MK Family Law

The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed a Husband's request for a writ of mandamus to compel his family court judge, Judge Hagerty, to dismiss his Wife's petition for a divorce because he had already secured a divorce in Jordan.   For purposes of this blog, I am going to skip over the merits of the writ of mandamus arguments and whether Husband was entitled to one (note: he was not).  I do want to discuss the basic tenets of these simultaneous (or proximate) divorce proceedings in the U.S. and overseas.   In the case of Iqtaifan v. Hagerty , the court elaborated on the following facts.  Mr. Iqtaifan met his Wife and married her in Jordan in 2005.  They then moved to Kentucky, where they resided for the entirety of their marriage, and where both of their children were born.  In July 2017, the parties traveled to Jordan to visit family, and it was apparently during this timeframe where Mr. Iqtaifan pronounced talaq and commenced Jordanian divorce proce...

On February 4, 2021, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in the unreported opinion of Chaudry v. Chaudry , affirmed that a mehr signed by the parties at the time of their marriage was not an enforceable contract.   The parties married in an Islamic marriage ceremony in 2004 in Virginia.  At the time, the parties signed a mehr .  After a tumultuous marriage, in 2018, the Wife filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce.  The Husband countered.  At the conclusion of the trial, the court, among other things, ordered the Husband to pay the Wife a marital award in excess of $279,000.  The Husband contends that the trial judge should have enforced the provisions in the mehr , which he says would have required him to pay to his Wife the sum of $10,000 in lieu of equitably dividing their marital property.   The Maryland courts addressed the issue of a mehr in 2020 in the Nouri case .  The Nouri court elaborated on the basic understanding of a me...

The Second Circuit addressed a 2nd appeal in the Saada v. Golan case on October 28, 2020, and affirmed Judge Donnelly's May 5, 2020 order to return the minor child to Italy.  As a reminder, this family has been litigating the father's Hague Abduction Convention return petition up and down the second circuit for a few years.  The original trial yielded a finding that the child would be subject to a grave risk of psychological harm if returned to Italy, but the court fashioned certain "undertakings" to nonetheless make the child's return possible.  The mother, Ms. Golan, appealed.  The Second Circuit acknowledged that any undertakings had to be enforceable, and it remanded the matter to Judge Donnelly for further review of what ameliorative measures can and should be put in place that would enable a safe return.  After 9 months, Judge Donnelly again ordered the child returned , and altered the ameliorative measures.  In those 9 months, additional things had ...

Thamilselvan v. Thamilselvan reads like a law school exam question.  The spouses, both Indian citizens had lived in Michigan with their daughter since 2000.  They owned a house.  In December 2017, the Wife and daughter left the marital home.  In February 2018, the Wife sought a divorce in Michigan, alleging abuse.  The Husband then petitioned the Indian Family Court for "restoration of his conjugal rights" in an attempt to reconcile.  He also asked for an injunction to prevent the Wife from continuing with her divorce action in Michigan.  Despite her fighting the injunction, it was granted.  The Husband then sought to amend his Answer in the Michigan divorce suit claiming he erroneously admitted the spouses were residents of Michigan.  The court rejected the amendment.  He also sought to dismiss the Michigan divorce suit, first using a comity argument in an attempt to recognize the Indian injunction, and then, when his first motion was ...

On May 11, 2020,  the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the return of a minor child to Ecuador in the case of Valles Rubio v. Veintimilla Castro , 813 Fed.Appx. 619 (2020).  The key issue on appeal revolved around the grave risk of harm to the minor child if returned to Ecuador, and more specifically the ameliorative measures available to ensure a safe repatriation of the minor child.  “In cases of serious abuse, before a court may deny repatriation on the ground that a grave risk of harm exists under Article 13(b), it must examine the full range of options that might make possible the safe return of a child to the home country.”  In this case, the court concluded there was a grave risk of harm, but further concluded that the Ecuadorian courts were capable and willing to protect the child.  The Mother appealed, arguing that the court did not sufficiently develop the record to support its conclusion that there are enforceable ameliorative measures in Ecuad...

On September 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona returned the parties' children to their habitual residence of Germany.  In the case of Radu v. Shon , the Respondent Mother (Shon) conceded that her removal of the children from Germany in June 2019 was wrongful.  She argued 2 exceptions to their return: consent/acquiescence and grave risk of harm.  The court focused predominantly on the grave risk of harm arguments. Shon argued that the Petitioner Father (Radu) was emotionally and psychologically abusive towards her and the children in Germany, causing them to fear Radu.  Shon alleged that Radu had an explosive temper, he yelled, degraded her, and used derogatory language. Further, she argued that Radu banged his hands on the table, threw objects, and once slapped her.  The Court noted that none of this caused the children to require medical attention and no one sought a protective order or filed a police report because of this behavior....

In the case of Trott v. Trott, the Eastern District of New York granted a father's petition to have his two daughters returned to Bermuda. The parties are parents to two daughters.  Their eldest child is not the father's biological daughter, but was raised as his daughter.  The youngest is his biological daughter.  The children had lived in Bermuda since they were young, but, moved to New York with their mother, without objection by their father (despite a Bermudian ne exeat order being in place) in 2013.  During a visit to Bermuda in 2018, the children alerted their father to what amounted to abuse and neglect by their mother. The father refused to return the girls to New York, and their mother pursued a Hague Abduction return petition in the Berumdian courts.  The trial court examined whether it would be a grave risk of harm to return the children, ultimately concluded it would not, and asked the parties to identify protective measures available in New York ...

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued an unreported opinion in the case of Olarinde v. Korede on August 20, 2020.  In the opinion, the court examined subject matter jurisdiction and whether Maryland was the "home state" of the parties' children so that Maryland could issue its initial child-custody determination.  The trial court concluded Maryland was the home state.  The COSA agreed.   The parents have 4 children - 2 born in Nigeria and 2 born in the United States.  The family took up residency in Maryland in 1999.  The couple are dual Nigerian-U.S. nationals.  In 2009 or 2010, the Father returned to Nigeria, traveling to Maryland for months at a time.  The parties' two eldest children left Maryland at various points in time, traveled to Nigeria and resided there, but ultimately returned to Maryland.  At this time, both are emancipated.   On August 2, 2016, the Father filed for divorce and custody in Maryland, but cla...

The Derbez v. Derbez divorce matter reminds lawyers that they must be familiar with their jurisdiction’s rules, procedures, and deadlines, and understand the complexity of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.  Mr. Derbez pursued a divorce from his wife in Mexico, where he resided, in 2015.  Mrs. Derbez fought this divorce proceeding, arguing a lack of jurisdiction, but she lost.  The divorce case apparently proceeded and the parties were divorced on April 19, 2016.  On August 2, 2016, Mrs. Derbez, who refused to recognize the Mexican divorce decree, filed a petition for divorce in Texas, where she resided. After some significant delays, the court finally held a merits-hearing on the divorce request on February 20, 2018.   At this hearing, Mrs. Derbez testified that Mr. Derbez agreed to a variety of financial payments to her.  When Mr. Derbez testified through an interpreter, he confirmed that he understood and agreed to what Mrs. Derbez sa...

Maryland's Court of Special Appeals (its intermediate appellate court) issued an opinion on April 7, 2020 that addressed the issue of the enforceability of Islamic marriage contracts in two separate, yet consolidated, cases. Nouri v. Dadgar  and Ghazirad v. Mojarrad set forth the premise that mahr ( a provision in an Islamic marriage contract for a husband to pay a wife a sum of money ) is not per se unenforceable.  In fact, if the contract can be interpreted based on neutral contract principles, and does not touch upon ecclesiastical law, the court can address the contract's enforceability.  The court, however, went a step farther and set a higher standard for these particular marriage contracts because they are entered into between two individuals in a confidential relationship.  On that basis, the enforceability of the contract should involve a more stringent standard such as that which would apply in the situation of a premarital agreement and look to whether ...

In an unpublished appellate opinion on March 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of California (2nd Appellate District, Division 2) affirmed a mother’s request to relocate her child to Japan.   In re Marriage of Inoue (B289261 c/w B290642, Cal. App. 2020), had the child’s father appealing the trial court’s decision to allow the child’s international relocation.  Both parents were born and raised in Japan, and met and married in the United States.  Their son was born in the United States.  In November 2016, the petitioner mother requested permission to relocate with the child to Tokyo, arguing that her residence in Japan was the only option for her to become self-supporting and that both parents’ families would be a support system for her and the child in Japan.  The respondent father argued against the relocation and raised concerns that any California custody order would not be enforceable in Japan, that joint custody is not a recognized custodial ...