MK Family Law

In the case of Glory and Sunita Jayagaran , the Washington Court of Appeals refused to recognize an Indian divorce decree because the Husband did not properly serve his Wife, thereby denying her due process.  The couple lived approximately 18 years, having 3 children, in Washington State.  In March 2015, the couple returned to India for Husband's job.  Shortly thereafter, the Wife brought the children back to the United States, allegedly escaping a bad marriage.  The Husband initiated a divorce proceeding in India, and attempted service several times on the Wife's parents' house in India, with each attempt at service being rejected because she was not residing there ("return to sender" and her mother telling the person serving process that she had returned to the United States a year earlier).  Husband sought alternative service from the Indian court, and mailed the new "Form 11" to the Wife's friend's house and a Microsoft Campus Building (presu...

The International Child Abduction Remedies Act allows a parent who is seeking the return of his or her child under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention to request provisional remedies (see Sec. 9004).  In the case of Babcock v. Babcock , Mrs. Babcock did just that (in August 2020).  She asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order, preventing Mr. Babcock from removing their 11-year-old from Iowa pending a hearing on the merits.  She had filed a Hague Abduction return petition with the federal court.  She asked that the court grant this temporary restraining order without notice to Mr. Babcock, which is permitted under FRCP 65(b)(1) only when: (1) specific facts in her affidavit/verified complaint show that immediate and irreparable injury would result before Mr. Babcock would be heard in opposition to the TRO request, and (2) Mrs. Babcock's attorney certified any efforts to give notice to Mr. Babcock and why it should not be required.  The TRO can be g...