Tag: International Child Custody

British Grandparent Rights

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A British grandmother who wanted to assert some grandparent rights for her grandchild, fought local authorities after a recommendation that the baby be put up for adoption. She won, and now the child is in her custody.

In Britain, the parents of the child were unable to look after the baby, and the paternal grandmother put herself forward to be the special guardian, a role similar to foster care.

The grandparent rights case, heard in Britain last month, raises questions about the challenges faced by families trying hold on to children as special guardians for their relatives’ children – mostly grandparents.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I’ve written about grandparent rights to visitation several times. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Troxel v. Granville, held that the Due Process Clause protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

So, as long as a parent is adequately caring for his or her child, there will normally be no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family. The basic presumption in Troxel is that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.

However, the Troxel court did not hold that the Due Process Clause requires a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition to granting rights of visitation. That is a Florida law.

Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court left those decisions for the states to decide on a case-by-case basis.

It surprises many Floridians – because of the large percentage of grandparents here – but grandparent don’t have visitation rights here.

Grandparent rights to custody and time-sharing do not really exist in Florida without showing harm to the child; otherwise, it is deemed to violate parents’ privacy.

British Grandparent Battle

The grandparent rights case involved a professional who works with children, initially received what the judge described as “very positive and full assessments” about her suitability as a caregiver.

However, more than five months after care proceedings began it was followed by a second negative report who questioned her commitment. At this point, the social work team recommended that the baby instead be put up for adoption.

When the case came to court, the judge ordered that the grandmother should become the baby’s special guardian after all.

Describing the hearing, the judge said the grandmother had “expressed profound dissatisfaction about the way in which she had been assessed and treated”.

The protracted battle has meant the baby only recently joined the grandmother after a long stay in foster care.

The judge paid tribute to the grandmother as “an intelligent and courteous woman” who had “put herself out considerably to offer her grandchild the opportunity of being cared for within the natural family”.

The Buzzfeed article on grandparent rights is here.

 

Sharia Divorce in Germany

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The European Court of Justice is considering whether a foreign divorce, granted by a Sharia court, is valid in Germany. The German case raises the issue of when foreign laws conflict with rights protected in other countries, an issue Florida has grappled with.

Sharia Divorce in Europe

On Thursday this week, the advocate general at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), issued an opinion saying that a foreign divorce under Sharia law should not be recognized.

The ECJ judgment is still pending; however, judges often follow such recommendations.

The case involves a couple from Syria with German nationality. They married in 1999 in Homs, Syria, before moving to Germany. Four years ago, in a Syrian Sharia court, the husband ended the marriage by repeating the word “talaq” (“I divorce you”) three times.

Florida Divorces and Sharia

I have written extensively on foreign divorce before, and the triple Talaq issue specifically. As the European case suggests, the Triple Talaq allows Muslim men to leave their wives instantaneously by saying “talaq,” meaning divorce, three times.

The thousand-year-old custom of triple talaq was recently banned by the Indian Supreme Court.

Florida has resolved the issue of the enforcement of foreign divorce in Florida to a certain extent when it enacted Florida Statute 61.0401. The statute prohibits courts in Florida from enforcing:

  • A choice of law provision in a contract selecting the law of a foreign country which contravenes the strong public policy of this state or that is unjust or unreasonable.
  • A forum selection clause in a contract that selects a forum in a foreign country if the clause is shown to be unreasonable or unjust or if strong public policy would prohibit the enforceability of the clause.
  • A judgment or order of a court of a foreign country is not entitled to comity if the foreign court offends the public policy of this state.

Florida Statutes do not mention Sharia, or any religious divorce law at all. However, in an international divorce case in Florida, to the extent the Syrian divorce (triple talaq) law violates the U.S. and Florida Constitution, the Syrian law may not be enforceable.

The European Divorce Debate

The European Union Divorce Law Pact, known in family law circles as “Rome III Regulation”, governs the recognition of private divorces, meaning divorces that were not granted by a state court.

Under Rome III, a foreign law is not applied in European courts if men and women do not have equal power in divorce proceedings.

Many Germans are concerned about the recognition of foreign divorces, especially when they are based on Sharia. “Many people have a one-sided understanding of Sharia law. There are problematic areas in traditional Sharia law, which allows corporal punishment for criminals; is patriarchal and does not recognize gender or religious equality.

When foreign laws are applied in Germany, their effect is subject to scrutiny, such that if it results in gross injustice and a violation of fundamental rights, the state will correct it. This has been standard practice in Germany for 100 years now.

“This is an election year. Europe is losing faith. If the ECJ now said, ‘This is applicable; we will examine the individual cases,’ then the headlines would read: ECJ says Sharia divorce is valid. And then I would not like to see how anti-Islam groups such as Pegida, AfD and the like would react.”

The Deutsche Welle, article is available here.

 

Should You Marry Someone From Another State?

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When Wisconsinites choose a spouse, there’s just something about those Minnesotans that they find irresistible. Time magazine looked at over 100 million interstate marriages to make the analysis. The analysis also raises the issue of interstate custody.

Do We Marry Local?

Time magazine recently did an analysis of which states were most compatible when it comes to marriages. To figure this out, Time examined data on 116 million “interstate marriages” in which the partners were born in different states.

For people from each state, they looked at the most common home states for their spouses compared to the national average.

While people are generally most likely to marry someone from the same home state as themselves — eat local, and “marry local,” you might say — those who choose a spouse born in a different state don’t tend to drift very far.

To be clear, while Texans are much more likely than most other people to marry a Louisianan, there are still more total marriages between Texans and Californians, since California is such a large state. Whether you’re from California or your spouse is from Texas, if you have a child, this could have an interstate custody issue.

Your Interstate Child

I’ve written on the issue of interstate custody before, and was recently invited to speak at a state-wide presentation. There are two major interstate, uniform acts that have been adopted by almost every state in the U.S. The first, UIFSA, deals with interstate children support. The Second, UCCJEA, deals with custody.

UIFSA is a uniform act drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, and forcibly adopted by all U.S. states by federal law. Historically, multiple orders, issued by different states, created confusion; courts were unsure which orders were to be enforced, and it was easy to reduce, delay and evade enforcement by moving across state lines.

The purpose of UIFSA is to improve and extend the enforcement of duties of support so that once a foreign support order is registered in Florida, it has the same effect as a Florida order.

The UCCJEA, like the UIFSA, is another uniform act drafted by the ULC, and adopted by all U.S. states except Massachusetts. Different states have different approaches to issues related to custody, and inconsistent rulings about custody could create major problems.

The UCCJEA and the UIFSA share common features and concepts, and in places, the two acts have nearly identical provisions. However, they deal with different family law issues (custody and support) which can strongly impact how the two Acts are implemented.

The general purposes of the UCCJEA are: to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other courts in child custody matters; promote cooperation with other courts; insure 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 interstate custody issues.

Idahoans Love Utahans

According to Time, some of these bonds are stronger than others. While Michiganders are about equally likely to pair off with someone from Wisconsin, Ohio or Indiana, people from Utah and Idaho share a deep, mutual connection.

If you were born in Utah, for example, you are 15 times more likely to marry an Idahoan than someone from elsewhere — a bond that may be strengthened by the fact that they have the largest concentrations of Mormons, according to a 2013 Gallup poll.

On the other hand, most connections between states are not mutual. A person from South Dakota has the most disproportionate chance of marrying someone from North Dakota.

However, the North Dakotans have a slightly higher penchant for marrying Minnesotans, as do those from Wisconsin.

Likewise, Mississippi is the soul state for those born in Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama.

The Time magazine article is available here.

 

International Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Tennis ace Victoria Azarenka will miss the US Open this year because of an international custody battle with ex-boyfriend Billy McKeague over their 8-month-old son. The case was filed in California, but there may be a custody order from Belarus, where Victoria, Leo and Billy are all residents.

The case became an international custody case, and an international tennis affair, after the father, McKeague, filed for paternity and custody in Los Angeles, where Azarenka has a residence. A California judge informed the Belarusian born tennis star that she is unable to leave the state of California with her infant son as the custody dispute rages on.

With the case set to wrap in October, Azarenka will have to skip the U.S. Open, which kicks off Aug. 28 in New York, as she refuses to leave her child in the hands of her former boyfriend because she doesn’t believe he’s capable of caring for the child.

Hague Convention and Custody

Why would a California judge have a problem with allowing the mother to travel with her son to New York, – with the possibility of slipping off to Belarus – during a custody battle with a man she believes is not capable of caring for the child?

The answer is simple: the judge is concerned about international child abduction, and that raises the issue of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. I’ve written about the subject of international child custody cases before.

The Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law to provide for the prompt return of a child internationally abducted by a parent from one-member country to another.

There are three essential elements to every Hague Convention case:

  • The child must be under the age of 16 years of age;
  • The wrongful removal must be a violation of the left behind parent’s “rights of custody;”
  • The left behind parent’s rights of custody “were actually being exercised or would have been exercised but for the removal.”

So, if a child under the age of sixteen has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Hague Convention, the child must be promptly returned to the child’s country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply.

The catch, of course, is that a child must be taken from a signatory country to another signatory country, and that is where understanding the Hague Convention comes in.

According to the Convention, Belarus’s accession to the Convention is effective only in the relationship between Belarus and those contracting states that have declared their acceptance of the accession. The United States has not recognized Belarusian participation in the Convention.

Game, set, match?

According to the New York Post, Azarenka’s attorney, told the California judge her client is more than willing to buy a plane ticket for McKeague and put him up in a hotel for the 2-week tournament.

“But for some reason the judge won’t defer to the Belarus court.”

When cases involve international custody, and there is a risk that a child could possibly be abducted to a foreign country without treaty agreements with the United States, judges are extremely careful about allowing travel – even to the U.S. Open.

The New York Post article is here.

 

International Custody Agreements

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

International custody agreements are made all of the time. Sometimes between parents. Sometimes between countries. And in a few instances, between countries and individual U.S. states. Mexico recently signed an agreement with the state of Utah to update the consulate’s role in assisting parental custody cases for children with Mexican citizenship.

The Utah – Mexico Agreement

As the Deseret News reports, Javier Chagoya, the consul of Mexico in Salt Lake, was joined for a signing ceremony by Ann Williamson, executive director of the Department of Human Services. Williamson lauded the agreement as an important step “to advance our shared commitment to children and families thriving safely in their homes, schools and communities.”

The problem the agreement tries to resolve in the United States is the problem with the separation of family members due to immigration issues. The agreement allows the Mexican consulate to assist Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services to get documentation from Mexico for a child’s application for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status in the United States.

The Special Immigrant Juveniles program is designed to assist foreign children in the U.S. “who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected,” according to information posted online by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

In that program, undocumented immigrant minors who fall under that category, and who are unable to be assigned to the custody of a parent, relative or qualifying guardian in their home country, can qualify for permanent residency in the United States.

International Custody Agreements

In addition to the Utah-Mexico agreement, there are various laws and statues which can protect you and your children – and possibly help you resolve an international custody battle – quickly and safely.

The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as The Hague Convention, for instance, is an international treaty to protect children from international abductions by requiring their prompt return to their habitual residence.

Utah, and most U.S. states, including Florida, have adopted the UCAPA. The UCAPA offers protections to parents who are concerned about the possibility of custody-related parental abduction.

In addition to the Utah-Mexico agreement, and international treaties, it is important to understand that various countries can have religious courts which can drive the outcome of your case.

Mexican American Children

The parental custody cases of immigrant children from Mexico are frequently complicated by the fact that their parents have been deported, face deportation or have otherwise relocated back to their home country for a variety of different reasons.

Sometimes it’s best for those children to be placed with other close relatives in Mexico, and other times the most positive outcome for them is to remain in the United States. The agreement helps to avoid the problem of child custody cases languishing in uncertainty.

Under the new agreement, the Department and the Consulate meet once per year to evaluate the cooperation between their staffs, and outlines the duty of case workers to notify the consulate of any child placed in state custody who has at least one parent living in Mexico.

The Deseret News article is here.

 

Starting an Interstate Custody Case

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Actor David Schwimmer, and his wife Zoe Buckman, announced they plan to take some time apart. David is American, Zoe is British, they relocated to California, and their daughter was born in New York. Where would they start an interstate custody case?

The Schwimmers

The Friends star, Schwimmer aged 50, is married to London-born artist, Buckman aged 31. They share one child together, a daughter named Cleo who is about 5.

The couple, who have been together for 10 years, said that during this time their family is still their main priority, and also stating their full attention will be on the happiness of their daughter.

In a statement released to Mirror Online on Wednesday, the Friends star confirmed that they will spend a period of time trying to “determine the future” of their relationship.

Interstate Custody

I’ve written about interstate custody cases before. Generally, when two parents reside in Florida, Florida custody laws will apply. However, when one of the parents and the child move across state lines, you have an interstate custody problem.

But, which law applies? Historically, family law is a matter of state rather than federal law. So, you would look to the state law of Florida, for example, in deciding an interstate case; not Federal law. As will be seen below, there are some conflicts with different state laws.

For various reasons, people travel more. As a result, family law has to take on an interstate, and international component. Accordingly, the conflicts between states can be amplified.

To help with confusion between between different laws in different American states, the Uniform Law Commission is tasked with drafting laws on various subjects that attempt to bring uniformity across American state lines.

With respect to family law, different American states had adopted different approaches to issues related to interstate custody, visitation, and time-sharing. The results were that different states had conflicting resolutions to the same problems.

To seek harmony in this area, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA), which Florida and almost all U.S. states passed into law.

The UCCJEA: Initial Actions

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 Florida for this example.

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

Florida has initial jurisdiction to hear the Schwimmer case, for example, if Florida is the Home State of their daughter Chloe on the date they start their case.

Alternatively, Florida can hear the case if Florida was the Home State of Chloe within 6-months before they filed their case, and Chloe is absent from Florida, but one of the parents still lives in Florida. This usually happens when a parent takes a child across state lines.

There is a good reason for the ‘home state’ approach under the UCCJEA, which has been adopted by most state laws. That is that Florida – and the other states – all have a strong public policy interest in protecting children in their states.

The Schwimmer’s divorce announcement went on to read:

“It is with great love, respect and friendship that we have decided to take some time apart while we determine the future of our relationship,” the said in a joint statement.

The U.K. Mirror article is here.

 

Interstate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, international marriages are rising. Child custody issues are complex under normal circumstances. If the parents move to different countries, those interstate custody problems can multiply.

The U.S. Census Bureau report on the increase in international marriages is not really a surprise given our increasingly mobile and global society. The uptick in cross-border relationships has also led to an increase in international child custody disputes.

International & Interstate Custody

I’ve written about international and interstate custody cases before. You may find yourself in this situation right now, or you fear that your ex partner or soon to be ex could take your children out of the country against your will.

There are various laws and statues you should know about which can protect you and your children, and possibly help you resolve an international custody battle quickly and safely.

Consult a family law attorney with experience resolving international child custody cases. He or she will be able to represent your interests across international borders and help to ensure fair and timely court proceedings.

In some cases, an experienced attorney can also help determine where your ex currently lives and proactively negotiate to secure the prompt, voluntary, and safe return of your children.

The Hague Convention

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 their 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 ex has taken your children out of the country against your will, the Hague Convention can help you get them back as it is best used as a “return mechanism” to take wrongfully abducted or retained children.

Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act

Most U.S. states, including Florida, have adopted the UCAPA. The UCAPA offers protections to parents who are concerned about the possibility of custody-related parental abduction. If you already have a child custody order in place, or you have a custody hearing coming up, you may be able to file a petition under the UCAPA to address your specific concerns.

There are several risk factors that you should be aware of to determine if there should be put in place prevention measures for abduction. Prevention measures can include things like: orders not to remove a child from the court’s jurisdiction and the ability to require a bond or other security as a deterrent to abduction.

Foreign Courts

In addition to the local and international treaties and laws, it is important to understand the cultural and/or religious beliefs that could impact your case. Countries can have religious courts, and customs, which can drive the outcome of your case.

For example, some international jurisdictions may have a preference for granting sole physical custody mothers. However, judges in other countries are required to always grant custody to fathers. Knowing about these issues up front can help you more effectively prepare for your case.

Florida law currently provides some preventative measures to deter domestic and international child abductions once a custody proceeding has begun, or there is a court order regarding custody or visitation.

The U.S. Census article is here.

 

Scarlett Johansson’s Divorce & Interstate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Scarlett Johansson filed for divorce in New York this week, and is asking for custody of their daughter. Her husband, Romain Dauriac, also wants custody, but lives in France. This creates an interstate custody issue.

For many reasons, a new job, a new love interest, family, it is common for parents to move after separating. If they have children, they want to bring them too. If they want to live out of state or the country, that makes it an interstate custody case.

The Interstate Custody Problem

According to US Weekly, Scarlett’s husband Romain plans to fight for custody of their daughter, which could set up an ugly court battle. He’s French and his attorney states his client plans to move back to France:

He would like to move to France with his daughter and Ms. Johansson does a lot of traveling, it will be an interesting process.

I’ve written about interstate custody issues, and recently spoke on the subject. So, what laws govern, and where could Romain file for divorce and custody?

Interstate Custody Laws

Several laws govern where to file your interstate custody case. In a recent New York case, an appellate court had to reconcile two laws governing interstate custody: the UCCJEA and Hague Convention.

In the New York case, a husband, wife and child moved from Canada to New York. After about five months in New York, the mother took the child back to Canada without the father’s consent and she promptly filed for custody there.

The father filed his own custody action in New York, applied for the return of the child under the Hague Convention, and instituted a Hague Convention case in Canada.

The Canadian court ruled that the child had been “habitually resident” in New York on the day that she was taken back to Canada, and ordered that the mother return the child to New York.

The mother brought the child back to New York but asked New York to dismiss the New York case because New York was not the “home state” of the child under the UCCJEA.

The “home state” is generally defined under the UCCJEA as “the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.

The mother claimed that the child had been in New York for only five months before being taken back to Canada.

The New York court determined that the Mother’s stay in Canada was only a “period of temporary absence”, and added it to the prior five months to constitute the required six-month period.

Additionally, the New York court noted that even if the six-month rule had not been satisfied, New York had initial custody jurisdiction because Canada declined the case.

The US Magazine article on the Scarlett Johansson divorce can be found here.

Madonna and Interstate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Madonna is locked in an interstate custody battle over her son, who is refusing to leave his father’s home in London, and return to her home in New York City. Sadly, these disputes happen more frequently as people become increasingly mobile.

Madonna’s interstate custody case is interesting on several levels, because it involves domestic (meaning American) family law and international family law issues.

The complex nature of the issues are why I have previously written about the education problems in Madonna’s interstate custody disputes.

Madonna and Guy Ritchie were divorced in 2008. They have a son together. A New York court judge ordered the son to return to Madonna in New York. The 15-year-old has been living with his father at his London home.

So, what happens if Guy ignores the New York court order? Madonna may be able to rely on various international and American statutes to help resolve their interstate custody dispute.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

American courts are governed by the UCCJEA, a state law every U.S. State has adopted except for Massachusetts. The UCCJEA generally provides the basis for determining which state’s court should resolve custody disputes, and also governs the enforcement of other states’ custody and parenting time orders.

The UCCJEA sets out the rules for which state can establish a new custody order, enforce your rights under an existing order, or modify the terms of another state’s child custody decree. The UCCJEA also has rules for determining when a state can take Emergency Jurisdiction over an interstate custody case.

The Hague Convention

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international treaty the U.S. turned into a U.S. federal law. The Hague Convention provides remedies for a “left-behind” parent, like Madonna.

By filing a Hague petition for return in another signatory country, a left behind parent may be able to obtain the return of a wrongfully removed child to the country of the child’s habitual residence.

The Hague Convention seeks to deter abducting parent by eliminating their primary motivation for doing so: to “deprive the abduction parent’s actions of any practical or juridical consequences.”

So, when a child under 16 who was habitually residing in one signatory country is wrongfully removed to another Hague Convention signing country, the Hague Convention provides that the other country must: “order the return of the child forthwith” and “shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody.”

The Huffington Post article is here.

International Child Abduction & The Hague

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in International Child Custody on Friday, October 7, 2016.

A New Yorker is raising awareness to a growing issue of International Child Abduction. It happens when a child is wrongfully taken and held in another country. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon.

According to Channel 10 news in New York, Corey McKeighan shares custody of his son with his mother who is from Russia. What was supposed to be a mother and son three week trip to her country, has McKeighan worried he will never get his son back.

McKeighan’s ex-wife agreed to return on September 16th. “The day before they were supposed to return, she had called me and said, ‘We’re not coming back and you’ll never see us again.'”

In a panic, McKeighan contacted the U.S. State Department, FBI, and congressional leaders. They are working with the foreign government to resolve this case that they say is international child abduction.

In Russia, it is difficult because Russia and the United States are not in a treaty relationship. However, Russia and the United States are signatories to the Hague Convention.

A U.S. State Department official says:

“We are aware of the reports regarding an international parental child abduction case. Due to privacy considerations, we decline to provide additional details.

I’ve written about the topic of custody before. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides remedies for a “left-behind” parent, like Mr. McKeighan, to obtain the wrongfully removed or retained child to the country of his habitual residence.

The Convention seeks to deter abducting parent by eliminating their primary motivation for doing so: to “deprive the abduction parent’s actions of any practical or juridical consequences.”

So, when a child under 16 who was habitually residing in one signatory country is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another signatory country, the Hague Convention provides that the other country: “order the return of the child forthwith” and “shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody.”

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where:

a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and

b) 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.

The news 10 article can be found here.