The Hague Domestic Violence Project—Prevot v. Prevot (II), 59 F.3d 556 (6TH Cir.1996)

Prevot v. Prevot (II), 59 F.3d 556 (6TH Cir.1996)

Docket Number

94-5854, 94-6440

Published

Yes

Decision Date

1995-07-14

Name of Court

United States Cour of Appeals, 6th Circuit

Opinion by

Godbold, John C

Counsel for Petitioner

Fogelman, Caren

Counsel for Respondent

Camp, David W

Counsel for Court

Requesting State

France

Requested State

United States of America

Procedural History

The United States District Court granted a return order in favor of the Petitioner/father who had filed a Hague Convention petition to obtain the return of his children to France. The Respondent/mother filed this appeal claiming that the District Court erred in holding the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement irrelevant to Hague Convention petitions. (see Prevot v. Prevot (In re Prevot), 855 F.Supp. 915 (W.D.Tenn. 1994))

Summary of Facts

(see Prevot v. Prevot (In re Prevot), 855 F.Supp. 915 (W.D.Tenn. 1994))

Defenses Raised

Hague Article 13(b): Grave risk of harm to the child if returned to the petitioning country

Doctrine of fugitive disentitlement

Statutes Considered (ICARA)

11601(b)(4), 11603(e)(1)(A), 11603(e)(2)(A), 11607(b)

Articles Considered (Hague Convention)

3, 12, 13(b), 20

Cases Considered

Accord, Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839 (10th Cir.1979); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138 (1897); Ali v. Sims, 788 F.2d 954 (3rd Cir.1986); Arana v. U.S. Immigration & Nat. Serv., 673 F.2d 75 (3rd Cir.1982); Bailey v. U.S. Commanding Officer, 496 F.2d 324 (1st Cir.1974); Beckett v. Cuyler, 553 F.Supp. 104 (E.D.Pa. 1981); Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U.S. 692 (1887); Broadway v. City of Montgomery, 530 F.2d 657 (5th Cir.1976); Brinelee v. U.S., 483 F.2d 925 (8th Cir.1973); Cf. Eash v. Riggins Trucking,Inc., 757 F.2d 557 (3rd Cir.1985); Cf. Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1 (1973); Clark v. Dalsheim, 663 F.Supp. 1095 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Conforte v. Commissioner, 692 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1982); Dawkins v. Mitchell, 437 F.2d 646 (D.C.Cir 1970); Doyle v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 668 F.2d 1365 (D.C.Cir 1981); Doyle v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 494 F.Supp. 842 (D.C.D.C.1980); Eisler v. U.S, 338 U.S. 189 (1949); Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534 (1975); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir.1993); Goeke v. Branch, 514 U.S. 115 (1995); Gonzales v. Stover, 575 F.2d 827 (10th Cir.1978); ITT Community Development Corp. v. Barton, 569 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir.1978); Johnson v. Laird, 432 F.2d 77 (9th Cir.1970); Johnston v. Marsh, 227 F.2d 528 (3rd Cir.1995); Levesque v. Levesque, 816 F.Supp. 662 (D.Kan.1993); Lewis v. Delaware State Hosp., 409 F.Supp. 177 (D.Del.1980); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Lopez v. Malley, 552 F.2d 1 (10th Cir.1977); Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (1970); Ortega- Rodriguez v. U.S., 507 U.S. 234 (1993); Potter v. Davis, 519 F.Supp. 621 (E.D.Tenn.1981); Schuster v. U.S., 765 F.2d 1047 (11th Cir.1985); Seibert v. Johnston, 381 F.Supp. 277 (E.D.Okla.1974); Smith v. U.S., 94 U.S. 97 (1976); Stern v. U.S., 249 F.2d 720 (2nd Cir. 1957); Thompson v. State, 641 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); U.S. v. 40,877.59 in U.S. Currency, 32 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir.1994); U.S. v. 45,940 in U.S. Currency, 739 F.2d 792 (2nd Cir.1984); U.S v. 83,320 in U.S. Currency, 628 F.2d 573 (6th Cir.1982); U.S v. 129,374 in U.S. Currency, 769 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. 182,980 in U.S. Currency, 727 F.Supp. 1387 (D.Col.1990); U.S. v. Collins, 651 F.Supp. 1177 (S.D.Fla.1987); U.S. v. Eng., 951 F.2d 461 (2nd Cir.1991); United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am. v. Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080 (1st Cir.1992); U.S. v. Freelove, 816 F.2d 479 (9th Cir.1987); U.S. v. Glomb, 877 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32 (1817); U.S. v. Parcel Real Estate, 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511 (9th Cir.1995); U.S. v. Sacco, 571 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985); U.S. v. Timbers Preserve, 999 F.2d 452 (10th Cir.1993); U.S. v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Persico, 853 F.2d 134 (2d Cir. 1988); Van Blaricom v. Forscht, 490 F.2d 461 (5th Cir.1974)

Judicial Outcome or Order

Dismissed

Posted

2005-08-12

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.