Locicero v. Lurashi, 321 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D.P.R. 2004)
- Docket Number
- CIV.04-1276(HL)
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2004-06-09
- Name of Court
- States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
- Opinion by
- Laffitte, Hector M
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Roman, David W
- Counsel for Respondent
- Sanchez-Maceira, Raymond L
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Argentina
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
The Petitioner/mother filed an urgent petition against the Respondent/father under the Hague Convention for return of the couple's son. The U.S. Magistrate Judge found that the Respondent/father's act of taking the child was in violation of the Petitioner/mother's custodial rights. The Respondent/father objected to the Magistrate's report and recommendation.
- Summary of Facts
-
The Petitioner/mother and the Respondent/father were married in 1985 and had two children while living in Argentina. After filing for divorce, Petitioner/mother and Respondent/father agreed that the Petitioner/mother would retain custody of the children, and that the children would have frequent visits with Respondent/father. In 2002, Respondent/father moved to Puerto Rico. In December 2002, the children went to visit Respondent/father in Puerto Rico. Although the daughter was returned to the Petitioner/mother, the Respondent/father kept the son in Puerto Rico. On June 26, 2003, the Argentine Central Authority contacted NCMEC for the return of the child.
- Defenses Raised
-
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)
- 11601(a)(4), 11603(e)(2)(A), 11607(b)(3)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 12, 13(b), 20
- Cases Considered
- Antunez-Fernandez v. Connors-Fernandez, 259 F.Supp.2d 800 (N.D. Iowa 2003); Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2nd Cir. 2001); Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002; Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1992); England v. England , 234 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2000); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996); Lopez v. Chater, 8 F.Supp.2d 152 (D.P.R. 1998); March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001); Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch , 249 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2002); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Von Kennel Gaudin v. Remis, 282 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2002); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Ordered
- Posted
- 2004-11-15
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.
