In this case, Ahmed S. Amro was found to be in contempt of the court's order asking him to return his infant son to his ex-wife, i.e., the mother. Mr. Amro, among others, argued that his son was with his father in Jordan and because his father was a very respected and sophisticated figure in his country, before trying to enforce the court's order, he had to get the opinions of religious scholars on whether or not to return the child. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court of Iowa, which found the court's order of contempt to be lawful.