The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a District Court decision denying a father's petition to return his child to Greece under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Oct. 30, 2025 ruling in *Michele H.P. Xamplas v. Peter Xamplas* rejected arguments by Peter Xamplas, a Greek and Australian citizen, that the lower court erred in its analysis of timing requirements and the well-settled-child defense.
The case arose from a divorce proceeding between Peter Xamplas and Michele H.P. Xamplas, a U.S. citizen. During the divorce action, Peter filed a petition seeking the return of the couple's child to Greece under the Hague Convention, an international treaty designed to address international child abduction by parents.
The District Court in Augusta, presided over by Judge Daniel Mitchell, denied Peter's petition. Peter subsequently appealed to Maine's highest court, arguing that the trial court made two critical errors. First, he contended the court incorrectly concluded he had failed to commence proceedings within the required one-year timeframe under the Hague Convention. Second, he argued the court improperly found that Michele had met her burden of establishing the well-settled-child defense, which allows courts to deny return petitions when a child has become settled in their new environment.
Peter also claimed the court abused its discretion in ultimately deciding not to order the child's return to Greece. The appeal raised procedural questions about the reviewability of the District Court's order, as neither party initially addressed whether the decision constituted a final, appealable judgment.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Stanfill and joined by Justices Mead, Connors, Lawrence, Douglas, and Lipez, concluded that the trial court's order was reviewable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. This exception allows appeals of certain non-final orders that conclusively determine important issues separate from the merits of the main case.
After establishing jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the court examined the substantive legal issues. The justices reviewed the District Court's factual findings, noting they were supported by competent evidence in the record, consistent with established precedent from federal courts interpreting similar Hague Convention cases.
The background of the case reveals an international family that faced dissolution across multiple countries. Peter and Michele met in Indonesia and married in Australia in 2018. Their child was born in Australia on Oct. 22, 2020, and holds an Australian passport. The family initially lived in Australia before circumstances led to their separation and the child's presence in Maine.
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which both the United States and Australia are signatories, establishes procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed from or retained away from their country of habitual residence. The treaty aims to deter international child abduction by ensuring children are returned to their home countries, where custody disputes can be properly adjudicated.
However, the Convention includes several defenses that can prevent a child's return, including the well-settled-child defense. This defense recognizes that in some cases, returning a child to their country of habitual residence may not be in their best interests, particularly when the child has become established in their new environment over an extended period.
Timing requirements under the Hague Convention are strictly enforced. Petitions for return must generally be filed within one year of the alleged wrongful removal or retention. Courts have limited discretion to order returns when petitions are filed after this deadline, and the burden on the petitioning parent becomes significantly higher.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's affirmance of the District Court's denial suggests that both the timing and well-settled-child issues were properly analyzed by the lower court. The decision reflects the complexity of international custody disputes, where competing legal frameworks, citizenship issues, and children's welfare interests must be carefully balanced.
The ruling demonstrates how state courts apply international treaty obligations in domestic proceedings. While the Hague Convention creates a presumption favoring return to the country of habitual residence, courts must still conduct individualized analyses of each case's specific circumstances.
This case highlights the challenges faced by international families when relationships dissolve. Parents with ties to multiple countries must navigate complex legal frameworks that span different jurisdictions and legal systems. The outcome emphasizes the importance of prompt legal action when seeking relief under international treaties with strict timing requirements.
The decision also illustrates how children's interests are protected through established legal defenses, even when those defenses conflict with the general preference for returning children to their country of habitual residence. Courts must balance the Convention's goals of deterring abduction with the paramount consideration of children's welfare and stability.
For families involved in international custody disputes, this ruling serves as a reminder of the critical importance of understanding both timing requirements and available defenses under the Hague Convention. The case demonstrates that successful challenges to return petitions require careful legal analysis and thorough presentation of evidence supporting applicable defenses.