The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Washington Court Refuses to Enforce Saudi Child Custody Decree
"During the custody battle [in Saudi Arabia], Ghassan AlHaidari accused Bethany of gender mixing, adultery, and insulting Islam and Saudi Arabia. Gender mixing, a punishable crime, entails having a male friend. To prove the charge of adultery, Ghassan submitted a photograph of Bethany with a male, who Ghassan claimed to be her boyfriend. The crimes of adultery, insulting Islam, and insulting Saudi Arabia carry a death penalty in Saudi Arabia."
From yesterday's Washington Court of Appeals decision in In the Matter of the Marriage of AlHaidari, written by Chief Judge George Fearing and joined by Judges Robert Lawrence-Berrey and Rebecca Pennell (see the full opinion for more factual, procedural, and legal details):
Ghassan and Bethany AlHaidari married in Saudi Arabia in November 2013. Bethany is a United States citizen, and Ghassan is a citizen of Saudi Arabia. The couple begot ZA, in Saudi Arabia, in December 2014. ZA is a citizen of both the United States and Saudi Arabia….
In September 2017, Bethany AlHaidari asked Ghassan for a divorce. In Saudi Arabia, if Bethany filed for divorce, the law demanded that she provide a reason and return her dowry. Ghassan could file for divorce without making payment and without giving any reason. Ghassan refused the request for a divorce. Later, however, Ghassan contended that he had divorced Bethany in 2018.
Bethany AlHaidari's legal residence in Saudi Arabia depended on the cooperation of Ghassan because, as husband, he was her legal guardian. In 2018, Bethany requested that Ghassan update her residency status in Saudi Arabia, and he refused. He also refused to allow ZA and Bethany to visit Bethany's family in Washington State.
On February 7, 2019, Bethany AlHaidari's permission from the Saudi Arabia government to reside in the county expired. Bethany no longer held legal status in Saudi Arabia and, therefore, could not file proceedings in the Saudi court system. She also could not pay salaries for her company's employees, nor access her bank account for risk of being deported or jailed. The Saudi government provided her with legal residency status again after Bethany spoke to the media and the New York Times published her story.
In November 2018, Bethany filed for divorce. Bethany alleged Ghassan's substance abuse and domestic violence to be reasons for divorce. In January 2019, a Saudi Arabia judge granted the divorce and custody of ZA to Bethany AlHaidari.
The Chelan County Superior Court described the January 2019 Saudi divorce proceedings:
1.) Bethany struggled to communicate her position and defend herself because she had no legal counsel and the court appointed interpreter did not speak or understand basic English. 2.) Bethany was denied $26,000 in alimony because Ghassan claimed he "Islamicly divorced" Bethany in May of 2018 and swore under oath he was telling the truth, despite Bethany's testimony and text messages expressing his refusal to divorce her at that time. Bethany's testimony was not considered because she could not provide two male witnesses to support her testimony. 3.) Although Bethany wore a full body black covering that also covered her hair, she was ordered by the judge to leave the courtroom and only return if her entire face, including her eyes, was covered as well. This is particularly relevant because it demonstrates the impact of the accusations and photos Ghassan presented to the Saudi court later in the case in order to discredit Bethany.
… The parties thereafter engaged in a bitter custody battle in the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia court. Both sides tendered inflammatory accusations about the other in an attempt to discredit the other's ability to parent. Ghassan denunciated Bethany as being an unfit mother because she had a learning disability, worked full time, and placed ZA in school.
In April 2019, Ghassan AlHaidari posted a video on social media that showed an uncloaked Bethany practicing yoga in Riyadh's American diplomatic quarters. Ghassan also delivered a copy of the video to Saudi police. Police investigated Bethany for criminal charges of public indecency and disrupting public order, a criminal charge that could result in lashings and imprisonment.
In the ensuing custody hearing, Ghassan AlHaidari presented to the Saudi judge a photograph, taken in the United States, of Bethany in a bikini and the video of her practicing yoga. Ghassan also submitted a video of Bethany commenting, during a visit between ZA and her father, that it was "me time."
During the custody battle, Ghassan AlHaidari accused Bethany of gender mixing, adultery, and insulting Islam and Saudi Arabia. Gender mixing, a punishable crime, entails having a male friend. To prove the charge of adultery, Ghassan submitted a photograph of Bethany with a male, who Ghassan claimed to be her boyfriend. The crimes of adultery, insulting Islam, and insulting Saudi Arabia carry a death penalty in Saudi Arabia.
During the custody proceedings, Bethany AlHaidari asserted that Ghassan had agreed that ZA live with Bethany, but now acted from revenge rather than in furtherance of ZA's well-being. Bethany brought to court videos of verbal abuse and death threats from Ghassan and his drug use. The judge declined to view these videos.
Ghassan's sister, Leena AlHaidari, testified in court against her own mother, AlBandari AlMigren. Leena averred that her mother was abusive, unfit to parent, and addicted to pills.
In June 2019, Saudi Arabia Judge Abdul-Ellah ibn Mohammed Al-Tuwaijiri ruled that "'though all three candidates were unsuitable to parent, the grandmother was better than the parents.'"The court derided Bethany as a foreigner, who embraced western cultural traditions. The judge lamented that ZA spoke fluent English. According to Judge Tuwaijiri, ZA needed protection from Bethany's western culture and traditions. The Saudi court awarded custody to Ghassan's mother.
Bethany AlHaidari sought assistance from the media, the United States government, and human rights organizations. Meanwhile, Ghassan filed a complaint with the Saudi government alleging Bethany refused visitation. The Saudi government issued an arrest warrant for Bethany and a ten-year travel ban prohibiting her from leaving Saudi Arabia.
Bethany AlHaidari appealed the custody decision issued by Judge Tuwaijiri. An appellate judge ignored the appeal and transferred the case to the civil court to force a settlement. After one unsuccessful settlement conference, a Saudi head judge told the parties that he awarded no one custody and he was closing the case.
Under Saudi law, the lack of a court award of custody resulted in Ghassan AlHaidari, as ZA's father and guardian, retaining all parental rights. Bethany lacked any rights to visitation. The Saudi government barred her from travel with ZA, obtaining an identification document for ZA, taking ZA to the hospital, or enrolling her in school.
Bethany AlHaidari reconciled with Ghassan in order to convince him to reach a settlement affording her custody rights to ZA. Bethany negotiated for a right to travel in exchange for forfeiting all financial claims including child support. In November 2019, someone prepared a prospective agreement [related to property settlement, child support, and child custody] labeled as a "deed." The parties did not sign the deed, but the deed contains a court stamp and suggests that Judge Abdulelah Mohammed Altwaijri, at the Personal Status Court judge in Riyadh, approved the agreement….
In December of 2019, Bethany AlHaidari feigned reconciliation with Ghassan. Thereafter she received his permission to travel to the United States with ZA for a visit with her family in Wenatchee. She left Saudi Arabia with ZA.
Bethany AlHaidari has not returned to Saudi Arabia. Bethany admits dishonesty in her negotiations with Ghassan, but she testified that she agreed to the terms of the November 2019 deed under duress. She agreed to terms in the deed in order to maintain custody of her daughter and to leave Saudi Arabia. She refuses to return to Saudi Arabia or to return ZA to the nation.
Bethany sought child custody in Washington state court, and Ghassan responded that the Washington court should defer to the Saudi decision. Under Washington statute, Washington courts must normally defer to foreign courts' child custody decisions entered when the foreign courts had proper jurisdiction. But there are two potentially relevant exceptions:
[3] A court of this state need not apply this chapter if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.
[4] A court of this state need not apply this chapter if the law of a foreign country holds that apostasy, or a sincerely held religious belief or practice, or homosexuality are punishable by death, and a parent or child may be at demonstrable risk of being subject to such laws. For the purposes of this subsection, "apostasy" means the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.
The appellate court concluded:
Ample evidence supports the superior court's ruling that Bethany AlHaidari faced a death sentence if she returned to Saudi Arabia because of both her religious and political beliefs. {Because of the word "renunciation," the parent need not have been a former believer of a religious belief.} Saudi legal experts and Bethany testified to her danger on any return…. In his brief, Ghassan does not dispute that Bethany could garner the death sentence on her return to Saudi Arabia.
The appellate court also decided that the 2019 agreement was unenforceable:
Without citing any law, Ghassan AlHaidari complains that the superior court refused to enforce the November 2019 deed. Ghassan also assigns no error to the trial court's finding that Bethany signed the deed under duress. A contract is voidable when signed under duress.
The appellate court also noted some further findings of the trial court, though the appellate court's conclusion as to the other matters meant that it didn't have to discuss those findings further:
In its letter ruling, the superior court reviewed the qualifications of Bethany AlHaidari's experts Hala AlDosari and Abdullah S. Alaoudh and found that both possessed sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education concerning child custody law in Saudi Arabia. The court observed that Ghassan AlHaidari's expert, Abdulaziz Alkhorayef, practiced law in Saudi Arabia and would risk his profession and personal standing to speak against Saudi Arabia's justice system, given the treatment of Saudi Arabian dissidents by the Saudi government. Furthermore, his testimony contradicted the written court records issued by the Saudi court in the parties' case.
The superior court agreed with Bethany AlHaidari, based on the Saudi Arabia court records, that the Saudi judge afforded Bethany no credibility simply because she was female….
In the February 2021 letter ruling, the trial court found that Saudi Arabia law denies women, non-Muslims, and non-Saudi citizens' due process. The Saudi Arabia court denied Bethany due process because the judge did not treat Bethany equal to Ghassan. The court reasoned that due process constituted a fundamental human right.
Bethany AlHaidari is represented by Marten Neraas King, Harry H. Schneider Jr., and Kathleen M. O'Sullivan (Perkins Coie LLP).
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I find the death sentence exception as applied in this case puzzling. Bethany AlHaidari is a criminal under Saudi law whether or not she is granted custody. The court does not spare her life by overruling the Saudi verdict. The Washington legislature and courts have simply decided not to recognize child custody determinations from countries they disapprove of. This exception might violate the Hague Convention on child abduction in some cases. In this case, Saudi Arabia has not signed the treaty.
The US has no extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, so as long as Bethany AlHaidari remains in the US, any potential criminal charges in Saudi Arabia are irrelevant.
Interesting -- three things:
1: Hasn't the US death penalty been raised as a defense against extradition from Europe? Possibly with the Wikileaks guy?
2: Didn't Northern states refuse to extradite to Georgia when it had chain gangs? And Maryland has refused to extradite Willie Horton to Massachusetts to face charges he still has in Massachusetts.
3: Where would "best interests of the child" come in?
Note that it was a "deed" --- girls and women are considered property in that country....
Many countries will refuse to extradite to the United States without assurances that the extradited person will not be executed. Related, a principle of international law known as "speciality" says that a person extradited for one offense may not be tried for other offenses. This principle is limited to extradition. If I go to South Africa to kidnap a fugitive and deliver him to an American court the charges are not limited. (I mention South Africa because I know the courts there ban extradition for capital crimes.)
I remember the governor of New York once refused to turn over a prisoner to be executed until he had finished his New York sentence.
Related, a principle of international law known as “speciality” says that a person extradited for one offense may not be tried for other offenses.
People may remember that this came up in the Sam Bankman-Fried case. He was extradited from the Bahamas for some offenses, and DOJ dropped other charges against him because that was not part of the extradition. The loony MAGA people who see conspiracies in everything¹ insisted that SBF was being given special treatment because he had donated money to Democrats. (Strangely, after SBF was vigorously prosecuted and convicted and faces a massive sentence, none of them said, "Yeah, guess we were wrong about that.")
¹Including Glenn Greenwald, a purported lawyer, who sneered at the time at the idea that the U.S. would drop charges just because the Bahamas wanted us to.
Executing a US citizen would throw a huge monkey wrench in Saudi Arabia’s policies. They only get a pass executing Westerners if Trump was in office, and Rusb Limbaugh were still alive*.
* TBH, I think they viewed Khashoggi as overblown by the left, using it to beat on Trump, and since both sides are now 100% contrarian to anything the other side follows, this is what you end up with. See also Rush’s asshole derrogation of “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…”, because the left touted it for liberal immigration, so they could win elections, disingenuously, to make the country less free economically, the reason people want to breathe free. Free from oppression…and corruption.
This is why I endlessly rail against 100% contrarianism. I have a lotta mo examples from both sides.
"I find the death sentence exception as applied in this case puzzling."
It is grounds under Washington law to refuse recognition of the foreign custody decree. You may find it puzzling that the state legislature created that law, but why should you be surprised that the court applies it?
You are right that the Hague Convention would come into play if the foreign state were a Contracting State, but Article 20 of that convention provides that
"The return of the child […] may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms."
It could be argued that the Washington statute is a legislative statement of just such fundamental principles.
(I really prefer blockquote, hope they fix it soon)
Cranky misfits often prefer it when things don’t work.
I think "they'll kill me if I try to go visit my daughter" a fairly compelling consideration when determining custody.
And yet American Feminists cheer Islam and hate Israel.
Maybe Ann Coulter is right about repealing the 19th Amendment.
It's the power of echo chambers, puffing political BS at you designed to aid power grabs, in combination with positive strokes that you're a good person for believing these things.
60s feminists used to rail against societies that made women cover up, be it a Christian sect, or the entire Middle East, as the amount of covering was proportional to, and symbolic of, the level of oppression.
Create a meme! The covering is to stop you from arousing males, tempting them to sin. And that is a sin itself.
Old school: ...and there's your oppression!
New school, in service to getting votes by Muslim males: That is a symbol of her love for her man, that she "wants" to do this. And cancel any 60s feminists who disagree with this new meme, pushed by angry men in dictstorships, and soulless bastards who want their brothers' votes!
What the fuck are you talking about?
It’s just malcontents, bigots, and disaffected clingers muttering bitterly about all of this damned progress and modernity.
As usual, at this blog.
IMO Bethany was a fucking idiot to marry a Saudi national and stay in Saudi Arabia.
Obviously not in all cases, but there is somewhat of a belief that you can prove you are not a bigot by marrying across cultures.
There's a difference between marrying across cultures, and establishing yourself in a place where your rights are heavily constrained and permanently at risk.
SRG - I agree 100% with your comment, I was only attempting to point out the motivation for some of the cross culture marriages.
It becomes especially egregious with child custody issues. One of my clients married a man from Saudi and the wife has delayed the divorce by several years out of fear he will return to his country with the daughters and therefore will never see the kids again
See: Mississippi, Wyoming, Missouri, Florida, Idaho, Alabama, Arkansas, South Dakota, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia . . .
(If this list has been misplaced, a reliable substitute is the list of “states ranked by educational attainment” — just start with the least-educated state and work from there.)
The blockquote function seems to be malfunctioning.
I'll agree with the judge who said the kid would be better off without any of them.
A LOT of kids would...
This group reliably produces the worst possible bad takes. So to sum up the commentariat so far:
1. Why would a state legislature NOT choose to return kids rescued from countries that might execute them or one of their parents back to those countries? It's too arbitrary! (JFCarr)
2. Let's repeal women's right to vote because all feminists think alike and hate Jews/Israel. (Dr.Ed#2)
3. Who cares about the legal issues; the mother is an idiot. (SRG2)
4. No parents for the kid at all! The Saudi Court was smart! (mulched)
5. People get married to prove they aren't bigots. It is known. (Joe_dallas)
Good grief.
The legal issues are so clear and obvious - the husband and the Saudis can fuck off - that I did not think there was any need to comment on them
Really not Bob
You grossly distorted my statement - which make your critique of the statement I did not make total BS
"Obviously not in all cases, but there is somewhat of a belief that you can prove you are not a bigot by marrying across cultures."
"I was only attempting to point out the motivation for some of the cross culture marriages."
I didn't agree with Reallynotbob's interpretations of all the posters, but joe_dallas is apparently the hit dog.
Reallybob - the legal issues are paramount. As a female in Saudi, she has significantly impaired rights, both in regard to property rights and child custody rights. So yes she is an idiot to place herself in a position with out basic legal rights.
Your response would have value except it is based on what you want reality to be instead of what reality is.
5. People get married to prove they aren’t bigots. It is known. (Joe_dallas)
I see you're another proud graduate of the Sarcastr0 School Of Lying About What Other Posters Have Said.
If there is any reason an American court should respect any element of Saudi Arabian law (outside some commercial contexts), I can not envision it.
Saudi Arabia constitutes a disgusting mix of nepotism, superstition, hypocrisy, backwardness, inequality, ignorance, and brutality, amplified by indolent and deplorable Saudis' ability to pull gobs of cash from the ground.
You can't reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance. Any American who travels to Saudi Arabia is a dope.
(Prof. Volokh can't resist a story that makes Muslims look bad -- these Muslims made it easy for him.)
Any American who travels to Saudi Arabia is a dope.
Especially, any American woman.
Any American man who is not an obsequious, superstitious, unprincipled liar would also be in trouble.
I wouldn't extradite anyone to Saudi Arabia. Well, maybe Greg Norman.
Bethany agreed to get married in Saudi Arabia, under Saudi law. She agreed to father custody. So American judges want to give her a break because the USA considers adultery a civil right?
No, because:
Do you disagree? Why?
Most American family courts violate fundamental principles of human rights, and deny due process. Just my opinion. Yours may differ. So if I were a judge, I could use this reasoning to reject the decisions of most other judges.
Saudi Arabia is a little different, and so is the entire Islamic world. Bethany voluntarily joined that world. They have all sorts of laws that Americans disagree with, but it is not clear that any of them are relevant. If she wanted the right to apostasy/homosexuality/adultery, she would not have moved there.
Why don't we say that no Islamic marriages will be recognized in the USA? That seems to be where this is headed. Let's just be honest about this, and say that no Moslem should have any rights under American law.
Also, there is no evidence that Bethany committed adultery. Her ex-husband accused her of adultery on the grounds that she was in the presence of an unrelated man, which is grossly insufficient as evidence of adultery. In fact, even the biased Saudi courts did not convict her of adultery.
Glad we live in the state of Washington instead of our home state, Idaho—the state court decision might have been different there.
Retiring from the USAF in 1996, we used our military-funded move from Virginia, to Colorado in our preferred West. On second retirement in 2017, we decided to sell the big Colorado house, downsize, simplify, and move to a house suitable for aging-in-place, in a walkable neighborhood within a day's drive to our Idaho families. So, we pared a list down to two choices:
1) Emmitt, Idaho, in the Payette River valley 45 minutes NW of Boise (nearest family, a small farming town like we’d the one we'd grown up in. Cheaper home, walkable to its nice little downtown).
2) South Puget Sound, Washington, in a politically and ethnically diverse working-class neighborhood a couple blocks from a small college (1980’s Air Force assignment there had been our favorite and Mrs. Purple still had friends at the college).
Both houses met our checklist requirements. The Idaho house at $100k less was a much better value. But we ended up choosing Washington, because we’d been watching our home state’s already reddest-of-the-red political environment grow progressively more extreme, and its government progressively more intrusive, controlling and authoritarian. (When the Mormon Church releases a public statement saying, essentially, Hey guys, maybe y’all ought to cool it with the theocratic authoritarianism for a while…you might have a problem).
Living all over the country, we had come to realize that we’d far rather support and live in the far less intrusiveapproach shared by the state governments of Colorado and Washington: a common good approach to things like public infrastructure and the environment; rational, pragmatic laws on private personal behavior, women’s reproductive health, and end-of-life care; and full default Vote-at-Home mail-in voting.
And then a couple years later, Ammon Bundy and a bunch of his MAGA/militia-crazy friends moved to Emmitt. I was going to say we dodged a bullet but, well…that’s not funny anymore.
Six years later, it’s working out well. We feel at home in the Pacific Northwest. A pity that that's no longer true of the state of our birth.
That's a lot of left-wing talking point bullshit to cram into one post (BTW, it's "Emmett", ID, not "Emmitt").
Interestingly, the violent crime rate in Emmett is 4.86/1,000 population...about the same as in Olympia, WA.
And then a couple years later, Ammon Bundy and a bunch of his MAGA/militia-crazy friends
The same Ammon Bundy who compared Trump to Hitler? It sounds like you and he could have been good friends.
Ammon Bundy owned a house in Emmett Idaho in 2016 (Wikipedia).
He criticized Trump's attacks on a migrant caravan in late 2018 and stepped away from the militia movement because of their strong support for Trump. He seems to be anti-government, but he ran for governor in Idaho first as a Republican (endorsed by Roger Stone) and switched to being an independent, writing "The Republican Party platform is the platform I stand behind but the Republican establishment in Idaho is full of filth and corruption."
I'm going to guess that's not the sort of neighbor Purple Martin would want to be friends with, without regard to whether other MAGA/militia types he was then involved with moved to Emmett before the end of 2018.
I'd almost expect "voluntarily birthing an American citizen child inside of Saudi Arabia" to be some sort of misdemeanor in itself... child endangerment or something.
I could also see some sort of "contempt of court" or "public nuisance" charge for any American citizen being foolish enough to voluntarily place themself in this much legal jeopardy under Saudi Jurisdiction... Marrying a Saudi Husband and then using him as your sole sponsor for visiting Saudi Arabia is REALLY bone-headed, and creates problems for EVERYONE else... I'm surprised the American Embassy didn't start throwing around kidnapping accusations...