Wojick v. Wojick, 959 F.Supp. 413

Docket Number
96-71392
Published
No
Decision Date
1997-02-11
Name of Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Opinion by
Cohn, Avern
Counsel for Petitioner
Fletcher, Cheryl A
Counsel for Respondent
Crowley, Candice
Counsel for Court
Requesting State
France
Requested State
United States of America
Procedural History

On February 11, 1997, Petitioner/father filed a Hague Convention petition seeking the return of his children to France from the United States.

Summary of Facts

Petitioner/father (French citizen) and Respondent/mother (American citizen) were married in France in 1985. The continued to live in France and had two children; the children possessed dual citizenships. In October, 1994, Respondent/mother took the children to visit her family in Michigan. Petitioner/father was aware of the trip and approved. The visit was supposed to last a couple of weeks, but Respondent/mother informed Petitioner/father in early November that she and the children would not be returning to France. Petitioner/father filed for divorce in France, and eight months after the children had been in the United States he filed for their return with the French Central Authority. Respondent/mother raised the defense that Petitioner/father was psychologically and physically abusive to her and the two children, and that too much time had elapsed prior to filing for the return of the children. The court found that the children were settled in the United States and the Petitioner/father’s filing was untimely.

Defenses Raised

Hague Article 3a: The child’s habitual residence is not the requesting state. Hague Article 12: Waiver and/or 1 year had elapsed since the child had been removed from the petitioning state. Hague Article 13a: Acquiescence or consent to the removal of the child by the requesting party, the requesting party was not exercising custodial rights at the time of the child’s removal 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, 11603(a), 11603(b), 11603(d), 11603(f)(3), 11603(e)(1)(A)
Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
3(a), 12, 13(a), 13(b), 20
Cases Considered
Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 1996; David S. v. Zamira, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 1991
Judicial Outcome or Order
Return Order Denied
Posted
2006-09-14

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.

Copyright © Hague Domestic Violence Project, UMN and UW Schools of Social Work