Tag: international child abduction

International Child Custody Emergency Jurisdiction

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A court’s ability to exercise international child custody on an emergency basis is in the news after a father requests a Texas court to exercise jurisdiction over his nine-year-old child and return her after she was removed from Mexico by the Mother.

UCCJEA Emergency Jurisdiction

 

Adiós México

A Mexican father filed a case in Texas alleging his child lived her entire life in Mexico, that Mexico was her home state, and that the mother removed the child to Texas without his consent. The father argued at trial that the child was in the United States on a tourist visa, enrolled in school in a manner inconsistent with that visa, the mother had uncertain immigration status, she’d been arrested in Texas, and there were custody proceedings already pending in Mexico.

He asked the Texas court to name him primary conservator, authorize the child’s return to Mexico, consider abduction-prevention measures, order child support, and issue a writ of attachment for the child.

The mother argued that Mexico was the child’s home state, that two custody proceedings were pending in Mexico, and that no Mexican court had declined jurisdiction. The Texas trial court nevertheless denied her jurisdictional challenge and entered an order exercising “temporary emergency jurisdiction.”

The family court allowed the father to take immediate possession of the child, return the child to Mexico, and present the child to the Mexican courts. The next day, the court issued a writ of attachment. But then the mother filed for mandamus relief in the appellate court, which stayed the trial court’s order, then conditionally granted mandamus

Florida UCCJEA Emergency Jurisdiction

I have written and spoken on many issues related to the UCCJEA as a family law attorney. Later in the year I will be presenting an introduction to the UCCJEA for foreign lawyers in Madrid, Spain.

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.

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

The UCCJEA provides for temporary emergency jurisdiction over child custody “if the child is present in this state and … it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child … is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”

¿Cuándo volverás a México?

The appellate court found there was no evidence that the child had been abandoned, and no evidence of an emergency involving mistreatment or abuse. Importantly, the court said the UCCJEA’s emergency provision does not convert immigration concerns, possible deportation, separation from a parent, criminal charges, or lack of contact into “mistreatment or abuse” without more.

The court also noted a procedural problem. When a court exercises temporary emergency jurisdiction while another state or country has jurisdiction, a family trial court has to determine whether there is a prior custody determination and must communicate with the court having jurisdiction which was not done here.

Temporary emergency jurisdiction is an important aspect to intervene when a child is in a state and is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. But if the case facts don’t show abandonment, mistreatment, abuse, or a concrete threat of immediate harm, a writ of attachment and return order may be vulnerable on appeal.

The Texas Court of Appeals opinion is here.

UCCJEA and Wrongful Removal

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Does a Montana court have UCCJEA jurisdiction to order a parenting plan over a Montana child after the wrongful removal of a child to another country if a parent delays more than a year after trying to legally return the child? The Supreme Court of Montana just addressed that international child custody question.

UCCJEA Montana 2

Little Trouble in Big Sky Country

In 2020, the parties and child moved from Colorado to Montana. Beginning in June 2022 until May 2023, the child resided and attended public school in the Netherlands. But then in May 2023, the child and Mother returned to Montana so the Mother could reconcile with the Father.

On August 11, 2023, the Mother abducted the child without the knowledge or consent of the Father, and returned to the Netherlands. On February 13, 2024, the Mother filed a divorce and custody petition in the Netherlands.

On January 17, 2025, the Father filed a petition to return the child to the USA in a Dutch Court, using the Hague Abduction Convention. His petition was denied, with a conclusion that it was filed more than one year from the wrongful removal, and the child was now settled in the Netherlands.

However, the Dutch court also found that the Mother’s removal of the child from Montana was wrongful, meaning the United States was the child’s “habitual residence”.

The Father’s appeal in the Dutch courts was dismissed. In September of 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (Montana District Court).

The Montana District Court dismissed Father’s petition and motion based on its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague and that Montana is no longer the “home state” of the child since she had not resided in Montana for more than two years before Father filed this action in Montana.

Father filed his notice of appeal of the Montana District Court’s order with this Court in early October.

Florida UCCJEA

I have written about international child custody issues before. The UCCJEA is a uniform act drafted to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other state courts in child custody matters; promote cooperation with other courts; ensure that a custody decree is rendered in the state which enjoys the superior position to decide what is in the best interest of the child; deter controversies and avoid re-litigation of custody issues; facilitate enforcement of custody decrees; and promote uniformity of the laws governing custody issues.

Montana 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 vis-a-vis 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 Montana. The ultimate determining factor in a Montana case then, is what is the “home state” of the child.

In Florida, the “home state” of a child means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child younger than 6 months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.

Back to Dutton Ranch?

Relying on the UCCJEA, the Montana Supreme Court found under the UCCJEA, priority is given to “home-state jurisdiction for child custody proceedings, under which a state has jurisdiction if it is the child’s ‘home state.’”

A child’s “home state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.”
Here, Montana was no longer the child’s “home state” as defined by the UCCJEA. Father filed his petition and motion for emergency custody in early September 2025, nearly 25 months after the child was last in Montana.

Father did not file a Hague petition for the return of the child until approximately a year and a half after the child was wrongfully removed from the United States. It is unclear why Father delayed filing a Hague petition for so long.

However, the Netherlands District Court suggests that the parties were negotiating travel and parenting arrangements for the child uring this time. Nonetheless, during that delay the child became settled in her new environment in the Netherlands as the District Court of The Hague concluded and the Court of Appeal of The Hague affirmed.

Montana lost home-state jurisdiction since she had not resided here for the preceding six months before Father filed for custody in the Montana UCCJEA. Under ordinary circumstances Montana courts should treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purposes of applying the UCCJEA according to the plain language of the statute.

Finally, the Father failed to point to any legal authority whereby a finding that a child was wrongfully taken from her place of habitual residence, yet now settled in her new environment, overrides a judgment of another jurisdiction that it may properly exercise child custody jurisdiction.

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana District Court and concluded the Father must pursue his parenting interests in the Netherlands District Court because he waited approximately a year and a half before taking legal action to return his child to Montana, and as a result Montana lost child custody jurisdiction.

The opinion is available here.

Hague Abduction Convention and Force Majeure Clause

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Under the Hague Child Convention does a force majeure clause in a marital settlement agreement hold any weight? The question is a frequent international custody issue which arises after parents enter into an agreement allowing their children to travel internationally. In one recent case, two Israeli parents agreed to their children visiting the United States for 60-days with some exceptions.

Force Majeure

Parents at War

The parties in the Hague case are the parents of two children who were both born and raised in Israel. The family members are all Israeli citizens too, but the Mother was also a U.S. citizen. The parties divorced in 2019 in Israel. After the divorce, the Israeli family court awarded the Father with visitation rights, and ordered him to pay child support.

The Mother argued the Father never exercised his rights of custody. However, the Mother would also travel internationally alone, and leave the children with their Father and his new wife. The Father was found to have exercised his visitation rights with the children.

In January 2023, the Mother filed an action in Israel to collect back child-support from the Father. The parents reached an agreement in the Israeli family court in which they stopped collection proceedings, and in return, the Father agreed to let the Mother travel abroad with their two children under certain conditions.

The Mother was allowed to travel internationally with the Children for 60 days. She could extend the 60-day period either by agreement with the Father, and/or limitations unrelated to the Mother’s own actions, such as strikes, COVID-related restrictions, etc.

Then Israel was brutally attacked on October 7, 2023. A month later, the Mother flew with the Children, and her two twins from another relationship, to Florida. The Father agreed to the trip, but then objected after the Mother told him that she planned to keep the Children in Florida until at least January 23, 2024 – 76 days after leaving Israel – and possibly longer if the war persisted.

By April 2024, the Mother had still not returned the Children. Then she dropped the bomb on the Father: she had “discovered that we have peace of mind and a calm life here” and told him that the children didn’t want to return to Israel.

The Father was trapped. He was not allowed to travel to the U.S., and was restricted from holding a passport, due to his owing child-support. The Father then filed a petition for return of the children to Israel under the Hague Convention in a Florida federal court.

At the time of trial from January to February 2025, the parties disagreed as to whether the conditions in Israel, and in particular, whether the cities where each of them lived were safe to return to and an exception to return under their agreement.

Florida Hague Convention

I often speak and write about the Hague Abduction Convention and international child custody issues. In fact, I successfully represented the Father in this Israeli case. What do you do if your children are wrongfully abducted or retained internationally?

The Hague Abduction Convention establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained.

The International Child Abduction Remedies Act is the statute in the United States that implements the Hague Abduction Convention. Under the Act, a person may petition a court authorized to exercise jurisdiction in the country where a child is located for the return of the child to his or her habitual residence in another signatory country, so the underlying child custody dispute can be determined in the proper jurisdiction.

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

The Hague Convention exists to protect children from international abductions by requiring the prompt return to their habitual residence. But there are defenses too. In the Israeli case, one defense asserted  involved an agreement containing a force majeure clause. Essentially, the court was not bound to order the return of the children if the Mother demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Father gave prior consent to the retention or subsequently acquiesced in their retention.

The argument was central to the case because the Mother relied on language in the agreed child support order that allowed her to travel abroad with the children for up to 60 days unless there was some limitation unrelated to the Mother’s own actions, “e.g., strikes, COVID-related restrictions, etc.”

Force Majeure?

At trial, the Mother argued that, even if the Father had a right of custody under Israeli law, the conditions in Israel following the October 7, 2023 attack qualify as a limitation unrelated to Respondent under the language of the Agreement, which would permit her to keep the Children in Florida beyond 60 days.

The district court disagreed. “The term ‘limitation’ in the Agreement does not encompass the Mother’s personal judgment or view that returning the Children to Israel is unsafe.” In looking at the parties’ agreement, the district court concluded that, based on its customary and normal meaning, “[t]he agreement itself illustrates this definition [of limitation], citing examples such as ‘strikes’ and ‘COVID-19-related restrictions’ – situations that physically restrict Respondent’s ability to return the Children.”

The district court found that a qualifying limitation under the Agreement is one that impedes or prevents the Mother from returning the Children, not one that merely makes return undesirable according to the Mother.

The case is analyzed at MKFL International Family Law here.

Establishing Foreign Paternity under UIFSA

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A common family law issue involves UIFSA, in that a U.S. state can establish a child support order after proving the paternity of the father over a foreign born child. However, proof is required beyond mere admissions and agreement. Is being named on the birth certificate enough? One couple recently found out.

UIFSA Parentage

Love in Lansing

The Plaintiff lives in Brazil and is the mother of LCK, who was born in Brazil in late 2020. The purported father, who was the Defendant in the case, lives in Michigan. The case was heard in a town between Detroit and Lansing. Plaintiff contended that defendant is the father of LCK, arising out of a relationship between the parties in Michigan in January 2020.

Defendant did not deny that the parties had a relationship during that time. In August 2021, plaintiff sought child support from defendant under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), by filing an Application for Establishment of a Decision with the central authority in Brazil.

The application stated that defendant’s paternity of the child was “established or presumed,” and was supported by a Brazil birth certificate naming defendant as the child’s father.

The Livingston County Prosecutor initiated this action under UIFSA, filing the Application as a complaint.  Defendant responded, denying paternity and requesting that the child’s paternity be established.  Defendant also filed a -separate paternity action in the trial court.

In contrast to his denial of paternity in the child support case, defendant alleged in his paternity action that he is the father of LCK. In fact, the defendant earlier claimed he was the LCK’s father in the paternity action, and even signed an affidavit before the U.S. Consulate stating that he was the father.

However, in the international child support action under the UIFSA, he disputed his paternity of the child had been established under Brazil law. Plaintiff contended that defendant’s name on the child’s birth certificate established his paternity under Brazil law, precluding further inquiry into the child’s parentage under the UIFSA. Defendant disagreed, and asked the trial court to resolve the paternity action before determining the child support action. Plaintiff filed a motion to establish support, arguing without explanation that the birth certificate alone established defendant’s paternity of the child under Brazil law.

Plaintiff also asserted that while briefly visiting Brazil, defendant signed an acknowledgment of paternity at the United States Consulate to obtain a passport for the child, and sued plaintiff under the Hague Convention for abduction of the child.

Defendant did not respond to the motion, but at the hearing requested a determination of paternity under Michigan law. The trial court entered a Uniform Child Support Final Order on the basis that defendant had been established as the child’s father under Brazil law, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff monthly child support of $1,567. The father appealed.

Florida UIFSA

I have written on international custody and support issues before. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, 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.

One of the more important purposes of UIFSA is to extend enforcement to foreign support orders. A court in Florida, for example, must apply UIFSA to any support proceeding involving a foreign support order from a foreign tribunal. A “foreign tribunal” means a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial entity of a foreign country which is authorized to establish, enforce, or modify support orders or to determine parentage of a child.

Spartan Findings

On appeal, the Defendant contended the trial court erred by determining his parentage of the child had been determined under Brazil law without permitting him to challenge the parentage of the child.

A trial court can establish child support under UIFSA only upon finding, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, that defendant had a duty of support based on the putative father’s paternity. In doing so, the trial court was obligated to apply the procedural and substantive law of Michigan.

In determining Defendant was the father based on the Brazilian birth certificate, the trial court accepted plaintiff’s contention under Brazil law, any man designated as the father on a child’s birth certificate is thereby determined by law to be the father of that child, and that defendant therefore was precluded from raising the defense of non-parentage.

However, the trial court accepted the contention that parentage had been established under Brazil law without any proof and without any authority to support plaintiff’s assertion.

Plaintiff also argued that she established paternity because of Defendant’s past claims that he was the child’s father in the paternity action, and that he even signed an affidavit before the U.S. Consulate stating that he was the child’s father.

But on appeal, the question was whether the was precluded from challenging the child’s parentage by virtue of a previous legal determination in Brazil or elsewhere.  Defendant’s past assertions of parentage are not relevant to this narrow inquiry.

Even though defendant consistently sought to establish the parentage of the child, he never conceded the issue had been determined under Brazil law.  The trial court’s reliance on plaintiff’s unsupported assertion that the birth certificate naming defendant as the father constituted a determination of parentage under Brazil law, was insufficient.

The trial court’s order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in which plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant’s parentage of the child has been determined under Brazilian law.

The Michigan Court of Appeals opinion is here.

Divorce Ignorance

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A new report by two law professors in England is showing a great deal about the public’s ignorance of divorce laws. Overall, the public’s understanding about finance and property on divorce was considered poor. However, those fortunate enough to have consulted lawyers previously were considered knowledgeable.

London divorce town

Keeping calm and carrying on

The legal experts say that thousands of people going through their divorces could be losing out due to “do it yourself” divorces. The professors from the University of Bristol authored a new report where 20,000 members of the public in England and Wales answered questions on divorce-related laws about dividing finances and property.

For example, given 10 statements about the law and asked to say whether each was true or false, the public correctly identified an average of 4.5 statements. In fact, just over half (55 per cent) of the public correctly identified at least half of the statements.

Statements Which Are Not True (in England):

  • The law says that all assets and debts should be split 50:50, regardless of whose name they were in during the marriage
  • Legally, an individual is not entitled to a share of their ex-spouse’s pension
    The law says that if an individual contributed more money during the marriage, then they are usually entitled to more than 50 per cent of the assets

Interestingly, people with higher qualifications or incomes were somewhat more likely than those with lower level qualifications or incomes to know what the law was in relation to financial remedies on divorce.

Florida 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 divorce issues before. The no-fault concept in Florida means you no longer have to prove a reason for the divorce, like your spouse’s political views. 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.

Florida abolished fault as grounds for filing a divorce. The only ground you need to file for divorce in Florida is to prove your marriage is “irretrievably broken.” Additionally, the mental incapacity of one of the parties, where the party was adjudged incapacitated for the prior three year, is another avenue.

Dodgy Results?

The report also showed that women were more likely to know about aspects of the law relevant to having children, and men to know somewhat more about the law around the division of assets.

Additionally, and not surprisingly, divorcees were somewhat more knowledgeable about the law than others. But still, their percentages appear to be mere guesswork: they identified an average of 5.2 statements correctly compared to 4.4 statements among those who had not been through a divorce. However, the differences between divorcees and others were not large, with levels of misconception still high among divorcees.

Having a lawyer was important to knowing your rights. Among divorcees who had divorced in the previous five years: those who had used more formal routes to reaching an arrangement, or consulted or used a lawyer, tended to know more about the laws around finances on divorce than those who had not.

Those with higher levels of assets to divide on divorce tended to have a greater understanding than those with lower levels or no assets. Divorcees with dependent children were more knowledgeable than other divorcees in relation to the law around the legal position of parents with main care of their children and around the child maintenance formula, although there were still high levels of misunderstanding among parents on these issues.

With do it yourself divorces, when couples settle how to split finances without courts, the law allows them to agree any split they want. More people are now coming up with their “own solutions” surrounding divorce settlements as there is no longer legal aid in England and Wales. The findings highlighted that women had a greater understanding around law relating to children, whilst men were more likely to know the law on assets.

The professor said the lack of legal aid leads to less awareness and knowledge which is “potentially problematic” because it means that people are relying on “their own misunderstanding of the law which tends to lead to poor settlements”.

The majority of the divorcing population in England and Wales reach arrangements relating to their finances and property outside of the formal family justice system, and also that one in five divorcees seek advice and support from family and friends during the divorce process.

For these reasons, it is important to know what level of knowledge people have, and whether there are misconceptions which might be influencing the decisions made by divorcees and the advice family and friends provide.

The BBC article is here.

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.

International Child Custody and Hague Convention

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A frequent international child custody issue involves the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Return of abducted children to their habitual residence is required unless defenses are established, in which case ameliorative measures can be considered. Is that also true in a war zone? A court in Montana just decided that question.

Hague Convention2

Home on the Range?

The parents are Ukrainians. They married in the Ukraine and lived in the city of Odessa, Ukraine in an apartment. In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. The parties began to hear explosions and air raid sirens in Odessa based on Russian aerial attacks, and they were forced to sleep in their basement at times.

In August 2023, the father arranged for the mother and their child to stay with family friends in Moldova due to the increased bombing of Odessa. On August 26, 2023, the mother informed the father that she was intending to fly to Montana with the child to be with her mother and sister.

The father began to take steps to secure the return of the child to the Ukraine by filing a Hague application and filing a return petition in Montana.

Florida Hague Convention

I will be speaking about the Hague Convention and international child custody issues at the prestigious Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando later this month. The event is co-sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

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.

A Mess in Odessa

At the trial in Montana, it was not disputed that the father established a prima facie case under the Convention. However, the mother argued return to Ukraine would expose the child to a “grave risk” of physical or psychological harm.

The district judge noted that the conflict in Ukraine did not, by itself, trigger the grave risk exception because it’s not sufficient to simply find that because the country is at war, children cannot be returned․

Instead, the focus should be on the risk a child would face in the part of the county she will return to and whether that will imperil her unacceptably. For example, some courts have found that return to certain cities or eastern Ukraine poses a grave risk.

Additionally, the fact that a child has grown accustomed to life in the U.S. was not a valid concern under the grave risk exception, as it is the abduction that causes the pangs of subsequent return. Also, the exception does not provide a license for a court in the abducted-to country to speculate on where the child would be happiest or who would be the better parent. And grave risk does not encompass a home where money is in short supply, or where educational or other opportunities are more limited. Even if a “grave risk” is shown, a court has “the discretion to consider ameliorative measures that could ensure the child’s safe return.

Here, the court found that return to a different city in the Ukraine, Chernivtsi, a city and oblast in southwestern Ukraine was at less risk than the eastern portion of the country such as Odessa. It was also noted that many Ukrainians had relocated to the western part of the country since the invasion.

The Mother’s argument that her voluntary parole status in the United States should be considered. However, to the extent the mother faced a Hobson’s choice, it is a dilemma of her own making. The record showed that the father was willing to allow her and the child to reside outside of Ukraine, but close enough for contact, while custody was determined.

Instead the Mother chose to come to the United States, as opposed to Moldova or another neighboring country, for the undisputed reason that her family was here. Neither the Convention nor this Court’s decision are constrained by that choice.

Based on those facts the court ordered the return of the Child to Chernivtsi, Ukraine and awarded fees and costs.

The order is here.

Registration for the certification review course is here (if available)

Speaking on the Hague Convention and Interstate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Honored to be invited to speak on interstate custody and the Hague Convention at the prestigious Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando from January 24th to January 25th. The seminar is co-sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Divorce Religion

Raising Arizona

A recent state court case in Arizona applied both the Hague Convention and state law to order law enforcement to immediately pick up a child allegedly being retained in Arizona by the child’s Father. The Father argued that his due process was violated by not providing an opportunity to be heard.

A child was subject to a parenting time order in Mexico. The child otherwise resided with the Mother, Cohen, in Mexico, and the Father, Gbele, to timeshare in the United States.

On December 20, 2023, the Mother filed a petition under the Hague Convention in Arizona state court alleging the Father refused to return the child to Mexico under their Mexican order, and seeking an order for the child’s removal to Mexico.

The trial court found that the Father had not been served, authorized service by alternative means, and temporarily restrained the Father from removing the child from Arizona. After the Mother filed a notice that the Father was served with process, the trial court entered a “pick-up order” to transfer custody to the Mother in Mexico based on testimony at an earlier hearing that the child is imminently likely to suffer serious physical harm or be removed from this state without the issuance” of the order.

The Father asked to vacate the pick-up order for lack of jurisdiction and due process. On the final hearing day, the court neither took evidence nor decided the merits of the petition. Instead, it determined the Father could not challenge the pick-up order because that order did not resolve any of the Mother’s claims from the petition, and therefore was not a final judgment.

The trial court also refused to vacate the pick-up order as moot because the relief of return was effectuated and awarded the Mother travel expenses. The Father appealed.

Florida UCCJEA and Hague Convention

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.

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.

The UCCJEA is a uniform act which 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 – even when the custody decrees come from a foreign country – and has the aspirational goal of promoting uniformity of the laws governing custody issues. Under the UCCJEA, a foreign country should be treated as a US state for the purposes of applying the UCCJEA.

Arizona Appeal

On appeal, the Mother argued the appeal was moot because the child was returned to Mexico, where it is undisputed the child is subject to a custody proceeding. The appellate court held that mootness is a discretionary doctrine, and in addition to the pick-up order, the Father also challenged the award of transportation costs, which was sufficient to prevent the appeal from being moot.

The Mother also argued that the trial court had discretion to order the child’s immediate removal under ICARA, which implements the Hague Convention in the United States. ICARA enacted provisional measures “to protect the well-being of the child involved or to prevent the child’s further removal or concealment before the final disposition of the petition.”

In rejecting the provisional measures, the court found there was neither allegation nor evidence concerning the child’s well being or any risk of further removal by the Father and the court’s order was not a final disposition of the petition.

Even if ICARA’s provisional remedies allowed the trial court discretion to enforce a provisional remedy, ICARA also provides that no court may order a child removed from a person having physical control of the child unless the applicable requirements of State law are satisfied.

Under Arizona and federal constitutions you are guaranteed due process. Additionally, under Arizona law, a petition to  enforce a foreign child custody order generally requires notice and a hearing before the trial court may order that the petitioner take immediate custody of a child. On remand, the appellate court direct the trial judge to determine whether to dismiss the petition in light of the child’s removal.

The opinion is available here.

North Korea Divorce Requirements

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

North Korea, similar to many countries, has requirements to initiate a divorce proceeding. Just as many U.S. states have requirements before filing for divorce, North Korea has its requirements too. Frustrated by the number of divorces, the Supreme Leader of North Korea has just added a new requirement: any couple that divorces will now be sent to labor camps.

North Korea Divorce

Your North Korean Divorce

Kim Jong Un, at 42 years of age, is North Korea’s “Supreme Leader”. He is also the “general secretary of the Worker’s Party”, and the “marshal of the Korean People’s Army”. Kim Jong Un follows in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps and rules the socialist paradise of North Korea.

As “Comrade General Secretary”, Kim Jong Un recently declared that dissolving your marriage demonstrates anti-socialist sympathies, which therefore warrants punishment. This declaration from the “Marshal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” represents a toughening of existing divorce laws, which previously only punished the party seeking the divorce — even in cases of physical abuse.

The “Sun of Juche’s” new divorce law, in an effort to protect the family structure, requires that spouses be imprisoned once the divorce is finalized. As one resident of the northern Ryanggang province reportedly said:

“I went to the Kimjongsuk County People’s Court … where 12 people received divorce decrees. Immediately after the verdict, they were transferred to the county labor training camp. Until last year, when a couple divorced, only the person who first filed for divorce was sent to a labor training camp. Starting this month, all divorced couples will be sent to labor training camps.”

According to Kim Jon Un, who is sometimes known as the “Only and Unique Successor and Leader of the Juche Revolution”, the act of divorce is not only considered an affront to socialism, but also to the Confucian values that tie into the thinking of those in the north and south.

Florida Divorce Requirements

I have written on divorce jurisdiction issues, such as residency and other requirements to obtain a divorce, many times before. Similar to North Korea, Florida has its own requirements to obtain a divorce. For example, Florida has a six-month residency requirement before filing for divorce.

Durational residency – as a pre-condition to divorce – has been considered by many courts and upheld as a valid requirement. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently recognized the unique status of marriage and has left the entire field of marriage and divorce laws to the individual states.

Florida has a compelling state interest in requiring a durational residency so that Florida avoids intruding on the rights and interests of other states that might otherwise be paramount. There is another important reason.

Domicile of a divorcing party is essential, not merely because of technical jurisdictional rules, but because a divorce can be obtained ex parte, by constructive service of process which can have permanent future effect on the lives and property of third persons as well as the rights of sister states.

Accordingly, U.S. states must go slow, must be careful, and owe a duty to other states and other affected parties to make a record in support of a divorce final judgment that can withstand collateral attack and which will merit full faith and credit by other states.

Stigmatizing Divorce

The foundation of North Korean-style socialism, with its emphasis on the people and the masses, depends on whether family cells are managed effectively. That’s why – to North Korea’s “Brilliant Comrade” – divorce is considered an abnormal event and the breakup of the family.

Broken families are classified as social problems, and the children of these families often do not get along with other children and suffer various forms of discrimination, such as not being called on in school.

The socialist party’s firmly held position is that revolutionizing the family is equivalent to revolutionizing society and that improving the members of the family is equivalent to improving members of society. As a result, government officials who are divorced are considered to have failed to revolutionize their family, and are often unable to rise in rank or hold important positions.

Notwithstanding the “Beloved Father’s” efforts, reports from North Korea show divorce rates increased on the back of the Covid-19 lockdown. Initially, the “Father Marshal” started an education campaign to prevent, specifically women, from getting divorces.

To prevent divorces, lectures were given to members of the Socialist Women’s Union, the largest women’s organization in the country, under the theme:

“Let’s thoroughly eliminate the phenomenon of divorce and build a harmonious family, the cell of society.”

When that didn’t work, the “Supreme Leader of our Party, State and Armed Forces” tried other deterrents. The most obvious deterrents, publicly shaming the parents of divorcees, and publicly shaming the officials of  state owned companies responsible for high divorce rates among the workforce, were applied.

Surprisingly, given the socialist party’s campaign and other deterrents, divorces did not significantly decrease. So, the “Respected Comrade Supreme Leader” had no real choice but to act even more punitively by sending divorcing couples to forced labor camps. As one resident is reported to have said:

My brother divorced after three years of marriage. His wife first submitted a divorce application to the court and received a divorce ruling. She was sent to a labor camp for six months, while he has to do one month.

The London Evening Standard article is here.

Hague Convention and the Mature Child Exception

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A  common international custody issue under the Hague Convention involves a wrongfully removed child when there is an exception to being returned home. One such exception is the mature child exception. How mature does a child have to be in order to avoid being returned to the child’s habitual residence? A recent Florida case analyzes that question.

Hague Mature Child 2

Oh Mexico

The Father and Mother are the parents of a child born in Mexico in 2013. They lived together in Mexico until approximately one year after the child was born. After their separation, a Mexican court granted custodial rights and child support obligations. The custody order also contained a clause which prohibited Mother from removing minor child from Mexico without Father’s consent.

Then in December 2022, the Mother abducted the child to the United States. After learning his child was abducted, the Father filed a return petition under the Hague Convention in Florida.

The Mother opposed returning the child by arguing that the child was “sufficiently mature and intelligent to object to being repatriated to Mexico.” The trial court conducted an in-camera interview with the child who was then ten years old and had been exclusively with Mother in Florida for over a year. The child testified she lived in an apartment with Mother and her little brother and was attending school and taking English classes. She enjoyed playing at parks and wanted to join a football team.

She also admitted seeing Mother crying and being told by Mother that Father wanted minor child to go back to Mexico and that “I’m afraid that you might be sending me back to Mexico and that I won’t be able to see my mom.” The Mother testified she not only told minor child about the proceedings, but also told her she feared minor child “would be taken back to Mexico and no longer be with me.”

The trial judge denied the Hague return petition after applying the mature child exception. The father appealed.

Hague Convention

I have written and spoken on international custody and child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. The Convention’s mission is basic: to return children to their country of habitual residence.

In the recent Mexican case, the father had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was a habitual resident of Mexico immediately before her abduction, the removal was in breach of his custody rights under Mexican law, and he was actually exercising rights of custody, or would have been so exercised but for the removal. If so, the child must be promptly returned to Mexico unless there is an exception to return.

The key inquiry in this recent case was the mature child exception. A court may refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is ap­propriate to take account of its views. A court may find that the child’s objection in and of itself is conclusive—it does not have to be coupled with another defense to be sustained.

Talking ’bout Mexico

On appeal, the district court noted that the child was exceptionally bright and articulate, she calmly and clearly conveyed her reluctance to return to Mexico, and conveyed significant family ties, teachers, and friends in Florida.

But in determining whether the mature child exception applies, courts primarily consider whether the child is sufficiently mature, has a particularized objection to being returned and whether the objection is the product of undue influence.

Here, the ten-year-old child’s preference to remain with Mother in Florida was based primarily on: friends, a desire to attend high school, and an upcoming school trip to Orlando. The appellate court found these to be generic and near-sighted responses and demonstrated the child’s inability to maturely comprehend or appreciate the long-term impact of her decisions.

This was especially true considering the child provided no significant testimony as to her life in Mexico or how life in Mexico differed from life in the United States. Also, her fear of return was based solely on not wanting to be separated from her Mother and return to Mexico does not necessarily mean she will be separated from Mother as Mother is free to return with her to Mexico.

Importantly, only a child’s objection is sufficient to trump the Convention’s strong presumption in favor of return, not the child’s mere preference. Here, the child just didn’t want to be separated from her mom. The only fear of returning to Mexico was being separated from Mother and not an unwillingness to live in Mexico.

Finally, the child’s objection was clearly the product of Mother’s undue influence. For example the Mother admitted she told minor child about the legal proceedings and about her fears of minor child being returned to Mexico.

The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to grant return to Mexico.

The opinion is here.