piqued, Respondent searched the internet for Hardy. The results reflected a series of articles pertaining to claims that Hardy sexually assaulted and improperly touched patients and staff while he was a doctor. Respondent also learned that state investigations ensued. Hardy ultimately surrendered his medical license and moved to Thailand. Respondent also learned that Hardy had an injunction filed against him that forced him to stay away from the Prem School, another grade school in Thailand.
Troubled, Respondent shared this information with his wife. Apparently, Petitioner had already known of these allegations, as Hardy told her and claimed the allegations to be "fake news." Respondent classified Petitioner's response as "indifferent," even as he warned that the couple had to be vigilant around Hardy. Nevertheless, the parties continued to socialize with Hardy.
Respondent had a second reason to be suspicious of Hardy—infidelity. In April of 2019, Respondent messaged Hardy's wife Umy2 informing her of his suspicion that Petitioner and Hardy were involved romantically. Furthermore, after their divorce, Respondent learned that Hardy purchased a hotel room for Petitioner in Chiang Mai in February of 2019. Both Petitioner and Hardy claimed that the purpose of the overnight stay was purely business—they wanted to explore Petitioner's options of moving her wedding business up to Chiang Mai from Saraburi. Both testified that Hardy did not spend the night, but admitted they ate dinner together. The next morning, Petitioner took a free shuttle from the hotel to the airport. Once at the airport, she called Respondent for a ride. Respondent did just that, none the wiser of Petitioner's stay at the hotel. For her part, Petitioner denies any romantic relationship with Hardy.3
At some point, Respondent obtained a Report from the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine that detailed the claims of abuse against Hardy.4 Respondent claimed that, while he shared this information with Petitioner before August of 2019,5 Petitioner had no interest in the material.
The focal point of this case involves events that occurred in August of 2019. On August 18, during his time with the children, Respondent claimed M.P. told him that "H.H.’s daddy (i.e., Hardy) touched us," referring to herself and her sister Z.P. Z.P. then demonstrated that Hardy touched her inner thigh, towards her genitals. M.P. also said that Hardy grabbed her by the arm and hurt her. M.P. allegedly then shut down, not wanting to discuss the issue any further.
The next day, on August 19, Respondent spoke with Petitioner on the phone.6 For over fourteen minutes, Respondent discussed the option of schooling the children in the United States. When Petitioner disagreed with the proposal, Respondent replied,
Before this statement, Respondent never mentioned Hardy nor what his daughters told him the day before. Respondent testified that he did not tell Petitioner the allegations because she "did not believe anything about [Hardy], his background, his past," which concerned Respondent. Therefore, Respondent thought it was best for him "to just handle it." For her part, Petitioner had no idea why Respondent said that about Hardy. According to Petitioner, the parties never talked about Hardy before this call.
A few days later, on August 22, Respondent left Thailand for the United States.7 He allegedly cut his trip short and returned to Thailand on August 26. On August 29, Petitioner dropped the children off at Respondent's, earlier than scheduled. Respondent claimed that, from the moment the children arrived, M.P. behaved unusually.
On August 30, M.P. had a write up in her daily report at school. The report reflected that Respondent classified this incident as a "meltdown" that was inconsistent with M.P.’s normal demeanor. As a result, Respondent continued to worry about M.P.
On August 31 (a Saturday), Respondent "found [M.P.] at the foot of [his] bed curled up in a fetal position[.]" Through tears, M.P. said "something happened at mommy's house." According to Respondent, M.P. told him that H.H.’s dad had grabbed her, hurt her, made her cry and touched her leg or thigh again. Emotional, Respondent recounted his next steps, which included comforting M.P. as she cried in his arms. It was at this point that Respondent noticed "a bruise on the upper inside of [M.P.’s] right leg towards her ... vagina[.]"
According to both Petitioner and Hardy, the bruise resulted when M.P. fell from a playhouse she climbed at Petitioner's home.8 The fall allegedly occurred sometime in August. Petitioner testified that she carried M.P. from the playroom where M.P. fell into the living room. Hardy testified that M.P. came running out after the fall. Either way, someone grabbed ice and Hardy applied the ice to M.P.’s inner leg. Both Petitioner and Hardy testified that no bruising occurred at the time, but that a bruise developed later. At the time, Petitioner never told Respondent that M.P. fell from the playhouse.
Respondent did not immediately discuss the August 31 revelation with Petitioner. Instead, Respondent retained legal counsel to assist him with pursuing a child abuse investigation. This pursuit resulted in the children visiting multiple doctors in Thailand.
The first appointment happened on September 4 with Dr. Anjana Sachabudhawong, the children's pediatrician. Respondent and two of his lawyers attended this appointment with the children. Petitioner was unaware of this appointment. Per her report, Dr. Anjana noted the presence of an old bruise on M.P.’s inner thigh, very close to her private part, as well as a new bruise at the inner aspect of M.P.’s left knee.9
While not in her report, Dr. Anjana did schedule the children for a follow up appointment with a psychologist. This is corroborated by the fact that Dr. Anjana's office called Petitioner to confirm the next appointment. Unaware of the initial appointment and the reason behind it, Petitioner cancelled the follow-up appointment.
The next day, on September 5, Respondent called Petitioner. During the conversation, Respondent informed Petitioner about the past couple days. Respondent relayed that M.P. had been upset since the weekend, that something happened at Respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial