Friedrich v. Thompson ("Friedrich III"), No. 1:99-CV-772, 1999 WL 33951234 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 1999)
- Docket Number
- 1:99CV00772
- Published
- Yes
- Decision Date
- 1999-11-26
- Name of Court
- United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
- Opinion by
- Beaty, James A
- Counsel for Petitioner
- Feuchs-Marker, Marilyn
- Counsel for Respondent
- Hough, David Bruce
- Counsel for Court
- Requesting State
- Germany
- Requested State
- United States of America
- Procedural History
-
The Petitioner/father and the Respondent/mother litigated custody of their son on two prior occasions: Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993) ("Friedrich I"); Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996) ("Friedrich II"). Since 1996, the Petitioner/father has exercised custody of the child in Germany. During a visit to North Carolina, the Respondent/mother filed civil custody action in North Carolina, thereby obtaining temporary custody of the child and prohibiting the Petitioner/father from returning the child to Germany without the consent of the State District Court. The Petitioner/father filed a Motion for Return of Child under the Hague convention on September 8, 1999.
The Petitioner/father also requested the court stay the custody action filed by the Respondent/mother in the State District Court pending the determination of Petitioner's application for return of the child to his custody. The Court ordered that the decision of the State District Court be stayed and that the minor child be returned to the Petitioner/father's custody in Germany. This case concerns the parties' assertions regarding the Petitioner/father's request for attorney's fees and necessary expenses.
- Summary of Facts
-
See Friedrich I and Friedrich II.
- Defenses Raised
-
See Friedrich I and Friedrich II.
- Statutes Considered (ICARA)
- 11601, 11603, 11607(b)(3)
- Articles Considered (Hague Convention)
- 6, 16
- Cases Considered
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984); City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992); Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Harris, 149 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 1998); Daly v. Hill, 790 F.2d 1071 (4th Cir. 1986); Distler v. Distler, 26 F.Supp.2d 723 (D.N.J. 1998); Freier v. Freier , 985 F.Supp. 710 (E.D. Mich. 1997); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974); Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1994)
- 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.
