MK Family Law

On March 9, 2021, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed its trial court in Greenbank v. Vanzant .   Ms. Vanzant, the paternal grandmother of the child at issue, negotiated a Visitation Agreement with Ms. Greenbank, the child's mother and only living parent.  That Visitation Agreement was approved and entered as a court order.   The Visitation Agreement gave Ms. Vanzant visitation, including continued visitation if Ms. Greenbank moved to Canada with the child.  It also required Ms. Greenbank to give Ms. Vanzant at least 14 days notice before moving to Canada.  A few days later, Ms. Greenbank moved to BC, Canada without any notice,  and refused to comply with the Visitation Agreement.  She failed to appear at a Superior Court hearing about her non-compliance.  A warrant was issued for her arrest. In 2013, Ms. Vanzant sought to domesticate the Visitation Agreement/Order in BC, but her application was dismissed in 2014, after the Canadian co...

The Family Court of New York County addressed an interesting UCCJEA case on February 1, 2021 .   The minor child at issue was repatriated by the U.S. Department of State from Pakistan to New York on June 26, 2020 at the age of 16 because of concerns that she had been brutally beaten and coerced into an arranged marriage.  The child, Saida, is a U.S. citizen, and had lived in New York prior to being taken to Pakistan by her father on July 29, 2019.  The father left Saida in her mother's care in Pakistan.  Upon her return to New York, she was placed in the care of New York City Administration for Children's Services, and on September 29, 2020, an abuse petition was filed against her parents.  On November 2, 2020, the parents filed a motion to dismiss the abuse petition under the UCCJEA on the grounds that Pakistan was the child's home state.  The father requested that Saida be transferred to social services in Pakistan. Children's Services filed an affir...

In the unreported opinion of Koivu v. Koivu , the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether Minnesota should decline jurisdiction over the Koivu children's custody because it was an inconvenient forum as compared to Finland.  The couple lived in Minnesota for the better part of every year for the Husband's job as an NHL hockey player, and spent summers and holidays in Finland, where they also had a house.   Pursuant to the UCCJEA, the court may decline jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another State (or country) is a more appropriate forum.  The parties are allowed to provide information on 8 separate factors to persuade the court.  These factors include: (1) protection against domestic violence that has occurred, (2) the length of time the children resided outside of the state, (3) the distance between the two courts, (4) the relative financial circumstances between the par...

The  American Bar Association's International Law Section  will host a free webinar on February 10th at 11 a.m. ET.  During this hour-and-a-half webinar, join  Melissa Kucinski of MK Family Law  and  James Netto of the International Family Law Group  as they take attendees through the top highlights in international family law in 2020 in the United States and Europe.   Registration can be found by  clicking here . 

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston affirmed the trial court in Cortez v. Cortez on December 29, 2020, which found that Texas no longer had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its custody order. Mr. and Ms. Cortez are parents to two sons, both born in Texas, but who moved to Mexico a few months after their father filed for divorce and custody in Texas in 2012.  The 2013 custody order made the parents joint managing conservators and ordered Ms. Cortez to return with the children to Texas by August 1, 2014.  The custody order confirmed that the children's home state was Texas (Mr. Cortez commenced the child-custody proceedings two months prior to Ms. Cortez relocating the children to Mexico). Apparently, Ms. Cortez failed to return the children to Texas in August 2014.  In August 2015, Mr. Cortez filed a motion to modify the custodial arrangement in Texas, arguing Texas had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA.  Ms. Cortez sought to di...

Mr. Jack Stone is back in court, this time in a state court in Florida, seeking the return of his minor children from Japan .   Mr. Stone was previously before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a U.S. passport for his child, without the child's mother's consent, and seeking the return of his child using the Hague Abduction Convention.  The federal court denied Mr. Stone's request .  In the Florida state court, Mr. Stone again requests that his child be returned using the Hague Abduction Convention, and argues that his child custody case should not have been dismissed.   The Florida state court confirmed the same position as the U.S. District Court with regard to the Hague Abduction return petition - it must be filed in Japan, the location where his children now sit.  Pursuant to our U.S. implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, Mr. Stone must proceed in the location where the child is located ...

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in JS v. RSS , addressed an issue of an international relocation and a U.S. court's subject matter jurisdiction over a custody modification action.  The facts are long and twisted, but the salient ones are: the parents divorced in 2015.  The father sought custody of their child with a request to relocate him to Hungary in November 2015.  The mother agreed to the father's custody of the child and the child's relocation to Hungary, believing the father was entering a witness protection program. The father didn't move to Hungary, and the parties actually threw the terms of their custody agreement out the window.  The mother had significant access to the child.  Apparently, however, the father did relocate the child to Hungary in July 2016, unbeknownst to mother.  The mother did not see the child after July 2016, but the father still traveled to Pennsylvania, and remained sexually intimate with the mother, even though he had ...

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 case of Schwartz v. Hinnendael gives an interesting assessment of both the Monasky habitual residence standard and the grave risk of harm analysis.  I suggest reading the actual case to get the best view of how the court weighed all the facts and reached its conclusion.  I think the conclusion shows how fact-intensive these cases are, and how judge-specific certain results may be. The parties are both Americans, met in California, and were married in the United States.  The parties separated, and Ms. Hinnendael initiated a divorce proceeding in the United States.  Ms. Hinnendael then moved to Mexico for work.   Mr. Schwartz followed, and the two reconciled.  Ms. Hinnendael ended work with her company (where she sold time shares), but Mr. Schwartz started working for the same company.  The couple then had two children (one in 2018 and the other earlier this year (2020)), both in Mexico.   Ms. Hinnendael removed the children from Me...

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...

On July 6, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of California issued an opinion in the case of L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. MH .  At issue, in this case, is a minor child who had been in a shelter in Mexico, and was then transferred to his maternal grandmother in California.  The child's parents were both found unfit to care for the child, and the child had been living in deplorable conditions with the parents in Mexico.  The child is a U.S. national (the mother is American), and upon learning of the child's citizenship, the U.S. consulate was contacted, and arrangements were made to transfer the child as an unaccompanied minor to the United States.  The juvenile court in California issued a custody order on August 6, 2019 declaring the child a dependent of the court and ordering the child's placement with his maternal grandmother. The California court never contacted the Mexican court.  The Father timely appealed, arguing a lack of juri...

On July 7, 2020, in McDowell v. Buchman , the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed a trial court decision that refused registration of a Canadian custody order.  The parents have a long history of litigating, which started shortly after the minor child was born (DOB 4/22/2010).  In March 2011, the parents agreed to custody in a consent order, entered by an NC court.  In November 2012, the parents agreed to a modified consent order, which was also entered by an NC court. It was evident that the parents were “totally unable to cooperate with one another regarding custody issues of the minor child” and a few weeks before the Father was set to begin his access with the child under the modified Consent Order, the Mother absconded to Ontario, Canada with their minor child.  The Father initiated an ex parte emergency proceeding in North Carolina related to the child’s removal, and he received an ex parte custody order in early 2013.  An arrest warrant was als...

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...

A parent can obtain a child-custody order from a foreign country, in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA, and that child-custody order may then be registered in a U.S. state so that enforcement of it can be sought.   In the case of Hamdan v. Freitekh , (Case No. COA19-929) the Court of Appeals of North Carolina vacated its trial court’s registration and subsequent enforcement of a Shar'ia custody order, obtained from the Shar'ia Court of Jerusalem by a Father after the parties’ children were removed from Ramallah and unilaterally relocated to North Carolina.  The father failed to meet the stringent requirements in the UCCJEA of what paperwork must be filed in order to seek registration of the Shar'ia custody order, specifically, he did not provide a certified copy of the custody order.  Citing to N.C. Gen. Stat. 50A-305, which are the UCCJEA’s registration provisions, “the out-of-state child-custody determination may be registe...

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued yet another opinion in the hotly litigated case of Cook v. Arimitsu .  The facts are extremely complex, but surround a mother who took four children (2 sets of twins) to Japan in 2014, and did not return with them.  Afterwards, the parents engaged in a series of lawsuits in Japan and Minnesota, having appealed all results in both courts on numerous occasions.   In Japan, the father initiated a Hague return petition, which, after an appeal, was granted for all 4 children, but was then eventually overturned in 2018. The current court order from those Hague proceedings denies the father’s request to return the minor children to the United States. In Minnesota, the father initiated a child custody case, which after several appeals proceeded and ultimately gave the father sole custody.  For this appeal, the mother brought forth several discreet issues, but the most prominent issue was her request that the 2018 modified Ha...

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 ...