Gitter v. Gitter, No. 03-CV-3374 (DGT), 2003 WL 22775375 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2003)
- Docket Number
- 03-CV-3374 (DGT)
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 2003-11-20
- Name of Court
- United States District Court, E.D. New York
- Opinion by
- Trager
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Morgenstern, Saul P
- Counsel for Respondent
- Gamble, Paul M
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Israel
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
The Petitioner/father filed suit seeking return of child to Israel. An evidentiary hearing was held on October 2, 2003.
- Summary of Facts
-
The parties were married in New York in 1999, and their son was born in the U.S. in December of 2000. In March 2001, the Petitioner/father convinced the Respondent/mother to move to Israel from the U.S. with their son. They did not dispose of their belongings in the U.S. before leaving; instead they put their belongings into storage in New York. They agreed that if the Respondent/mother was unhappy in Israel, they would move back. After eleven months, the Respondent/mother was unhappy and returned to U.S. for a visit. While back in the U.S., the Respondent/mother told the Petitioner/father that she intended to remain in the U.S. The Petitioner/father convinced the Respondent/mother to return to Israel for a second trial period of six months. This second move to Israel was on a conditional basis--namely, that the Respondent/mother would be satisfied with the new arrangements. The Respondent/mother returned to Israel with son for four or five months, and she was unhappy. The Petitioner/father and the Respondent/mother had a fight over son's passport, and about whether or not son would return with the Respondent/mother to the U.S. Following Respondent/mother's return to the U.S., the Petitioner/father made a physical threat to the Respondent/mother when he realized that the Respondent/mother was not planning on returning to Israel. The threat caused the Respondent/mother to visit the police. The Petitioner/father asserted that he did not know the Respondent/mother was planning to remain in the U.S. prior to her visit to the police, but the court found his testimony not credible.
- 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
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11603(e)(1)(A)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 12
- Cases Considered
- Armiliato v. Zaric-Armiliato, 169 F.Supp.2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 1995); Harkness v. Harkness, 227 Mich.App. 581 (Mich. App. 1998); In re Koc, 181 F.Supp.2d 136 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); In re Morris, 55 F.Supp. 1156 (D. Colo. 1999); McKenzie v. McKenzie , 168 F.Supp.2d 47 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001); Zuker v. Andrews, 2 F.Supp.2d 134 (D. Mass. 1998)
- Judicial Outcome or Order
- Return Order Denied
- 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.
