Sinclair v Sinclair (6th Cir. Mich. 1997)
     No. 96-1015
     21 International Abduction [US 1997]
     ===========================================================

                         UNPUBLISHED OPINION

            United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

        Richard Charles Patrick SINCLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                  v.
              Lana Marie SINCLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.

                             No. 96-1015.

                        Decided July 30, 1997.

      Before MERRITT, BOGGS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.

                                ORDER

     001   Lana Marie Sinclair appeals a district court judgment
     granting her ex-husband's petition filed under the Hague
     Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
     Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies
     Act, 42 U.S.C.  11601-610.   This case has been referred
     to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the
     Sixth Circuit.   Upon examination, this panel unanimously
     agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App.
     P.34(a).

     002    Richard Charles Patrick Sinclair, a resident of
     Canada, filed his petition and an ex parte motion for a
     temporary restraining order in the district court seeking
     the return of his two youngest minor children over whom he
     had custody pursuant to a Canadian judgment.   Mr. Sinclair
     alleged that Ms. Sinclair abducted the two youngest of their
     four children from Canada and brought them to her parents'
     house in the Western District of Michigan.   The district
     court issued a temporary restraining order the following day
     and federal marshals took the two children into protective
     custody.   After an in camera interview with the children,
     the district court continued a preliminary hearing at the
     request of Ms. Sinclair and her attorney, and returned
     custody of the children to Mr. Sinclair pending the hearing.
     When the hearing was reconvened, the district court heard
     evidence presented by the parties, rendered its opinion from
     the bench, and entered a judgment for Mr. Sinclair.

     003   Ms. Sinclair filed a timely notice of appeal pro se,
     and the district court granted her leave to proceed in forma
     pauperis.   However, the district court denied Ms.
     Sinclair's motion for a transcript at government expense.
     Thereafter, this court ordered that the district court
     proceedings be transcribed at government expense.

     004   In her brief on appeal, Ms. Sinclair contends that the
     district court:  (1) ignored evidence that her children
     needed protection from abuse suffered in Canada;  and (2)
     refused to hear testimony from two key witnesses.   Appellee
     is also proceeding pro se and has notified the court that he
     does not intend to submit a brief on appeal.

     005   This court reviews the district court's findings of
     fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
     See Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1064 (6th
     Cir.1996) (Friedrich II).   Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
     1603(e)(1)(A), Mr. Sinclair had the burden of proving by a
     preponderance of the evidence that the children were
     wrongfully removed from Canada.   See Friedrich Il, 78 F.3d
     at 1064;  Prevot v. Prevot, 59 F.3d 556, 560 (6th Cir.1995),
     cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1048 (1996);  Friedrich v.
     Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1400 (6th Cir1993) (Friedrich I).
     However, Ms. Sinclair admitted all of the elements of a
     prima facie case, but asserted that an exception to the
     requirement that the children be returned to Mr. Sinclair is
     applicable in this case.   In particular, Ms. Sinclair
     argued that return of the children to Mr. Sinclair would
     expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological
     harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation.
     See Prevot, 59 F.3d at 561;  Friedrich I, 983 F.2d at 1400.
     Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  11603(e)(2)(A), Ms. Sinclair had the
     burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that this
     exception applies.   See Prevot, 59 F.3d at 560-61,
     Friedrich I, 983 F.2d at 1400 Here, the district court's
     conclusion that Ms. Sinclair did not carry her burden of
     showing that return of the children to Canada would expose
     them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation is
     supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.
     Further, Ms. Sinclair's contention that the district court
     refused to hear the testimony of two important witnesses
     lacks merit.   See Cooley v. Carmike Cinemas, Inc., 25 F.3d
     1325, 1330 (6th Cir.1994).

     006   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
     district court is affirmed.  Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the
     Sixth Circuit.