A Child is Missing: The International Child Abduction Blog

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.

Saturday, June 14, 2025

District Court Cases in Districts other than New York Published in 2025 (Continued, see infra)

Gomez v Gonzalez, 2025 WL 1666243, W.D. Washington, 2025]

[Mexico] [Petition granted] [Attorney’s fees] [granted in part] [80% reduction proportionate to Respondent’s inability to pay]

Lee v Curcio, 2025 WL 1549318 (S.D. Florida, 2025)
[Brazil] [Habitual residence] [Petition denied]

Mendez v Brandon, 2025 WL 1532583 (W.D. Kentucky,2025)
[Japan] [State court already ruled on wrongful retention claim] [ Motion to dismiss granted] [ Younger and Colorado River abstention]

Gomez v. Ramirez, 2025 WL 1415905 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2025).

[Guatemala] [Petition denied] [habitual residence] [well-settled affirmative defense applies]

Edelstein V. Nelson, 2025 WL 1419962 (D. Nevada, 2025).
[Argentina] [Habitual residence] [Report & Recommendation to deny petition adopted]

Edelstein v Nelson, 2025 WL 1610564 (D. Nevada, 2025)[Argentina] [Habitual residence not established] [consent and acquiescence ][Recommendation that Petition be denied]

Muehlbauer V. Muehlbauer, 2025 WL 1392571, E.D. Missouri, 2025)[Switzerland][ Motion to Exclude expert Testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 401, and 403. Rule 702 denied.

Ciampa v Nichols, 2025 WL 1358488 (C.D. California, 2025)

[Italy] [Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs granted as requested, $144,768 in attorney’s fees and costs and $15,328 in personal expenses. Counsel, charged a rate of $650 per hour]

Paplaczyk v Paplaczyk,2025 WL 1296177 (S.D. Georgia, 2025)
[Germany] [Petition for Enforcement of German Order][sua sponte dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction where children not located in the United States]

Giguere v. Tardif, 2025 WL 1293364 ( D. Massachusetts, 2025)

[Canada][Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim denied]

Blasi v.Dunnagan, 2025 WL 1262062 (E.D. North Carolina, 2025).
[Thailand] [Motion for abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) denied]

Armand v Armand, 2025 WL 1249420 (E.D. Missouri, 2025)
[France] [Petition granted] [habitual residence] [ Grave risk of harm defense not established]

Kelly v Turner, 2025 WL 1202043 (D. Oregon, 2025)

[Mexico] [Petition denied] [Defense of Grave risk of physical or psychological harm based on spousal abuse established]

Gamboa v Williams, 2025 WL 1195567 ( S.D. Texas, 2025)

[Colombia][Petition granted] [Attorneys fees of $67,647.75 and costs and fees of $5,835.71 awarded with post-judgment interest]

Loncarevic v Loncarevic, 2025 WL 1167564 (S.D. Texas, 2025)
[Germany] Petition granted] [Attorneys fees of $58,497.14 awarded with post-judgment interest]

Alvarez v Marin, 2025 WL 1091940 (C.D. California (2025)
[Mexico] [Petition granted] [judgment on default]

Aubert v Poast, 2025 WL 1071672 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2025).
[Norway] Motion to dismiss denied] [Motion for video and in-person visitation during the pendency of the case granted]

Ballesteros v Ruiz, 2025 WL 1068855 ( N.D. Illinois, 2025)
[Canada][Motion to enforce oral settlement agreement granted]

Parra v Camargo, 2025 WL 992581, United States District Court, N.D. Texas (2025)
[Chile][Petition granted][Habitual residence][Grave risk of harm defense not established]

Gomez v Gonzalez, 2025 WL 835013 (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2025).[Mexico] [Petition granted] [Habitual residence][ Grave risk of harm defense not established]

Basset v. Dana, 2025 WL 742759 (United States District Court, S.D. Florida.,2025)

[Israel] [Petition granted] [ Habitual residence] [Respondent failed to establish consent or acquiescence, grave risk of harm, fundamental principles and mature child defenses]

Elkhaiat v Mawashi, 2025 WL 711949 (United States District Court, D. Arizona, 2025).[Canada][Habitual residence][Consent defense not established] [Grave risk defense not established][ ameliorative mitigation measures appropriate]

Yuriiovych v Hryhorivna, 2025 WL 660634, United States District Court, D. Montana, 2025)

[Ukraine][Attorneys Fees and Costs] [attorney fees of $82,235.00 and costs of $6,601.84 awarded]

No comments:

What this Blog is About

This blog is dedicated to all of those parents, relatives and friends of persons whose children are missing and have been abducted by a parent, to another country. The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, commonly referred to as the Hague Convention, established procedures to enable parents to obtain the prompt return, to their country of habitual residence, of children who have been unlawfully removed or retained in another country. In this blog we will focus on providing information with regard to what to do where there is a child abduction that crosses country boarders.

Bari Brandes Corbin and Evan B. Brandes are regular contributors to this blog. Bari Brandes Corbin, of the New York Bar, is co-author of Law and the Family New York, Second Edition, Revised, Volumes 5 & 6 (Thomson-Reuters). Evan B. Brandes is a member of the New York and Massachusetts Bars, and a Solicitor in New South Wales, Australia . The authors write the annual updates to Law and the Family New York, Second Edition Revised, and Law and the Family New York Forms.

Disclaimer Notice:

The information on this site pertains to New York law and is offered as a public service. It is not intended to give legal advice about a specific legal problem. Due to the importance of the individual facts of every case, the information on this site may not necessarily be applicable to any particular case. Changes in the law could at any time make parts of this web site obsolete. The information on this web site was not necessarily written by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal advice and this publication is not intended to give legal advice about a specific legal problem, nor is it a substitute for the advice of an attorney. This information is provided with the understanding that if legal advice is required the services of a competent attorney should be sought.

Our web site has many links to web sites of other organizations, including, but not limited to court systems, publishers of legal information, agencies, educational institutions, profit making companies and non-profit associations. While we offer these electronic links for your convenience in accessing New York Divorce and Family Law related information, please be aware that when you exit our web site, the privacy policy stated on our web site may not be the same as that on other web sites. In addition, we cannot attest to the accuracy of the information provided by linked sites. Linking to a web site does not constitute an endorsement by us of the information presented on the linked site or the products that may be sold on the linked site.

Potential clients of any law firm listed on this site are advised to read the Revised Form of Statement of Client’s Rights and Responsibilities pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1400.2, effective February 15, 2019, which New York matrimonial attorneys are required to provide to them at the initial consultation, as well as the Statement of Clients Rights and Responsibilities. (This blog is considered Attorney Advertising by New York Court rules).

A Child is Missing: The International Child Abduction Blog

Search This Blog

Saturday, June 14, 2025

District Court Cases in Districts other than New York Published in 2025 (Continued, see infra)

No comments:

Post a Comment