The Hague Domestic Violence Project—March v. Levin (I), 136 F.Supp.2d 831

March v. Levin (I), 136 F.Supp.2d 831

Docket Number: 3:00 0736
Published: Yes
Decision Date: 2000-10-04
Name of Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division
Opinion by: Trauger, Aleta A
Counsel for Petitioner: Herbison, John E
Counsel for Respondent: Martin, James G
Counsel for Court
Requesting State: Mexico
Requested State: United States of America
Procedural History: Petitioner/father was convicted of killing his wife/mother of his children. Petitioner/father filed a petition in Probate Court for Davidson County, Tennessee to transfer his wife/mother of his childrens bank accounts to him. Respondent/grandparents filed an intervening petition and wrongful death claim. The judgment was in favor of Respondent/grandparents. Petitioner/father filed suit seeking return of child to Mexico and filed a motion for summary judgment. Respondent/grandparents have also moved to dismiss the case.
Summary of Facts: In 1990, Petitioner/father became increasingly physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive towards Wife/Mother, the mother of his children. A Tennessee jury trial resulted in judgment against Petitioner/father for intentionally physically assaulting Ms. March with such severe bodily injuries that she died, on August 15, 1996. On October 30, 1996, On June 21, 2000, Respondent/grandparents had taken the children from Mexico to Nashville, Tennessee by visitation order of a Chicago, Illinois court. In July 2000, Respondent/grandparents received a restraining order putting the children in their care during these proceedings. On August 3, 2000, Petitioner/father filed this claim. During multiple social worker and in camera interviews with the children, both children seemed relaxed and unconcerned. They both miss Mexico and their father, and both children enjoy school in Mexico and speak Spanish. Both children like Petitioner/fathers new wife, Carmen Rojas, and her three children, all of whom live in the Petitioner/fathers household. Respondent/grandparents contend that Petitioner/father is living in a bigamous relationship with Mrs. Rojas. They also allege that Petitioner/father is engaged in shady business practices, and has threatened them repeatedly with his gun collection.
Defenses Raised: Hague Article 3a: The childs habitual residence is not the requesting state Hague Article 13b: Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country Hague Article 20: Return of the child would violate principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Statutes Considered (ICARA): 11601, 11601(b), 11603(e), 11605, 11607(b)
Articles Considered (Hague Convention): 3, 11, 12, 13, 13(a), 13(b), 14, 19, 20
Cases Considered: Application of Walsh, 31 F.Supp.2d 200 1998; Blondin v. Dubois (Blondin II), 189 F.3d 240 1999; Blondin v. Dubois (Blondin III), 78 F.Supp.2d 283 2000; Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279 1998; Currier v. Currier, 845 F.Supp. 916 1994; Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 1996; Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 1995; Freier v. Freier, 969 F.Supp. 436 1996; Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 1993; Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 1996; In re Bates, ? ? ? 1989; In re Nicholson v. Nicholson, 1997 WL 446432 1997; In re Ponath, 829 F.Supp. 363 1993; In re Prevot, 59 F.3d 566 1995; Janakakis-Kostun v. Janakakis, 6 S.W.3d 843 1999; Kanth v. Kanth, 79 F.Supp.2d 1317 1999; Kovacevich v. Kent State Univ. , 224 F.3d 806 2000; Levensque v. Levensque, 816 F.Supp. 662 1993; March v. Levine, 1999 WL 140760 1999; Meyer v. Neb, 262 U.S. 390 1923; Mozes v. Mozes, 19 F.Supp.2d 1108 1998; Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374 1995; Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 1993; Panazatou v. Pantazatos, 1997 WL 614519 1997; Pesin v. Osorio Rodriguez, 77 F.Supp.2d 1277 1999; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 1925; Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 1998; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 1944; Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 33 F.Supp.2d 456 1999; Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 1995; Sarlund v. Anderson, 205 F.3d 973 2000; Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124 1999; Sheikh v. Cahill, 546 N.Y.S.2d 517 1989; Sinclair v. Sinclair, 121 F.3d 709 1997; Steffen F. v. Severina P., 966 F.Supp. 922 1997; Tahan v. Duquette, 613 A.2d 486 1992; Tobacchi v. Harrison, 2000 WL 190576 2000; Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 2000; Turner v. Frowein, 752 A.2d 955 2000; Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 2000
Judicial Outcome or Order: Return Ordered
Posted: 2006-09-15

Why this Project?

We are a team of individuals from various professional backgrounds who are dedicated to creating a comprehensive resource that will enable mothers, domestic violence advocates, attorneys and judges to better prepare themselves for Hague Convention cases in the United States' legal system.