Recommended attorneys fee award of $3,839.88 was
reduced by $670.00, for a fee award of $3,169.88 and a total award of fees,
costs, and expenses of $4,547.84.
Monday, May 23, 2016
In Re K.J 2016 WL 874360 (SD Fla, 2016) [Sweden] [Petition granted] [now settled defense not established]
Although
more than one year passed between the date of wrongful removal and the date of
filing the Court found that K.J. was not
now settled in his new environment. Age and maturity defense not established
where 11 year old child, was found sufficiently mature that his views should be
taken into account and did not object to returning to Sweden. At most, K.J. was
ambivalent as to whether to remain in the United States or return to Sweden.
Such ambivalence in K.J.'s wishes with respect to returning to Sweden was
insufficient to meet Respondent's burden of proof as to this exception.
Guevara v Soto, 2016 WL 1558384 (E.D. Tenn, 2016) [Mexico] [Petition granted]
Defendant did not prove that
plaintiff consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the child's removal or retention. Although the
child was removed from Mexico to the United States more than a year before the
petition was filed the child was not now settled in his new environment; nor
did she establish the Agrave risk exception. While defendant alleged
that she was fearful to return to Mexico, she did not prove that there was a
grave risk of harm that returning the child to Mexico would either place him in
danger prior to resolution of a custody hearing or subject him to serious abuse
or neglect from plaintiff. She did not allege that plaintiff abused the child
or that the Mexican courts would be unwilling or incapable of protecting the
child during the pendency of a custody hearing, or that she would be denied due
process of law for a custody hearing in Mexico.
Godoy v De Batres 2016 WL 397471 (D.Colo, 2016 ) [El Salvador] [Fees & Expenses]
Petitioner awarded costs as necessary expenses for filing and service fees ($564.50); translation costs ($523.30); and interpreter services ($850.00).
De La Riva v Soto, 2016 WL 1696539 (M.D. Florida, 2016) [Mexico][Petition granted] [Patria Potesas] [Equitable Discretion under Article 18]
Wrongful retention of child in Florida at end of
agreed upon visitation. Petitioner had rights of custody under the doctrine of
Patria Potestas. Although the now settled child exception was available the
court preferred to return the child in view of his unsettled immigration
status. Additionally, the court would exercise its Aequitable discretion under Article 18
to order the childs return.
Cillikova v Cillik 2016 WL 541134 (D.NJ, 2016) [Slovak Republic] [Fees & Expenses]
Petitioners motion granted $3148.96 in travel, lodging, and translation
expenses. Petitioners motion seeking to recover $158,955.75 in attorneys fees
and costs denied without prejudice, subject to the receipt of additional
submissions. The vast majority of
$13,734.25 in costs asserted by Petitioners counsel comprised claimed
WestLaw charges. Petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence of their
necessity or reasonableness and the claimed $13,329.15 appeared facially
excessive, particularly for practitioners with experience in this discrete
field of law. Petitioner given time to submit evidence going to the necessity
and reasonableness of the hours worked by her counsel, including submission of
an unredacted itemized billing record for in camera review, her counsels
claimed hourly rates, and the asserted research expenses. Respondent given an
opportunity to raise specific challenges to this evidence (other than the
portions of the attorney invoices that the Court reviews in camera). The Court
granted additional time for the Respondent to submit evidence regarding his
financial circumstances and for either party to report any disposition as to former
joint property or other assets.
Albani v Albani 2016 WL 158583 (SD Cal, 2016) [Mexico] [Petition denied]
Child’s Habitual residence was United
States. Well settled defense also established
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)