In Hopkins v Webb, 2016 WL 2770553 (W.D. Wisconsin) Petitioner seeking the return of C.H., the minor child of Mr.
Hopkins and respondent, Jackie Lynn Webb initiated this case by filing an ex
parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order. After the court
determined that an ex parte TRO was warranted. Ms. Webb and C.H. could not be
located but counsel appeared for Ms. Webb. Counsel informed the court that Ms.
Webb passed away very recently and that C.H. was the subject of a temporary custody order of the
Sumner County, Tennessee, court. Pursuant to the order, C.H. was in the
temporary legal custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services
(TDCS). Counsel for Ms. Webb indicated that a member of Ms. Webb’s family
intended to seek custody of C.H. and intended to resist Mr. Hopkins’ attempts
to return C.H. to Northern Ireland. To
preserve Mr. Hopkin’s right to a decision on the merits of his petition, and to
ensure that C.H. was available for
return to his father’s custody, should that be the ultimate result of these
proceedings, the court issued a TRO to
C.H.’s current custodian, TDCS, and transferred the case to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where C.H. was currently
located. See 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b) (“Any person seeking to initiate judicial
proceedings under the [Hague] Convention for the return of a child ... may do
so by commencing a civil action ... in the place where the child is located at
the time the petition is filed.”).
No comments:
Post a Comment