Skip to main content
The Latest /
Trump Judges

Trump Judges Force Mother to Give Up Child

A child with disabilities and her caregiver
A child with her caregiver (Shutterstock)

 

“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.

 

Judges Kevin Newsom and Robert Luck,  nominated by President Trump to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed an order requiring a Danish mother to surrender her young child’s custody. Biden Judge Nancy Abudu strongly dissented in the January 2025 decision in Bindslev v Silva.(link is external) 

 

What happened in this case? 

 

In 2024, Melissa Silva brought her young daughter I.S.B. to the United States from Denmark , and objected to the efforts of the father, Christian Bindslev, to force her return through the courts. Silva maintained that Bindslev’s petition under international law to return the child to him in Denmark should be denied because of the “grave risk” of harm due to Bindslev’s history of “violent behavior,” including physically assaulting her in I.S.B’s prescence, as well as sale and use of illicit drugs and alcohol abuse. 

 

After a three-day hearing, a federal district court in Florida ordered the return of I.S.B. to Denmark. Although the order included some provisions clearly meant to provide some protections to I.S.B., such as ordering Bindslev to secure and pay for separate housing for her and Silva in Denmark, the district court made no findings or conclusions as to whether Silva had prevailed on the “grave risk” defense. Silva appealed.

 

 

How did Judges Newsom and Luck rule and why is it harmful?

 

In an unsigned opinion, Judges Newsom and Luck affirmed the return order. They pointed out that as necessary, a court in Denmark is “fully capable ot protecting the child.” 

 

Judge Abudu strongly dissented, explaining that the lower court should be required to “make specific factual findings” as to whether Silva had proven a “grave risk” to the child and then considered appropriate relief. Without such findings, she explained, the appellate court cannot “meaningfully review” whether the lower court erred and whether more relief was needed to protect the child. In addition to the harm the majority decision caused to Silva and her child, the ruling sets a troubling precedent, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit including Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, concerning how ro resolve such issues concerning child custody and welfare under US and international law. 

 

This decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to our health and welfare and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.