MK Family Law

In a rare appellate opinion that addresses international child support, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas reversed its trial court and concluded that Arkansas did have jurisdiction to issue an initial child support order .   Natalie Tompkins and the parties' child resided in Germany, which the parties agreed was the child's "home state" (pursuant to the UCCJEA for purposes of custody jurisdiction).  Lawrence Tompkins was active duty military and his permanent residence was Arkansas.  The parties proceeded to a divorce hearing in Arkansas in November 2018.  It did not address custody of the parties' child.  During the hearing, Natalie's lawyer raised the issue of child support, and requested a child support order.  The trial court conflated the issue of child support with jurisdiction over the child's custody, and denied Natalie's request for a support order.  The Court of Appeals clarified that the UCCJEA dictates child-custody jurisdiction, but th...

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania consolidated two appeals in the case of   Ileiwat v. Labadi (2020 PA Super 132 (2020) ) and, on June 3, 2020, rejected the Husband’s argument that the Pennsylvania court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the division of the parties’ property or award support to the Wife because neither party was domiciled in Pennsylvania for the requisite period of time prior to Wife’s initiation of the PA divorce suit. The parties, both dual-Jordanian-US nationals, had been living in Saudi Arabia for the Husband’s work since 2003. In 2014, the Husband took a 10-month project in Philadelphia.  The family purchased a condo and their children moved to the United States.  Approximately six months later, the family traveled to Saudi Arabia to renew their visas.  While the Husband and children returned to Philadelphia in January 2015, the Wife detoured to their native Jordan to visit family.  While she was in Jordan, the Husband calle...

The Alobaid v. Khan (  No. 3D19-2128, 3rd District Court of Appeal State of Florida)  case addressed the father’s (Mr. Alobaid) argument that Florida lacked personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction to issue a domestic violence injunction that included a temporary custody arrangement.  On May 27, 2020, the court affirmed and upheld the trial court’s issuance of the temporary domestic violence injunction that also gave the father only supervised access to the parties’ minor child in Florida. This international couple had a long-distance marriage after they met in college in Florida and wed in 2011, with Mr. Alobaid living in his home of Kuwait and Ms. Khan residing in her home of Florida.  Their child was born in Florida in January 2018.  In November 2018, Ms. Khan filed a petition for domestic violence injunction against Mr. Alobaid.  In her petition, she alleged four specific incidents of physical violence by Mr. Alobaid towards her, with...

In Tompkins v. Tompkins , (2020 Ark. App. 122 (Ark. App. 2020), the Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division IV, made certain that the parties understood the distinction between custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and child support jurisdiction under UIFSA .   The minor child had been residing in Germany with her mother for some time prior to the filing of a divorce action in Arkansas, where the father was a bona fide resident.  Everyone acknowledged that the custody matters must be brought in Germany, which, at the time, was the minor child’s “home state” under the UCCJEA.  At the trial, however, the mother requested child support from the father, and the trial court denied her request, accepting the father’s lawyer’s references to the UCCJEA and “the Hague Convention” (presumably referencing the Hague Child Abduction Convention).  Neither the UCCJEA nor the Hague Abduction Convention have any relevance to child support.  The appellate court corrected the m...