Family Court of Westerburg
         29 Sept 1992
         Docket No. 4 F 303/9@

         B v. B.  WMHFN -1

         Petition for Reqeust for Return under The Convention on the Civil
         Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on 25
         Oct 1980 [The Convention]

         The Request for Return of the petitioner is denied.

         Parties are husband and wife living separte and apart. They lived
         until the separation in Texas, USA . The mother left Texas
         together with the child on 12 April 1992 and stays with her in the
         Feveral Republic of Germany.

         Petitioner has rquested that the court order the immediate return
         of the child to the USA and to order restrictive measures in order
         to achieve the return.

         The mother has objected to this Request for Return.

         She alleges that it would be irresponsible to separate the child
         now aged 15 months from her and to bring it against her will to
         the USA.

         The Social Welfare Officer of Mondtabur has made an investigation
         of the circumstances at the place of ressidence.  The have found
         that there is danger of severe damage and consequences for the
         child's psyche if he were to be separated from the mother and if
         the court would order as requested by the father.

         Thus the petition based on Art. 12 of The Convention was denied.

         The court does not decide that the mother acted unilaterally and
         that her actions violated the father's rights of custody by moving
         to Germany.  Although this unlawful state is perpetuated, it is in
         the best interests of the child to deny this Request for Return.

         The court bases its decision on the principle of Sec. 1632 [Claim
         for the Surrender of the Child; Regulation of his Association;
         Removal from the Care of a Person] of the Civil Code in connection
         with Sec. 1666 [Jeopardy to the Welfare of the Child].  The best
         interests of the child which the court stresses most of all demand
         to let the current state remain. The court refers to the report of
         the Social Welfare Office.

         The Social Welfare Office has held that there is a intensive bond
         between mother and child and that there is the danger of severe
         disturbances and consequences for the child's psyche to be feared
         if the child is taken away from its current familiar envjronment.
         Obviously the mother is the closest person and especially with
         children in the age of breast-feeding and of very low age it would
         be irresponsible to bring the child back to the USA without the
         mother being in close proximity to the child.  In questions
         regarding children, be it in questions of family law or
         guardinaship law, the child's best interests are of utmost
         importance.  Concerns of formal jurisprudence have to step back if
         in conflict with the best interests of the child - according to
         the opinion of the court. WMHFN -2

         It has to be noted that the child -- according to the Social
         Welfare Office's report -- is being cared for properly by the
         mother in its current environment.

         Contributed by:

         Dr. Donald J. Cramer
         Rechstsanwalt
         Bruderstrasse 2
         8000 Munchen 22
         Federal Republic of Germany

--------------------
         1.   All footnotes were written by William M. Hilton, CFLS

         2.   This decision would appear to be contra to the objects of The
              Convention as stated in Article 1:  "The objects of the
              present Convention are -- (a) to secure the prompt return of
              children wrongfully removed to or retained in any contracting
              State; and  (b) to ensure that rights of custody and of
              access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively
              respected in the other Contracting States."  Under Texas law,
              V.T.C.A. Sec. 12.04, the mother and father have equal rights
              of custody and control of the minor child.  Accordingly the
              removal of the child from Texas would, per se, be a "Wrongful
              Removal" under Art. 3 of The Convention.  Further, if the
              reports are correct that other FRG courts are allowing
              children as young as six and seven the right to refuse to
              return under Art. 13, last section, then it would seem that a
              child would never be returned:  If of very young age then
              they would be too young, if of any other age and refused to
              return then they would be old enough to invoke that part of
              Art. 13.  The solution would appear to be that taken in
              Korowin vs Korowin (Dist. Court of Horgen, Switzerlan 1992)
              where it was ordred that the child, of similar years, was to
              be returned with the mother who could care for the child
              pending an application to the courts in the United States.