Elkhaiat v Mawashi, 2025 WL 3144177 (United States District Court, D. Arizona, 2025).[Canada][Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs denied][clearly inappropriate where Respondent prevailed in showing that ameliorative measures were needed to ensure L.E.’s safety and large fee award could interfere with Respondent’s ability to care for L.E. ]
White v Stover, 2025 WL 3188739 (United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, 2025)[Mexico][Petition granted][Habitual residence][Defenses of Consent, Age & Maturity and Grave risk of harm not established]
Dumitrascu v Dumitrascu, 2025 WL 3191119, United States District Court, D. Colorado, 2025)[Romania] [Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction].
Llorente v El Benaye, 794 F.Supp.3d 1308
(United States District Court, S.D. Florida, 2025).
[Spain] [Petition denied] [Wrongful removal
established] [Former wife established defenses of grave
risk of harm from ex-husband if they were returned to Spain; and defense that
children were well-settled in their new environment in United States.
Edelstein v Nelson, 2025 WL 3489787 (United
States District Court, D. Nevada, 2025)
[R & R recommending that Nelson’s
request for attorneys’ fees be denied because Edelstein brought his petition in
bad faith.
NA v
NA, 2025 WL 3493561 (United States District Court, C.D. California, 2025)
[South
Korea] [Petitioner’s motion for remand of the action to the state court
denied].
Jaimes v Tavera, (United States District Court, S.D. Florida, 2025)
[Colombia] [Petition
granted] [Habitual residence][wrongful retention] [ Respondent did not
establish the consent exception, the Well-Settled Child
exception, the grave risk of harm defense, or the mature child defense ( in
that he had not reached the level of maturity such that his objections should
be considered)]
Abrego v Garfias, 2024 WL 6956468 (United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, 2024)[Mexico] [Petition granted] [Habitual residence][Respondent did not establish that child faces a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation; and did not prove the mature child exception; did not prove that child was sufficiently mature]
Jardim v Paez, 2025 WL 3701303 (United States District Court, S.D. Florida, 2025).[Venezuela] [Petition granted] [Respondent conceded Petitioner established a prima facie case] [Defenses of consent and/or acquiescence, children are well-settled in their new environment, and the “mature child exception” not established]
Siras v Diallo, 2025 WL 3719316 (United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025).[France] [Petition granted] [Habitual residence]
Fuentes-Lopez v Garcia, 2025 WL 3563287 (United States District Court, D. Nevada, 2025
[Mexico]Petition denied] [Habitual residence] [Wrongful removal][Court declined to exercise its discretion to return the minor child to Mexico.]
Colistro v Guerra, 2025 WL 3050006 (United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, 2025)[Mexico][Habitual residence][Grave risk of harm defense established based upon Petitioner’s drug abuse and associated behavior]
Colistro v Guerra, 2025 WL 3050003 (United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, 2025)[Mexico) [Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied]
Leon v Valente, 2025 WL 3035754 (United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, 2025)
Aubert v Poast, 2025 WL 3043513 (United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, 2025)[Norway] [Petition denied] [Motion for continuation of provisional remedies (visitation) pending appeal denied] [Filing notice of appeal divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.]
Jetel v Jetel, 2025 WL 3043527 (United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, 2025)[United Kingdom]
[ Petition denied] [Habitual residence] [Child not habitually residing in the UK at the time of removal]
Medrano v Garcia, 2025 WL 3041892 (United States District Court, M.D. Florida, 2025)[Petition dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction based on inability “to locate and serve” respondent in the Middle District of Florida]
Dhooge v Pronker, 2025 WL 3009344 (United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas,2025)[Netherlands][Petition granted] [Attorney’s fees of $ 30,375.00 and costsof $ 1,613.80 awarded under Lodestar method]
No comments:
Post a Comment