Antunez-Fernandes v. Connors-Fernandes, 259 F. Supp. 2d 800 (N.D. Iowa 2003)
- Docket Number
- No. 02-1028 LRR
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2003-04-24
- Name of Court
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Eastern Division
- Opinion by
- Reade, Linda R
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Hughes, Deborah J
- Counsel for Respondent
- Oleson, Brent C
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- France
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
On March 25, 2002, the French Ministry sent the Petitioner/father's Hague Convention application to NCMEC, the petition was then referred to counsel in Iowa and filed in the district court on December 19, 2002, seeking the return of his children from the United States to France. The court held an evidentiary hearing on March 27, 2003.
- Summary of Facts
-
Summary of Facts: The Petitioner/father and the Respondent/mother were married on June 18, 2004 in France. They had two children and lived in France from the time of their marriage until November 8, 2000. The Respondent/mother filed for a divorce in France. On November 7, 2000, the Respondent/mother received a note from her physician that she was suffering from depression. On November 8, 2000, the Respondent/mother appeared ex parte before the French court to request permission to move out of the marital home with her children. Three days later, the Respondent/mother left France with the children to go to Dubuque, Iowa. On November 13, 2000, the Respondent/mother obtained an ex parte domestic abuse no contact order from the Iowa District Court in Dubuque, Iowa. The Respondent/mother initially alleged that the Petitioner/father had threatened to take the children away and had pulled a knife on her, but this last allegation was not made in her Petition for Relief from Domestic Abuse. In the end, the Respondent/mother did not allege that the Petitioner/father had psychologically or physically abused the children. On November 22, 2000, the Respondent/mother emailed the Petitioner/father and stated that she would return with the children for the divorce hearing in France scheduled for January 19, 2001. The Respondent/mother never returned to France for the divorce hearing, as a result, her case was dismissed.
The Petitioner/father made numerous calls and attempts to determine the children's whereabouts. He came to the United States in February, 2001 and was permitted limited contact with the children. He returned to the U.S. in June of that year and was served with a no contact order and was not permitted to see the children without one or more of the Respondent/mother's family members present at all times. However, he was allowed periodic telephone calls with the children. The Petitioner/father came to the U.S. again in June of 2001, and was served with another no contact order. The children remained in the United States since November 11, 2000. There was testimony that the children were well-adjusted to their routine and environment and there were no physical or emotional problems confronting the children.
- Defenses Raised
-
Hague Article 12: Child had become "well-settled" in the new environment
Hague Article 12: Waiver and/or 1 year had elapsed since the child had been removed from the petitioning state
Hague Article 13a: Acquiescence or consent to the removal of the child by the requesting party
Hague Article 13b: Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country
Hague Article 13b: The court should find that the child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take into account the child's views, and the child objects to return to the requesting state
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 3, 4, 5, 12, 13(a), 13(b), 14, 19
- Cases Considered
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2nd Cir. 2001); Bocquet v. Ouzid, 225 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2002); Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2000) ; Diorinou v. Mezitis, 237 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2001); England v. England, 234 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2000); Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 1995); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996); Horlander v. Horlander, No. 91-18.177 Bull. Civ. I (1992); In re Bates, No. CA 122.89 High Court of Justice, Family Div'n Ct. Royal Court of Justice (UK 1989); In Re H and Others, 2 W.L.R. 563 (1997); Koc v. Koc, 181 F.Supp.2d 136 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1988); Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2001); Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 1995); Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995); Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1999); Shealy v. Shealy, 295 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2002); Silverman v. Silverman , 267 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2001); Silverman v. Silverman , 312 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2002); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992); Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F.Supp. 78 (D. Mass. 1994); Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Ordered
- Posted
- 2005-01-11
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.
