The appellant appealed an order finding she wrongfully removed her child from Florida and directing the child's return.
She argued the application judge erred in admitting expert evidence on Florida law, applying the wrong standard of proof, and considering post-removal paternity testing to find the respondent had custody rights.
She also sought to introduce fresh expert evidence on appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was unchallenged at the hearing and the application judge correctly determined the respondent had custody rights at the time of removal.
The fresh evidence was not admitted as it failed the due diligence test and would not have affected the outcome.
