Currier v. Currier , 845 F. Supp. 916 (D.N.H. 1994)
- Docket Number
- Civ. No. 94-99-M
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 1994-03-16
- Name of Court
- United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
- Opinion by
- McAuliffe
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Hastings, Honey
- Counsel for Respondent
- Gulick, Ruth P
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Germany
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
On March 4, 1994, Petitioner/mother filed a Hague Petition seeking the return of her children from the United States to Germany.
- Summary of Facts
-
The Petitioner/mother and Respondent/father were married on May 3, 1991 in Germany. In December 1991, the couple had one child, and then shortly separated. The couple reconciled and in April 1993 the couple had their second child. However, in August 1993 the couple separated again. On September 23, 1993, a German family court awarded Petitioner/mother custody of her two children. On January 27, 1994, after an argument in which the Petitioner/mother throw an object at the Respondent/father, the parties met at the Respondent/father's attorney's office to entered into a private agreement granting the Respondent/father sole custody, which purported to moot the German court's previous custody decree. However, the Petitioner/mother's friend who accompanied her to the Respondent/father's attorney's office refused to sign as witness to the agreement. The following day the Petitioner/mother attempted to rescind her consent to this agreement, claiming that she signed the document under duress and threats by the Respondent/father. The Petitioner/mother obtained a German court order requiring the Respondent/father to return the children immediately. On the same day that the court order was issued, the Respondent/father left Germany for the United States with his children. On February10, 2003, the Respondent/father initiated legal proceeding in New Hampshire to enforce the marital agreement in Germany. Two weeks later the Respondent/father obtained a temporary restraining order against the Petitioner/mother alleging prior abuse to him in Germany. On March 3, 2003, the German court issued another order affirming the custody decree of September 23, 1993.
- Defenses Raised
-
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
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601(a)(2), 11601(a)(4), 11601(b)(2), 11601(b)(4), 11603(a), 11603(b), 11603(d), 11603(e)(1)(A), 11603(e)(2)(A), 11603(e)(2)(B), 11603(f)(2), 11605
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 1, 3, 7(e), 7(g), 12, 13(a), 13(b), 14, 15, 16, 19, 20
- Cases Considered
- Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993); In re Ponath, 829 F.Supp. 363 (D. Utah 1993); Levesque v. Levesque, 816 F.Supp. 662 (D. Kan. 1993); Meredith v. Meredith , 759 F.Supp. 1432 (D. Ariz. 1991); Slagenweit v. Slagenweit, 841 F.Supp. 264 (N.D. Iowa 1993); Tahan v. Duquette, 259 N.J.Super. 328 (1992)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Ordered
- Posted
- 2004-12-04
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.
