In Calixto v
Lesmes, 2017 WL 3877650 (M.D. Florida, 2017)
the Petitioner filed a verified petition in which he alleged that the
mother of his child, Hadylle Yusuf Lesmes, the Respondent, has wrongfully
retained their five-year old daughter in Manatee County, Florida since November
24, 2016. He claimed he gave his permission for Respondent to travel to Florida
with the child, but he only authorized Respondent to stay in Florida with the
child for a one-year period. That one-year period has now expired and
Petitioner demanded return of the child to Colombia. Petitioner does not know
the whereabouts of the Respondent or the child, but believed that they are
located in Manatee County, Florida. Petitioner has filed the Motion and
Petition on an ex parte basis. The district court observed that pursuant to
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may enter a preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order. To obtain a temporary restraining
order, the movant must demonstrate “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not
granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would
inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that the entry of the relief would serve the
public interest.” Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). To
obtain ex parte relief, a party must strictly comply with these requirements.
Levine v. Comcoa Ltd., 70 F.3d 1191, 1194 (11th Cir. 1995) (“An ex parte
temporary restraining order is an extreme remedy to be used only with the
utmost caution.”). Based on the record, the Court granted a Temporary
Restraining Order as follows: “(1) Respondent is hereby prohibited from
removing the child from the jurisdiction of this Court pending a hearing on the
merits of the Verified Petition, and no person acting in concert or
participating with Respondent shall take any action to remove the child from
the jurisdiction of this Court pending a determination on the merits of the
Verified Petition to Return the Child to Colombia.(2) Respondent shall
surrender to and the United States Marshal is directed to secure any and all
passports, visas, or other travel documents of the child, M.A.Y., and of the
Respondent. Respondent is prohibited from directly or indirectly securing
substitute travel documents, including a passport, for M.A.Y., or for
Respondent pending final adjudication of the Verified Petition.
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