NOTE: This story was first published in Frank Report (www.frankreport.com).
By Richard Luthmann
Sara Young, a California mother, is entrenched in an international custody battle to prevent her three American-born children from being sent to Italy. There, they have minimal ties and do not speak the language. The case, which is being heard in Ventura County Superior Court under Judge JoAnn Johnson, has raised concerns about the misuse of international laws in custody disputes.
Young’s estranged husband, Daniel Bichanich, filed a petition under the Hague Convention, claiming that the children were wrongfully removed from Italy and should be returned there. Bichanich, represented by high-profile Los Angeles attorney Peter A. Lauzon, insists that Italy is the children’s habitual residence. However, Young, who is representing herself in her very first international custody battle, vehemently disputes this, arguing that the family’s actual residence was in Jordan until they moved to California in May 2024.
Judge JoAnn Johnson’s ruling in this case will have far-reaching implications for Young and her children and the broader interpretation of international custody laws under the Hague Convention. Young pleads that the court sees through what she describes as her husband’s “web of lies” and rules in favor of the children’s best interests in a ruling expected on August 27.
U.S. Citizens and Residents Abroad
Young, her children, and her ex-husband are all U.S. citizens. The family has lived abroad for many years because both Young and Bichanich work as private-sector U.S. government contractors.
“Our family was most recently habitually resident in Jordan from August 2022 to May 2024,” Young stated in her opposition to the petition.
She emphasized that the children were enrolled in school in Jordan, participated in various activities, and had a stable life there. Young presented extensive documentation to support her claim, including school attendance records from Lycee Francais International d’Amman and Jordanian residency visas for the children.
Bichanich’s petition, filed on June 1, 2024, claims that Italy was the family’s habitual residence. He argues that the children were born in Italy, and the family had a home there, making Italy their rightful place of residence. However, Young contends that the children’s birth in Italy was circumstantial, driven by the need for better medical care than what was available in their countries of residence as government contractors, such as Ethiopia and Jordan.
“The children do not speak Italian or identify with Italian culture. They are American, through and through,” Young asserted.
Young further accused Bichanich of deliberately misleading the court about the family’s ties to Italy. In her motion to dismiss the petition, Young argued that Bichanich had committed perjury by falsely claiming that Italy was the children’s habitual residence. She detailed how the family’s time in Italy was limited to temporary stays, primarily for vacations or during the COVID-19 pandemic when remote work was mandated.
Young also revealed that Bichanich himself had expressed intentions to move the family to Budapest after his contract in Jordan ended, indicating that Italy was never intended to be a permanent home.
International Custody Battle: A Troubled Relationship and Practical Challenges
Young’s legal filings also paint a disturbing picture of life within the marriage, precipitating the international custody battle. She alleges that Bichanich was abusive towards her and the children. She described numerous incidents of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, which escalated in early 2024, prompting her to flee Jordan with the children.
“Daniel became increasingly abusive and would often scream at me in front of the children, demanding that they take his side,” Young stated in her declaration.
She expressed grave concerns for her children’s safety if they were forced to return to Italy, where they would be under Bichanich’s care without her protective presence.
In addition to the abuse allegations, Young highlighted the practical challenges she and the children would face if they were forced to move to Italy. She noted that Italian law requires non-citizens to have employment to register for residence, a condition she would struggle to meet due to her lack of fluency in Italian and the country’s high unemployment rate.
“I would be financially crippled and homeless if I were to relocate to Italy,” Young stated, pointing out that Bichanich had restricted her access to marital assets, leaving her with no means to support herself and the children in a foreign country.
Legally Outgunned and Outmaneuvered
Young is legally outgunned by Bichanich and his high-profile Los Angeles attorney Peter A. Lauzon, no stranger to the international custody battle. According to his law firm’s website:
Lauzon served as the lead attorney in an international custody suit involving a famed film director and has successfully litigated court cases involving the countries of Canada, Mexico, Finland, France, Norway, Italy, Australia, Israel, Turkey, Uruguay, and Hungary. He is an expert in international laws regarding child custody and child abduction, known as the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Young accused Bichanich of “forum shopping,” deliberately choosing Italy as the jurisdiction for their divorce and custody battle because it would be more favorable to him. She claimed that Bichanich had filed for divorce in Italy without her knowledge while the family was still in Jordan, effectively blindsiding her and putting her at a significant disadvantage in the legal proceedings.
“Daniel is trying to manipulate the legal system to gain custody of the children and secure a favorable financial outcome for himself,” Young argued in her filings.
We have seen this power disparity before. It is all too common in family court, where the truth often depends on which litigant has the most resources.
Young’s opposition to the Hague petition also challenges the applicability of the Hague Convention in this case. She argued that since the family was living in Jordan, a non-signatory to the Hague Convention, before coming to the United States, the Convention should not apply.
“The Hague Convention is intended to protect children, not to be used as a tool for coercion and manipulation,” Young stated.
She requested that the court dismiss Bichanich’s petition and allow custody proceedings in the United States, where the children have their most significant cultural and familial connections.
Attorney Lauzon responded to our request for comment, stating, “These allegations were made in court by the mother of the children and were dismissed by the court. They are patiently false, and you should exercise appropriate journalism and obtain the court order as well as a transcript of the proceedings before you publish anything.”
Ruling Expected in International Custody Battle
Ventura County California Superior Court Judge JoAnn Johnson is expected to issue a ruling on August 27. As the case moves forward, Young is fighting not only to keep her children in the United States but also to protect them from what she describes as an abusive and coercive father.
“The children are happy and thriving here in California. They have made friends, are surrounded by extended family, and are registered to start school soon. Moving them to Italy would be devastating,” Young told the court.
Stay tuned for continuing coverage.
California Mother Battles Court to Stop Children’s Forced Relocation to Italy