A Sheridan woman asserted her daughter faces grave threats if she's returned on April 8 to the courts in Australia where her violent father is in jail, according to an emergency appeal of a deportation order filed Saturday with the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, her attorney said Monday.

"The child has to go back unless the 10th Circuit issues an order based on our emergency application," Jeremy Morley said Monday. "I do expect they will render a favorable decision, but that's up to the 10th Circuit."

On March 10, Chief U.S. District Judge William Downes signed an order to return the daughter of Jill Maloy to Australia because her father, Robert Charles Wilesmith, petitioned for the return to the country of the child's "habitual residence" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Maloy's attorneys opposed the petition, arguing the Hague Convention does allow the child to remain in the nonresident country if "there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation."

That risk is obvious, wrote Morley, an international family relations lawyer based in New York, and Maloy's Sheridan attorneys, Jonathan and Rene Botten.

Wilesmith, they wrote, has been convicted of multiple crimes: three counts of rape, illegal possession of brass knuckles and a pistol crossbow, assault, violent juvenile offenses in the 1980s, current incarceration because of violating a stalking order, attempted hiring of hit men to kill his ex-wife and burn down her and her family's homes, road rage, and other offenses.

But under questioning by Wilesmith's attorney, Todd Ingram of Casper, on Feb. 28 in Casper, Maloy offered no direct evidence he hurt their daughter or will do so because he is currently in jail and that he may have minimal if no contact in the future.

Downes reluctantly agreed.

"Ordering the return (of the child) to Australia is the sad duty of this Court, but it is clearly required by law," he wrote. "This is not a situation where a court is ordering a child returned to the custody of an abusive parent. Rather, this Court is ordering the child's return so an Australian court can make a determination regarding (the child's) custody."

Two days later, Maloy has filed an emergency motion to stay - or stop - the order to return the child.

Downes denied that motion on Thursday, writing the child had been wrongfully removed from Australia, there was no "clear and convincing evidence" of grave risk of physical or psychological harm, and Maloy has not shown the likelihood of success in winning an appeal.

Maloy's attorneys made many of the same arguments as before in Saturday's appeal, including Wilesmith's effects on the girl: "Having witnessed his tirades at home, she would typically end up face down in the carpet, crying or gagging and vomiting."

They cited cases decided in U.S. courts about abduction petitions in Hague Convention cases when domestic violence is involved and when petitioners such as Wilesmith ignore court orders and have violent tendencies.

"The evidence establishes that the Child will likely suffer serious and substantial harm if she is sent to Australia and the extent of the harm will be extremely unusual and extraordinarily severe," according to Maloy's motion.

Reach Tom Morton at (307) 266-0592, or at Tom.Morton@trib.com.