Tag: Child custody

Speaking on the Hague Convention and Interstate Child Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Honored to be invited to speak about the Hague Convention and other interstate child custody jurisdiction issues at the 2025 Marital & Family Law Review Course. The program will be presented at the Loews Royal Pacific Resort at Universal Orlando from January 24, 2025 to January 25, 2025. The prestigious Certification Review course is one of largest and most popular family law presentations, and is a partnership between the Florida Bar Family Law Section and the AAML Florida Chapter.

Hague Convention

Interstate Child Custody

Family law today frequently involves interstate child custody, interstate family support, and The Hague Convention on international child abductions. Parents are increasingly moving from state to state and country to country for various reasons. Whether children are moved by parents wrongfully or not, that moving makes interstate and international child custody complicated. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and The Hague Convention on Child Abduction, can work together in those cases.

Florida and almost all U.S. states passed the UCCJEA into law. The most fundamental aspect of the UCCJEA is the approach to the jurisdiction needed to start a case. In part, the UCCJEA requires a court have some jurisdiction over the child. That jurisdiction is based on where the child is, and the significant connections the child has with the forum state, let’s say Florida. The ultimate determining factor in a Florida case then, is what is the “home state” of the child.

International Child Abductions

I have written about the Hague Convention before. All family lawyers should become familiar with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as The Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This international treaty exists to protect children from the harmful effects of international abductions by requiring the prompt return to their habitual residence.

Interstate Family Support

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, the UIFSA resolves interstate jurisdictional disputes about which states can properly establish and modify child support and spousal support orders. The UIFSA also controls the issue of enforcement of family support obligations within the United States. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required all U.S. states adopt UIFSA, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement. Every U.S. state has adopted some version of UIFSA to resolve interstate disputes about support.

Certification Review Course

It is a privilege to be invited to speak on the Hague Convention and interstate and international family law issues at the annual Marital & Family Law Review Course again. The annual seminar is the largest and most prestigious advanced family law course in Florida. Last year’s audience included over 1,800 attorneys, hearing officers, and judges.

Register here for remaining spaces, if any.

Hague Convention Now Settled Defense

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

An increasingly litigated area of international child custody involves returning a child to their habitual residence under the Hague Convention. However, there are also defenses to a return under the Convention. Recently, a Florida court answered the question whether a wrongfully retained child in Florida was now settled here and need not be returned.

Hague Convention

Return to Machu Picchu?

In the Florida case, a Father and Mother married in Peru in 2012. One child was born during the marriage, and all three are Peruvian citizens. They divorced in 2015, had joint custody, but the child lived primarily with Mother.

In 2021, Mother wanted to visit Florida. The parents signed a travel authorization for the trip from September 2021, through October 2021. However, the Mother and Child never returned. More than a year later, Father filed a state court petition for return of the child to Peru.

The trial court found that Father had rights of custody, had been exercising his rights at the time of the wrongful retention and Peru was the child’s habitual residence.

However, the trial court found that the Father was aware that the Mother was not returning to Peru with the Child before the October return date and that the Mother established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the “well settled” or “now settled” recognized exception under the Hague Convention. The Father appealed.

Florida and the Hague Convention

I have written and spoken on international custody and child abduction under the Hague Convention. The Convention’s mission is basic: to return children to the State of their habitual residence to require any custody disputes to be resolved in that country, and to discourage parents from taking matters into their own hands by abducting or retaining a child.

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

However, a child need not be returned if it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in the new environment. The U.S. State Department’s interpretation of what “settled” means includes factors such as the child’s age; the stability and duration of the child’s residence in the new environment; whether the child attends school or day care consistently or inconsistently; friends and relatives and participation in school activities, such as team sports, youth groups, or school clubs for example.

Unsettling

The appellate court found that the “well settled in her new environment” exception to the Hague Convention, is not specifically defined in either the Convention itself or in the federal implementing statute ICARA.

But, a child has been considered to be “settled ‘within the meaning of the Convention when a child has significant connections to their new home that indicate that the child has developed a stable, permanent, and non-transitory life in their new country to such a degree that return would be to child’s detriment.

The appellate court reviewed the extensive testimony and the record which adequately shows that the trial court received competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, the appellate court held that Father failed to establish that clear error was committed by the trial court in finding that Mother met her burden of proof on this exception and in thereafter exercising its discretion to not return Child to Peru. Accordingly, the final order denying Father’s petition for return of Child to Peru is affirmed.

The opinion is here.

Florida’s New Safe Exchange Locations Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A new law amending Florida parenting plans this month deals with the concept of a ‘safe exchange location’. Every child custody and timesharing case must have a court approved parenting plan in which parents share decision-making and physical custody of their children. In some timesharing cases, the places parents do their pickups and drop-offs can be a problem. Family lawyers in Florida will be interested in the new changes to parenting plans.

Safe Exchange

Cassie Carli Law

Florida parenting plans not only govern the relationship between parents relating to decision making, but must contain a timesharing schedule for the parents and the children. Ideally, a parenting plan should attempt to address all issues concerning the minor child like the child’s education, health care, and physical, social, and emotional well-being.

But a frequent problem has been the place where exchanges of the child for timesharing takes place. Timesharing exchanges commonly occur in either parent’s homes, or well-lit parking lots of popular establishments, rest stops at the midway point between both parents, the child’s school, or a common landmark such as a specific coffee shop. There is really no limit to the location parents can agree to for the timesharing exchange.

However, when the parents have a contentious relationship, it is generally preferable that the exchange be made in a public, well-lit location with security cameras and high foot traffic by other people. Usually, parents are able to agree on a change in exchange location and deviate from the location prescribed in the parenting plan as needed.

Some sheriff and police departments allow parents to use their lobbies as an exchange location, but there is no standard process or procedure for all locations and many disapproved of the process.

The new law is often called  the “Cassie Carli law.’ The law was named for Cassie Carli, who was a 37-year-old mother from Navarre, Florida. Cassie went missing after a custody exchange with her ex-boyfriend. Days after she went missing, Cassie was found buried in Alabama.

Under the new law effective this month, every sheriff in Florida must:

  • designate at least one parking lot as a neutral safe exchange location for use by parents of a common child and
  • identify minimum requirements that each designated safe exchange location must satisfy, including a purple light or signage in the parking lot and a camera surveillance system.

Starting this July, family courts in Florida can order that exchanges of a child be conducted at a neutral safe exchange location if there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one of the parents or the child during the exchange.

The bill amends the domestic violence statute to allow the petitioner to request that the court require timesharing exchanges to be conducted at a safe exchange location, and to authorize or require the court to order the use of a neutral exchange location in an ex parte order for a temporary injunction under certain circumstances.

The bill also amends the law to provide that a parenting plan must generally designate authorized locations for the exchange of the child and may be required to take place at a neutral safe exchange location if there is a risk or an imminent threat of harm to one of the parents or the child during the exchange; the court finds such a requirement necessary to ensure the safety of a parent or the child; and such a requirement is in the best interest of the child.

Florida’s new designated safe exchange locations are not always staffed but are considered a secure environment because of the video surveillance and proximity to law enforcement. Police suggest that if anything occurs during the exchange to call 911 immediately.

The bill became effective July 1, 2024.

Speaking on Interstate and International Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Honored to be speaking on interstate and international child custody issues at the prestigious Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando from January 26th to January 27th. I will be discussing federal and state statutes relating to child custody and family support, in addition to the Hague Convention on international child abductions. The event is co-sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Speaking International Child Custody

Interstate Custody

Parents move from state to state for various reasons. It is a subject matter I have written and spoken about many times. Whether children are moved by parents wrongfully or not, moving your children creates interstate custody and support and problems.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, can be critical laws to know in those cases.

International Child Abductions

What happens if your children are wrongfully abducted or retained overseas? If that happens, you must become familiar with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as The Hague Convention. This international treaty exists to protect children from international abductions by requiring the prompt return to their habitual residence.

The Hague Convention applies only in jurisdictions that have signed the convention, and its reach is limited to children ages 16 and under. Essentially, The Hague Convention helps families more quickly revert back to the “status quo” child custody arrangement before an unlawful child abduction.

If your children are wrongfully taken out of the country or wrongfully retained after the time for returning them passed, the Hague Convention can help you get them back.

Interstate Family Support

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, the UIFSA resolves interstate jurisdictional disputes about which states can properly establish and modify child support and spousal support orders.

The UIFSA also controls the issue of enforcement of family support obligations within the United States. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required all U.S. states adopt UIFSA, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement. Every U.S. state has adopted some version of UIFSA to resolve interstate disputes about support.

Certification Review Course

It is a privilege to be invited to speak on interstate custody and international child abductions at the annual Family Law Board Certification Review Seminar again. The annual seminar is the largest and most prestigious advanced family law course in the state. Last year’s audience included over 1,600 attorneys and judges from around the state.

The review course is co-presented by the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Registration information is available here.

January is Divorce Month

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Men’s Journal magazine is currently reporting that – while there may be no “good” time to divorce – many people have started to call January the “divorce month.” Why? Because January is when there is a big increase in couples filing for divorce and child custody, or just scheduling appointments to speak with divorce and family lawyers.

January Divorce Month

Happy New Year

The timing is certainly no coincidence. January follows a busy holiday season. During this time, many people make New Year’s resolutions, which may cause you to want to hit the “reset button.”

“The pressure of the Christmas period where people are being exposed to their families and in-laws, often is the catalyst for people making the decision to end their marriages.”

Beyond dealing with extended family, there are a lot of financial pressures which can also be a “huge stressor” for families around this time of year. Add in inflation and the current cost-of-living, the holiday season can be difficult.

Many people also use January as a period of reflection because they are on holiday from work, and have the time to think about what is going on in life and what they might like to change.

The cold and holidays also forces many couples in close proximity with extended family. Many people are pushed toward a ‘new year, new me’ mindset because they are spending more time with their significant others, spouses, and family than any other period throughout the year.

Florida No-Fault Divorce

The official term for divorce in Florida is “dissolution of marriage”, and you don’t need fault as a ground for divorce. Florida abolished fault as a ground for divorce.

I’ve written about no fault divorce and statistics about divorce – such as the January divorce month phenomenon – before. The no-fault concept in Florida means you no longer have to prove a reason for the divorce, like your husband’s alleged infidelity with a congresswoman. Instead, you just need to state under oath that your marriage is “irretrievably broken.”

Before the no-fault divorce era, people who wanted to get divorce either had to reach agreement in advance with the other spouse that the marriage was over, or throw mud at each other and prove wrongdoing like adultery or abuse.

No-fault laws were the result of trying to change the way divorces played out in court. No fault laws have reduced the number of feuding couples who felt the need to resort to distorted facts, lies, and the need to focus the trial on who did what to whom.

New Year, New You

In a University of Washington study, researchers analyzed filings in Washington state and found that divorces consistently peaked in March and August.

Associate sociology professor Julie Brines, who co-authored the study, says that winter and summer holidays are typically seen as “culturally sacred times for families,” and that filing for divorce can be seen as inappropriate, or even taboo, during these times.

Many couples ostensibly might think that spending Christmas together or taking the family on a summer vacation might help smooth over any marital troubles.

People tend to face the holidays with rising expectations, despite what disappointments they might have had in years past. They represent periods in the year when there’s the anticipation or the opportunity for a new beginning, a new start, something different, a transition into a new period of life. It’s like an optimism cycle, in a sense.

In any case, January is here. Happy new year.

The Men’s Journal article is here.

Divorce and Euthanizing the Family Pet

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A New York court recently had to decide whether euthanizing the family pet without the knowledge or consent of the other parent during a divorce action violated a New York status quo order. To answer that question, the court had to first determine if the family dog was a marital asset to be distributed or a matter of custody and visitation.

pet custody 2

Cruel and Unusual?

The divorce was in May of this year. The Husband argued that the Wife vindictively violated an Automatic Order by putting their beloved family pet dog “B.” to death without reason, necessity or justification.

“B.” was their emotional support dog, and B.’s custody had not been determined. The Husband testified the Wife did not discuss B.’s medical condition or even give him an opportunity to spend time with B. before putting the dog down. As a result, he suffered extreme emotional distress over their dog’s death. The Husband asked for compensation for this loss in the amount of $1,500 as punitive damages and filed for contempt of court.

The Wife, on the other hand, argued that after the husband returned to the house with the police, he did not take the dog. The Wife also argued that the Husband’s pet was not an emotional support animal, could not even walk without a severe limp, had “too many” masses to count, and was on significant pain medication.

She also argued that she was given a prescription for a tranquilizer for the dog, transported the dog to the Vet, and the dog lunged at the Vet. Because of that, it was the Vet who recommended euthanasia.

The Husband responded that the family dog was adopted from a shelter, and that he was the dog’s sole caregiver. He denied that he was informed of the pet’s conditions, that she had the dog euthanized without his knowledge and consent. He argued that there was no urgent need for B.’s euthanasia.

Florida Pet Custody

I’ve written on the development of pet custody cases and statutes around the country before. Pet custody cases are becoming more and more prevalent as lawmakers promote the notion that the legal system should act in the best interests of animals. This is due, in part, because pet ownership has increased.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 36.5% of American households owned a dog and 30.4% owned a cat in 2012. As many of these households know, companion animals usually become members of the family.

Florida doesn’t have pet custody or visitation laws. Florida courts are already overwhelmed with the supervision of custody, visitation, and support matters related to the protection of children.

Not all states have ruled out a visitation schedule for dogs like Florida. For instance, while Texas also views dogs as personal property, in one case a Texas court authorized visitation. A new California law changed the way pet custody is handled in divorce cases. The law gives judges the power to consider the care and the best interest of the pet when making decisions.

It’s Up to You New York

The Court reviewed the text of the Automatic Orders which state that neither party can sell, transfer, encumber, conceal, or in any way dispose of, without the consent of the other party in writing, or by order of the court, any property except in the usual course of business, for customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with this action.

New York Automatic Orders are codified by a statute which is devoid of any reference to companion animals. Companion animals are not listed, nor provided in, the text of the Automatic Orders. The text of the statute only proscribes the disposition of property.

Additionally, the purpose of the law was to preserve the financial status quo of the parties. It accomplishes that goal by preventing a party in a divorce from dissipating assets in order to deprive a spouse of the property which may have monetary value.

New York statutes include pets in the equitable distribution of property section, but they also are part of the best interests analysis. Questions naturally come to mind. Was it the intent of the Legislature to continue to treat animals as property? Given that the drafters of the statute failed to include any definition – or guidance – as to how courts are supposed to determine “best interests” of animals, the Court is effectively left in a legal vortex to figure it out on its own.

The Court reasoned that the intent of the Legislature was to shift away from treating companion animals as property and ensure that they are given more consideration. Viewed in this way, the husband’s motion sounded punitive in nature, which is the antithesis of an application seeking an adjudication of civil contempt.

Additionally, even if the Court were inclined to find the Wife in contempt of court, the amount of the fine would be limited to $250. The husband had not proved the actual value of his loss of the dog and had not shown that actual loss or injury had been caused.

The court held that the euthanasia of B. the pet dog did not constitute a violation of the Automatic Orders even though the euthanasia was performed without a court order or agreement.

The opinion is here.

Grandparent Visitation and Remarriage

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In Ohio, an order granting grandparent visitation comes into question after the remarriage of the child’s father. Does the father’s remarriage, and the adoption of the child by the new stepmother, cut off the grandmother’s court ordered visitation rights?

Grandparent Visitation

The Heart of It All

The child. L.S. was born in 2014, to unmarried parents. In 2019, a court awarded John Snyder – the child’s natural father – legal custody. At the same time, Zadunajsky, L.S.’s paternal grandmother, was granted companionship rights with the child.

Then in 2021, Snyder filed a motion to terminate or modify the grandmother’s visitation order because the child has now been adopted by his stepmother, and there is an intact family. The lower court granted the Father’s Motion for Termination without any hearing or the proffering of any evidence.

Instead, the magistrate ruled as a matter of law that in Ohio:

Once the adoption took place, the Paternal Grandmother no longer had standing to seek visitation. Once an adoption order has been entered, all grandparent visitation rights are terminated.

The lower court held there was no case law in Ohio that allows a court to grant or maintain established visitation once an adoption is granted. The legislature has not provided grandparent visitation in the case of an adoption.

This legal reality is very frustrating to courts because the main issue should be what is in the best interest of the child. The lower court also held that the Paternal Grandmother would only have standing to seek visitation upon the death of Father or the divorce of the stepmother.

The grandmother appealed arguing that an adoption by the step-mother of the child was a proper basis for terminating the pre-existing visitation of the paternal grandmother.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

Under current law in Florida, a grandparent may be awarded some visitation rights in very limited situations, such as when the child’s parents are deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state. If only one parent is deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state, the other parent must have been convicted of a felony or a violent offense in order for a grandparent to be able to petition for visitation.

Additionally, a Florida court has to also find that the grandparent has established a prima facie case that the surviving parent is unfit or poses a danger of significant harm to the child. If that burden is not met, the court must dismiss the grandparent’s petition.

In 2022, Florida amended the grandparent visitation law as a result of the murder of FSU Professor Dan Markel. Supporters of the amendment call it the “Markel Act.” Professor Markel was shot to death in his driveway by hitmen hired by his ex-brother in law. His ex-mother in law was recently arrested at Miami International Airport after attempting to board a one way flight to Vietnam.

The new law creates a rebuttable presumption for grandparent or step-grandparent visitation, but only in cases where one parent has been found criminally liable for the death of the other parent, or “civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death” of the other parent.

The presumption may be overcome only if the court finds that visitation is not in the child’s best interests. The bill does not distinguish between biological grandparents and step-grandparents.

Somewhere in Ohio

The Ohio appellate court agreed with the grandmother and reversed. The opening words of the statute exempt a spouse and the relatives of the spouse from the effects of a final decree of adoption. As Snyder was spouse of the adopting stepparent and Zadunajsky was a relative of Snyder, they are exempt from those effects.

The Father also argued that previous cases affirmed divesting biological grandparents of their visitation and companionship rights. However, the legislature’s intent was to find families for children. The legislature was concerned that if adoptive parents are forced to agree to share parenting responsibilities with people they don’t know, potential adoptive parents will be deterred from adopting. But that legislative intent did not apply to the relatives of the spouse/biological parent in a stepparent adoption.

On remand, the family court may consider whether the continuation of Zadunajsky’s companionship rights is in the best interest of the child in light of the stepparent adoption.

The opinion is here.

Florida Releases Three New Child Custody Updates

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Florida just released major new updates to our child custody and timesharing laws. With these new releases, family lawyers can expect a presumption in favor of a equal timesharing, some bug fixes, and overall improvements to enhance your user experience.

Child Custody Update

Florida Child Custody and Timesharing

Florida courts have consistently ruled that a parent’s right to the care and custody of his or her child is an important interest that is given deference unless there is some powerful countervailing interest requiring the child’s protection. Each parent also has responsibilities for their children, including supervision, health and safety, education, care, and protection.

Child custody in Florida is broken down into two distinct components: parental responsibility (which is decision-making) and timesharing (physical custody and visitation rights). Both components must be incorporated into a “parenting plan.”

Although the right to integrity of the family is among one of the most fundamental rights, when parents divorce or separate, the parents’ rights are subject to the overriding concern for the ultimate welfare their children. We call this, the “best interest” test.

Florida did not have a presumption in favor of any specific timesharing schedule. In establishing timesharing, the court always considered the best interests of the child and evaluated all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child and the circumstances of the family.

What’s new in the latest release?

Equal Timesharing

One of the latest updates just released is a new presumption in favor of equal timesharing for both parents. According to the release notes:

There is a rebuttable presumption that equal time-sharing of a minor child is in the best interests of the minor child. To rebut this presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal timesharing is not in the best interests of the minor child. Except when a time-sharing schedule is agreed to by the parties and approved by the court, the court must evaluate all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) and make specific written findings of fact schedule when creating or modifying a timesharing schedule.

With this new update, Florida has created a rebuttable presumption that equal timesharing is in the best interest of the child at issue. As such, a court must operate under the rebuttable presumption in favor of equal timesharing when creating or modifying a parenting plan.

In order to overcome the new law’s rebuttable presumption, a party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that equal timesharing is not in the best interests of the minor child.

The new law still generally requires a court to evaluate all factors listed under the statute, however now it requires the court to provide written findings of fact for such factors.

Modifications

A new bug fix is an update to the procedure for modification of parenting plans. Generally, a court may only modify a parenting plan and timesharing schedule after a substantial, material, and unanticipated change in circumstances has been established.

The requirement for a substantial change in circumstances promotes finality in family cases, and reflects the general belief that stability is good for children. The test to modify timesharing of a minor child is to prove circumstances have substantially and materially changed since the original custody determination; the change was not reasonably contemplated by the parties; and the child’s best interests justify changing custody.

Demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances is an extraordinary burden on users. But the burden was a design feature not a flaw. The heavy burden is intended to preclude parties from continually disrupting the lives of children by initiating repeated custody disputes.

However, when there have been significant changes affecting the well-being of the child, especially when the change of circumstances has occurred over a substantial period of time, changes may be necessary.

The new update streamlines the modification experience by removing the requirement that a party who demonstrates the alleged substantial and material change in circumstances which warrants modification of a parenting plan or timesharing schedule, must also demonstrate that the change be unanticipated.

Relocation

Another bug fix attempts to streamline the user’s relocation experience. There is currently no presumption in favor of or against a request to relocate with a child when the relocation will materially affect the current timesharing and contact with the other parent.

But simply relocating alone was not considered a substantial change in circumstances to warrant modification. If you were the user seeking to modify timesharing, you still had to overcome the substantial change test before a court could address the modification.

In custody disputes involving the relocation of a parent, courts generally conclude that the relocation does not amount to a substantial change if the relocation is not a significant distance away from the child’s current location. As such, a parent’s relocation alone is not considered a sufficient to trigger a modification of timesharing and custody under current law.

Under the new law, if the parents of a child live more than 50 miles apart when the last order establishing time-sharing is entered, and a parent subsequently moves within 50 miles of the other parent, then that move may be considered a substantial and material change in circumstances for the purpose of modifying the time-sharing schedule.

The move does not need to be unanticipated to warrant a modification of the time-sharing schedule. However, modification of the time-sharing schedule may not be permitted if the modification is not in the best interests of the child after an analysis of the statutory factors.

The new statutory amendments are here.

Version 61.13 will be available July 1st.

Child Abduction and the Grave Risk Exception

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Few people outside of international family law attorneys know that even if a child abduction is proven, courts don’t have to return a child if the grave risk exception, or another treaty defense, is proved. The grave risk defense took center stage at a recent appeal of a child abduction case.

brazil child abduction

Garota De Ipanema

The mother, Dos Santos, and the father, Silva, met in 2011 in Brazil. They have one child together, a daughter who was born in 2012 in Brazil. The three lived together in Brazil until April 2020, when the parents separated.

In August 2021, the mother left Brazil with their daughter and traveled to the United States. The mother did so without the father’s consent to move the child permanently. to the US.

After he learned that his daughter was in the US, the father filed an application with the Brazilian central authority for the return of his child under the Hague Convention. The Brazilian government referred the matter to the United States Department of State-the United States’s central authority under the Convention.

No one disputed at trial that the mother wrongly removed her daughter from the her habitual residence in Brazil and from the lawful joint custody of her father, and abducted her to the US. Normally, that would mean the child would be promptly returned to Brazil.

But the mother claimed returning their daughter posed a grave risk that the child will be exposed to physical or psychological harm or an otherwise intolerable situation.

Hague Child Abduction Convention

I have written and spoken on international custody and child abduction under the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Convention’s mission is basic: to return children to the State of their habitual residence to require any custody disputes to be resolved in that country, and to discourage parents from taking matters into their own hands by abducting or retaining a child.

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

While there are several defenses to a return of a child, the grave risk defense is one of the frequently relied on, and misunderstood defenses available under the Convention.

Mas que nada

Generally, the Hague Convention has six exceptions. In the recent Brazilian case, the mother alleged the grave risk defense. Under this defense, return to Brazil is not required if there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

However, the grave-risk exception is narrowly construed and has a higher burden of proof than most of the other defenses. At the trial, the judge found that the mother had failed to establish that the child will face a grave risk of physical or psychological harm should she be returned to Brazil.

Without an established exception, the trial court granted the father’s petition for return of the child to Brazil

The Mother appealed and the appellate court reversed. The mother described an altercation between the father and her subsequent boyfriend which may have been videotaped. But the video recording was not brought in as evidence. The court also heard from two other witnesses who saw the mother with bruises and a witness who testified about threatening social media messages.

Importantly, the trial judge didn’t believe the father’s testimony. To the appellate court, that meant the trial judge should have considered the father’s testimony as corroborating substantive evidence that the mother’s allegations were true.

Because the trial judge thought there were some issues with the father, including “anger management issues” and “making threats to people”, a majority of the appellate panel felt the trial judge mistakenly felt her hands were tied.

The appellate decision is here.

UCCJEA and Gender Dysphoria

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The UCCJEA, the scaffold of our interstate child custody system, has two dueling new exceptions related to child gender dysphoria. What will be the impact on interstate child custody lawyers with the latest UCCJEA changes sweeping the country?

UCCJEA Sex

An Increasing Health Care Concern

Children in the U.S. can identify as a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth. The number of children identifying as gender nonconforming and transgender is growing.

Health technology company Komodo Health Inc., attempted to quantify the number of children seeking and receiving care by analyzing millions of health insurance claims. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of new diagnoses of children aged 6-17 with gender dysphoria increased by nearly 178 percent.

Of these cases, a smaller number of children with gender dysphoria are choosing medical interventions to express their identity. Appropriate treatment for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria is the subject of debate internationally, and not surprisingly, among different U.S. states.

Dysphoria in the UCCJEA

I have written and spoken on many issues related to the UCCJEA as a family law attorney. Next month I will be presenting an introduction to the UCCJEA for foreign lawyers at the IV Congreso Internacional de AIJUDEFA in Mexico.

The UCCJEA is a uniform act created to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other courts in child custody matters. The UCCJEA also promotes cooperation with other courts and ensures that a custody decree is rendered in the state which is in a superior position to decide the best interest of the child. The UCCJEA helps to facilitate enforcement of custody decrees; and has the aspirational goal of promoting uniformity of the laws governing custody issues.

One of the ways the UCCJEA helped to avoid jurisdictional competition in child custody matters is by solving the historic problem of different courts issuing different orders covering the same child. Under the UCCJEA one state is a child’s home state, and the home state keeps exclusive jurisdiction to modify the custody arrangement unless, for example, the child is another state and there is an emergency.

uccjea

Dueling Banjos

Periodically, child custody disputes can become emergencies. The UCCJEA provides deliverance from such disputes by authorizing any state – even if it is not the home state of the child – to take temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect a child subject to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse.

California recently amended its version of the UCCJEA. California Governor Gavin Newsom – fresh from having visited Florida to poke fun of Gov. DeSantis – signed a bill expanding temporary emergency jurisdiction in California under the UCCJEA.

Effective this year, California courts are now authorized to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction of children in California, who are subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, “or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care.”

Florida recently amended its version of the UCCJEA. Gov. DeSantis – fresh from having visited California to poke fun of Gov. Newsom – signed a bill expanding temporary emergency jurisdiction in Florida under the UCCJEA.

Effective this year, Florida courts are now authorized to assume temporary emergency jurisdiction of children in Florida, who are subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, “or It is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child has been subjected to or is threatened with being subjected to sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures.”

The California Senate bill is here. The Florida Senate bill is here.