In re D.D., 440 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2006)
- Docket Number
- 2:06-CV-117-FTM-29DNF
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2006-07-13
- Name of Court
- United States District Court
- Opinion by
- Steele, J.
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Counsel for Respondent
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- France
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
Petitioner/father, a citizen of France, filed a Hague petition in U.S. District Court for the return of his minor daughter to France.
- Summary of Facts
-
Petitioner/father, a citizen of France, arrived in the United States in 1998 and met respondent in January 1999. In June 1999 respondent discovered she was pregnant and petitioner and respondent married in August 1999. In January 2000, daughter D.D. was born. In June, 2000 petitioner, respondent, daughter D.D. and respondent’s son moved to France and lived with petitioner’s parents from June, 2000 to March 2001. In April 2001, petitioner and respondent obtained their own apartment. Varying accounts of infidelity, verbal and physical abuse took place during their cohabitation. Respondent claims that petitioner was physically abusive and petitioner denies claims of physical abuse. Petitioner moved out of the apartment on January 1, 2004 and back in with his parents leaving the respondent and the children at the apartment.
During the separation, respondent and petitioner had an informal custody arrangement with regard to both children. Respondent alleges that physical and verbal abuse continued during this time, but there are no formal police reports documenting said abuse.
Respondent left France on March 30, 2005 and arrived in the United States the next day with both children. In April 2005 petitioner filed an application with the French authorities for the return of his child pursuant to the Hague Convention. In June 2005, petitioner filed for divorce in France and respondent was served with the complaint. Petitioner obtained a court order temporarily awarding him custody of his child, D.D., and providing for visitation by respondent. In June or July 2005, respondent changed addresses and did notify petitioner of the change. In March 2006, petitioner tracked down respondent’s address and respondent was served with the Hague Convention petition.
- Defenses Raised
-
Since respondent proceeded pro se, court considered all exceptions.
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601, 11603(e)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- ,
- Cases Considered
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir.(Ohio) 1996); Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 965 (1st Cir.(Mass.) 2000); Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) 2001); England v. England, 234 F.3d 268 (5th Cir.(Tex.) 2000); Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374 (8th Cir.(Minn.) 1995); Ruiz v. Tenorio, 392 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.(Fla.) 2004); Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir.(Ga.) 2004); Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir.(Ga.) 1998); Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir.(Mass.) 2000); Miller v. Miller, 240 F.3d 392 (4th Cir.(N.C.) 2001); Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8th Cir.(Iowa) 1995); Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.(Cal.) 2001); Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D.Fla. 2002); Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413 (E.D.Mich. 1997); Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir.(Pa.) 1995); Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir.(Fla.) 2001); Pesin v. Osorio Rodriguez, 77 F.Supp.2d 1277 (S.D.Fla. 1999)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Ordered
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.
