Ostevoll v. Ostevoll, 2000 WL 1611123
- Docket Number
- No. C-1-99-961
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2000-08-16
- Name of Court
- United States Court District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
- Opinion by
- Hogan, Timothy S.
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Counsel for Respondent
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Norway
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
November 12, 1999, petitioner/husband filed a Petition for Return of Children to Petitioner and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respondent/wife filed an answer and a motion to strike petition. Due to a series of circumstances, petitioner/husband was unable to appear in court several times. On May 23, 2000, the court deemed that petitioner/husband was unable to meet his burden of going forward with any type of evidence demonstrating why the children should be returned to Norway and because the Domestic Relations Court had decided to proceed with the pending domestic case, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner/husband’s motion for a continuance was also denied. An evidentiary hearing on the merits of Petitioner's Hague Petition was held on June 29, 2000.
- Summary of Facts
-
Petitioner/husband and respondent/wife were married in Ohio on June 16, 1984. Their three children (ages 13, 11 and 8) were born in New Jersey, where the family lived until 1995. In 1995, the family moved to Norway, ostensibly to manage the improvement of a hotel they owned. Respondent/wife testified she thought the move was temporary. In 1998, respondent/wife returned to the United States with the children. On arrival in the U.S., she filed a Petition for Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order pursuant to O.R.C. § 3113.31, alleging numerous incidents of physical and emotional abuse while in Norway. This order was granted ex parte, giving respondent/wife temporary custody of the children and ordering petitioner/husband to stay away.
On December 11, 1998, petitioner/husband filed a Petition for the Return of Children in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. After a reschedule and a continuance, he voluntarily dismissed his petition. On July 9, 2000, petitioner/husband initiated a civil action in the Sor-Gudbrandsdal District Court in Lillehammer, Norway, seeking temporary and permanent custody of the children. The court denied this request.
- Defenses Raised
-
Article 12 — where the proceedings have been commenced after one year from the date of wrongful removal, the Court may deny the petition if it is established that the children have “settled in [their] new environment.”
Articles 13a and 13b
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 11, 19
- Cases Considered
- Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1997); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996); Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1995); Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995); Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1995)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
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.
