MK Family Law

A recent New Jersey family court opinion, Nahar v. Salgia , mirrors the debate that occurs between international parents in custody litigation in the United States all the time.  The father accused the mother of being a risk of abducting their two children to India, and he sought a writ of ne exeat , which would prohibit her from traveling internationally with the 2 children (both age 11 at the time of the most recent iteration of their custody case).  Their history is long and storied, including litigation in NJ and India, and an alleged abduction of the children some six years ago, where father claimed the mother kept the children in India unilaterally, and mom claimed the children were sick, with at least one being hospitalized.  Shortly thereafter, the mother moved to India and left the children in the father's custody in NJ, before she returned and obtained U.S. citizenship.  There were a variety of custody orders.  It came to a head yet again in this litig...

The Hague Conference on Private International Law hosted a successful conference in December 2019 that focused on employing information technology in international service of process cases.  The conference was the motivation for a new publication, now available on the Hague Conference's website .  The publication includes articles from Ted Folkman about using email as a secure means of transmitting service, Katerina Ossenova  about using electronic platforms between Central Authorities, Brody Warren  about the relevance of service by postal channels in today's tech era, and Dr.  Gerardine Escolar  about future-proofing the Hague Service Convention, among many others.  Extra congratulations to Dr. Escolar, who not only headlines extremely important portfolios in the field of international family law for the HCCH, but whose dedication lead to this successful conference.  The next iteration will be held virtually on December 2nd . 

Tatiana Akhmedova filed an ex parte request of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas , using 28 USC 1782 to seek certain evidence in support of her English divorce action.  Tatiana alleges that the English courts have ordered certain money judgments and transfers of property in her divorce action against her Husband, Farkhad Akhmedova.  She also alleges that Farkhad has failed to abide by the orders and, in fact, has transferred certain assets that the English court awarded to her, including a yacht, the M/Y Luna. In her attempts to collect on the judgments, the English court ordered Farkhad's son Temur, to produce certain electronic information and cooperate in a forensic investigation.  Needless to say, at the end of the day, Tatiana claims no one cooperated, and Tatiana is now seeking discovery from Rackspace, the email host for Great Circle, the entity that provided email and IT hosting for the M/Y Luna.  She is also asking that the court per...

In February 2020, the Family Court in Kings County, New York addressed a custody jurisdiction issue between New York and Yemen in the case of Karimah K and Bassim A .  The parents were married in 2002 in a Muslim Religious ceremony in Yemen.  They remained in Yemen until 2005, at which time they moved to New York with their four daughters.  They frequently traveled back and forth between the two countries.  In Spring of 2016, the entire family traveled to Yemen.  The Mother was apparently expecting to return to New York, but the Father unilaterally decided to remain in Yemen.  The family lived together until November 2018 in Yemen, at which time the Mother vacated the home, without the children, and began living with her brother in Yemen.  In April 2019, she returned to New York, leaving the children in Yemen.  She then commenced custody proceedings on October 9, 2019 in NY.  There was some significant wrangling in the New York court initiall...

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Stone v. Stone , (2020 WL 491194) reaffirmed that a prevailing respondent in a Hague Abduction return proceeding is not entitled to an award of fees.  Specifically, ICARA section 9001, et. seq ., requires the respondent to pay necessary expenses if the petitioner prevails.  There is no provision under which a respondent may recover fees and costs from a petitioner.  This is bolstered by caselaw in other circuits.  Furthermore, the American Rule typically requires each party to bear the burden of his or her own legal expenses.