Koc v. Koc, 181 F. Supp. 2d 136 (E.D.N.Y 2001)
- Docket Number
- 00 CV 5160
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2001-01-18
- Name of Court
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- Opinion by
- Pollak, Cheryl L
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Morgenstern, Saul P; Ballantine, Dewy ; Josephson, Edith
- Counsel for Respondent
- Broydes, Mark
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Poland
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
Petitioner/father filed suit seeking return of child to Poland.
- Summary of Facts
-
Respondent/mother left Poland to visit her parents in the United States. She did not return to Poland as scheduled and informed Petitioner/father that she intended to remain in the United States with their child. Petitioner/father demanded that she return to Poland with the child. Neither Respondent/mother nor daughter had resident alien status and were in the United States Illegally. Respondent/mother alleged that Petitioner/father abused her and that the childs return to Poland would place her at grave risk of harm. The court found that the allegations of abuse were uncorroborated and without merit. They also found that the child was wrongfully removed because: both parties had custodial rights to their daughter and Petitioner/father exercised these rights up to the point that the daughter was removed; Petitioner/father did not acquiesce to daughters removal and repeatedly demanded her return to Poland; and child was not well settled in the United States as evidenced by lack of social contact and Respondents/mother unstable financial situation.
- Defenses Raised
-
Hague Article 12: Child had become well-settled in the new environment
Hague Article 13(a): The requesting party was not exercising custodial rights at the time of the childs removal
Hague Article 13(b): Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601(a), 11603(a), 11603(e)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 3, 12, 13(a), 13(b), 20
- Cases Considered
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2nd Cir. 2000); Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999); Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000); David S. v. Zamira S , 151 Misc.2d 630 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1991); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993); In re Robinson v. N/A, 983 F.Supp. 1339 (D. Col. 1997); Lops v. Lops,, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998); Norden-Powers v. Beveridge , 125 F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); Pesin v. Osorio Rodriguez , 77 F.Supp. 1277 (S.D. Fla. 1999); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000); Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000); Wojcik v. Wojcik , 959 F.Supp. 413 (E.D. Mich. 1997); Zuker v. Andrews, 2 F.Supp.2d 134 (D.Mass. 1998)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Ordered
- Posted
- 2006-09-21
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.
