Action dismissed after child returned
to Mexico. Award of $12,010 in attorneys fees not clearly inappropriate where
respondent was retired as he was receiving a pension and the amount was
reasonable in light of the purpose of attorneys fees under the Convention is to deter violations of the
convention. Loadstar approach utilized. Attorneys rate of $300 per hour was
reasonable but rates of legal assistants were reduced from $175 and $125 to
$100 because they did not provide information as to the reasonable hourly rates
in Portland and did not provide information as to their experience as legal
assistants. Costs are generally awarded to the prevailing party in a civil
action unless the court directs otherwise. Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d). Costs are
limited to those defined in 28 USC '1920. Costs of $3000 awarded to
petitioner.
In our International Child Abduction Blog we report Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases decided by the US Supreme Court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Circuit Courts of Appeals, district courts and New York State Courts. We also provide information to help legal practitioners understand the basic issues, discover what questions to ask and learn where to look for more information when there is a child abduction that crosses country boarders.
Search This Blog
Monday, May 23, 2016
Sabogal v Paula Velarde 2016 WL 9906163 (WD Md., 2016) [Peru] [Petition Conditionally Granted]
Petition for return was granted conditionally
if the following pre-conditions had been
satisfied: 1. The October 2014 appeals court order of temporary custody in
favor of Correa has been vacated and the underlying temporary custody order in
favor of Velarde has been reinstated; 2. All pending criminal complaints,
investigations, or charges in Peru against Velarde, initiated by or with the
assistance of Correa, have been dismissed or closed; and 3. Correa agrees in
writing to the undertakings listed in the accompanying Order. Although Correa
had successfully arranged for the vacating of the temporary custody order in
his favor and the dismissal of one of the criminal matters against Velarde, he
had not arranged for the final dismissal of the Disobeying and Resisting
Authority charge. Because Correa had not satisfied the conditions for entry of
a final order to return the Children to Peru, his motion that he satisfied the
conditions was denied.
Ochoa v Suarez 2016 WL 9647646 (WD Mich, 2016) [Mexico] [Guardian ad litem]
Report and
recommendation of US Magistrate Judge that certain facts and law be considered
established and that the court order the
guardian ad litem to report on the issues, including allegations of
grave risk, age and degree of maturity, credibility, and potential undue
influence. There is precedent for such appointment in Hague Convention cases.
See, e.g., Lieberman v.
Tabachnik, 625 F.Supp.2d 1109, 1114B15 (D.Colo.2008); Garcia v. Pinelo, 2015 WL 4910654, at
*2B3 (N.D. Ill. Aug 16, 2015); Yaman v. Yaman, 730 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2013)
(noting that the district court appointed a guardian ad litem to issue a report
on the children's behalf); Bowen
v. Bowen, 2014 WL 2154905, at *3 (W.D.Pa. May 22, 2014)].
Neuman v Neuman, 2016 WL 2864969 (ED Michigan) [Mexico] [Petition granted] [Habitual Residence]
Almost four years in Mexico was
sufficient to render Mexico the children's country of habitual residence.
Indicators suggestive of acclimatization include social engagements,
participation in sports programs and other excursions, meaningful connections
with people and places,and most especially,academic activities, which are
“among ‘the most central...in a child's life.’ Even though the Mexico
assignment was a temporary one, Mexico was, both at the time of removal and for
some years prior, the exclusive site of the children's day-to-day lives and
experiences. It was in Mexico where the Neumanns maintained a home and a
majority of their belongings.While respondent stressed that there was no
settled intent to remain in Mexico permanently, this argument ignored that the
Sixth Circuit has specifically rejected the notion that the parents' subjective
intent should control. The Sixth Circuit
deplored this “subjective intent” approach, which “made seemingly easy cases
hard and reached results that are questionable at best,” Robert, 507 F.3d at
990-991.
Minette v Minette 2016 WL 491832 (SD Ohio, 2016) [Italy] [Fed & State Jud Rem] [Abstention]
Motion for abstention and stay
pursuant Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971). Motion granted.
Mendoza v Esquivel 2016 WL 1436289 (SD Ohio, 2016) [Mexico] [Petition for Return Granted]
Respondent failed to establish grave
risk of harm defense. Respondent presented no evidence that the Children are
aware of any incidents of abuse or Petitioner's prior alleged drug use. Respondent
did not allege that Petitioner ever abused (either physically or verbally) the
Children themselves or ever used drugs in their presence. The facts that
Respondent never filed a police report, received medical care, sought social
services, or took other action to document the alleged abuse weighs against a
finding that any abuse exceeded the Arelatively minor@ category set forth in Simcox.
Respondent failed to meet her burden in proving that Michoacán, Mexico was a
zone of war, famine, or disease. The discrete examples of violence to which
Respondent testified were insufficient to prove that the country of Mexico or
the state of Michoacán pose a grave risk of harm to the Children upon their
return. Respondent did not provide any evidence comparing the crime rates in Michoacán
to those in Columbus, Ohio, or explain why the Children faced a greater risk of
violence in Mexico than they face in the United States. The fact that the
United States has issued a travel warning to citizens traveling to Michoacán,
Mexico is insufficient to establish that Michoacán, Mexico is a war zone.
Mertens v Kleinsorge-Mertens 2016 WL 9943589 (D.NM, 2016 ) [Germany] [Petition for Return granted]
Court held it
was appropriated to examine Child in camera with law clerks and court reporter
present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)