Introduction

In United States v. Helbrans (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Second Circuit addressed a consolidated criminal appeal by four self-represented defendants—Nachman Helbrans, Mordechay Malka, Matityau Moshe Malka, and Mayer Rosner—convicted of various federal crimes arising from two related child-abduction schemes. The underlying facts involve the extremist sect Lev Tahor, the forcible removal of two minors (Jane Doe and John Doe) from their mother’s custody in New York in late 2018 and again in early 2019, and a purported religious marriage of the thirteen-year-old Jane Doe in Guatemala. On appeal, the defendants challenged:

• The validity of Jane Doe’s foreign marriage and its effect on federal kidnapping and sexual-conduct statutes;
• The constitutional vagueness of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (“IPKCA”), 18 U.S.C. §1204;
• A supposed conflict between the IPKCA and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;
• The district court’s handling of their Faretta requests to proceed without counsel and subsequent revocation of self-representation.

The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed all convictions, establishing three key principles: (1) an underage marriage in Guatemala to an adult is void and cannot immunize criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. §2423 or the IPKCA; (2) the IPKCA is neither unconstitutionally vague nor in conflict with the Hague Convention when applied to custodial abductions; and (3) a district court may revoke self-representation when a pro se defendant repeatedly flouts procedural rules and court orders.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel affirmed the district court’s October 2022 criminal judgments against the appellants on counts including:

• Conspiracy to transport or travel with a minor for illicit sexual purposes (18 U.S.C. §2423(a), (b));
• Conspiracy to kidnap, use false identification, and enter a secure airport area (18 U.S.C. §371);
• International parental kidnapping (18 U.S.C. §1204(a), the IPKCA).

Key holdings:

1. Underage Marriage Void: The Guatemalan Civil Code prohibits a marriage of a thirteen-year-old to an adult; such a union is void and cannot give rise to “emancipation” or negate sexual-abuse or kidnapping charges.
2. IPKCA Clarity: Section 1204(a) clearly proscribes removal or retention of a U.S. child abroad with intent to obstruct custodial rights; it is not unconstitutionally vague as applied here.
3. No Hague Convention Conflict: Criminal prosecution under the IPKCA further’s the statute’s protective purpose and does not supplant or conflict with the civil relief mechanisms of the Hague Convention.
4. Self-Representation Limits: After granting pro se status, the district court properly revoked it where the appellants repeatedly violated orders, delayed proceedings, and abused courtroom procedure.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Federal Rule on Foreign Law: Carlisle Ventures, Inc. v. Banco Español de Crédito, S.A., 176 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 1999) – the court may determine questions of foreign law using any relevant material.
• Constitutional Vagueness Standard: United States v. Houtar, 980 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2020) – statutes are not void for vagueness when “conduct is clearly proscribed.”
• IPKCA vs. Hague Convention: United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2010) – disagreement over a custody order does not excuse IPKCA liability.
• Faretta Right to Self-Representation: Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
• Maintaining Order with Pro Se Defendants: McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984); Clark v. Perez, 510 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Hausa, 922 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2019).

Legal Reasoning

1. Voidness of the Underage Marriage. Applying Guatemalan law, the court held the 2018 nuptials of thirteen-year-old Jane Doe to a nineteen-year-old man were void ab initio. A void marriage confers no legal status, so Jane Doe remained a minor under U.S. and foreign law. Consequently, her sexual relationship with an adult violated 18 U.S.C. §2423, and her forcible removal violated the IPKCA.

2. IPKCA’s Statutory Clarity. Section 1204(a) makes it a crime to remove or retain a child from the United States with intent to obstruct lawful parental rights. The appellants knew that Jane Doe’s mother held temporary sole custody orders, and they neither sought nor obtained permission for the removals. Under Houtar, these facts fall squarely within the statute’s clear prohibition, so no vagueness problem arises.

3. No Conflict with the Hague Convention. The IPKCA criminalizes wrongful international child abduction, while the Hague Convention provides civil remedies. The Second Circuit had previously held (Miller) that criminal prosecution under the IPKCA does not frustrate or detract from the Convention’s goals—rather, it reinforces international child-protection norms.

4. Revocation of Self-Representation. Although Faretta guarantees a criminal defendant’s right to proceed pro se, that right may be forfeited by “serious and obstructionist misconduct.” The district court found repeated refusals by the appellants to obey scheduling orders, answer basic procedural questions, and avoid duplicative motions. Under McKaskle and Clark, the district court acted well within its discretion in terminating their self-representation.

Impact

This decision clarifies three important points for future cases:

• Foreign marriages of minors to adults are void for all purposes in U.S. criminal proceedings—defendants cannot rely on such unions to evade child-protection statutes.
• The IPKCA remains a robust tool against international parental abduction, withstanding vagueness and treaty-conflict challenges.
• District courts retain authority to enforce courtroom decorum and procedural rules against pro se litigants, balancing Faretta rights against the orderly administration of justice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Void vs. Voidable Marriage: A void marriage is invalid from the start (no legal effect); a voidable marriage is valid until annulled. Here, Guatemalan law made the underage marriage void.
• IPKCA (§1204): Federal crime to remove or keep a child abroad to obstruct lawful U.S. parental rights.
• Hague Convention: International treaty allowing civil courts to order return of wrongfully removed children; does not preclude criminal prosecution under the IPKCA.
• Faretta Doctrine: A criminal defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation, subject to a court’s power to maintain order and fairness.

Conclusion

United States v. Helbrans affirms that U.S. courts will not recognize underage foreign marriages as providing legal cover for sexual-abuse or kidnapping offenses. It reinforces the clarity and enforceability of the IPKCA against international custodial abductions, rejects the notion that criminal enforcement undermines the Hague Convention, and confirms a court’s ability to revoke pro se status when self-representation becomes disruptive. Together, these holdings strengthen federal child-protection laws and underscore the judiciary’s duty to safeguard both procedural fairness and public safety.