In Perla v Vasquez, 2016 WL 3878495
(D. Maryland, 2016) Petitioner Jose Omar Flores Perla (Father) filed a verified
petition against Respondent Jacqueline Ivonneth Perla Velasquez (Mother), his
former wife, alleging that the child was in Maryland, seeking the return of the
parties’ minor child, to El Salvador, from the United States where the Mother
allegedly wrongfully removed and retained him on or after April 27, 2014. The Mother
filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. The district
court granted the motion, transferring the case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The court found that the Mother
and the Child lived in Houston since moving to the United States, except for a
period of time from Spring 2015 until early January, 2016 that they spent in
Maryland for Respondent to care for her mother, Sandra Velasquez, who lived in
Maryland. The district court observed
that 22 U.S.C. § 9003(a) provides that a person seeking a child’s return “may
do so by commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief sought
in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to
exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time
the petition is filed.” The district court pointed out that section 9003(a)
clearly confers jurisdiction; whether § 9003(b) pertains to jurisdiction or
venue is less clear. It found after a hearing that the Child was in Texas on
January 11, 2016, when Petitioner filed suit; and the parties agreed that
“located” refers to where the Child was on January 11, 2016. Located” under
ICARA does not require a showing of residency but contemplates the place where
the abducted children are discovered. Regardless whether 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b)
pertains to jurisdiction or venue, the proper place for this proceeding to have
been filed was Texas, not Maryland. See 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b). The district court
exercised its jurisdiction to transfer a civil action to another district or
division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice.
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment