Ciotola v. Fiocca, 684 N.E.2d 763 (1997)
- Docket Number
- No. 96DR-06-2645 DRC
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 1997-03-12
- Name of Court
- State of Ohio, Court of Common Pleas
- Opinion by
- Brown, Susan
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Bracco, Robert A; Gottfried, Gary J
- Counsel for Respondent
- Dalena, Albert F; Briscoe, Colleen H
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Italy
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
On December 11, 1996, magistrate heard this matter upon the Petitioner/father's petition for return of child pursuant to Hague petition and ordered the child to return to Italy. On December 20, 1996, the Respondent/Mother appealed the magistrate's return order.
- Summary of Facts
-
The Respondent/mother, a U.S. citizen, and e Petitioner/father, a citizen of Italy, married in Italy on September 4, 1994. The couple lived in Italy and had one child in February 1995. A few weeks after the birth of their child, the Respondent/mother filed for certificate of residence in Italy. In July 1996, while visiting family and friends in the U.S., the Respondent/mother filed for legal separation from Petitioner/Father and served him in Italy. The Petitioner/father asked for visitation of the child, but the Respondent/mother refused. On September 23, 1996, the Petitioner/father filed the Hague Petition. The Respondent/mother testified that the Petitioner/father had an explosive temper and that she was a victim of domestic violence during the marriage. The domestic violence allegations were seriously contested at trial and the court took particular notice of the fact that the Respondent/mother neither reported any incidents of abuse to the local Italian authorities nor sought medical attention as a result of domestic violence.
- Defenses Raised
-
Hague Article 3a: The child's habitual residence is not the requesting 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 20: Return of the child would violate principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601(b)(4), 11603(b), 11603(c), 11604
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 6(f), 8, 12, 13(a), 13(b), 16, 20
- Cases Considered
- Brooke v. Willis, 907 F.Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Const. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978); Caro v. Sher, 296 N.J.Super. 549 (Ch. Div. 1996); Conroy v. Conroy , No. 93AP-27 WL 310421 (Franklin App. 1993); Eitel v. Eitel, No. 93APF12-1745 WL 479450 (Franklin App. 1994); Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 1995); Flynn v. Flynn, 15 Ohio App.3d 34 (1984); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996); In re Application of Ponath, 829 F.Supp. 363 (D. Utah 1993); Levewque v. Levewque, 816 F.Supp. 662 (D. Kan. 1993); Loos v. Manuel, 278 N.J.Super. 607 (Ch. Div. 1994); Rydder v. Rydder , 49 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1995); Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984); Tahan v. Duquette, 259 N.J.Super. 328 (App. Div. 1992); Tyszka v. Tyszka, 503 N.W.2d 726 (1993)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Ordered
- Posted
- 2004-11-21
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.
