MK Family Law

A father, Gyorgy Matrai , sued his California family court judge in the U.S. District Court for the ND California for ordering a bond of $5 million before Mr. Matrai could see his son.  Mr. Matrai argues that the bond violates his, and his son's, substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  He asks, as relief, that his family court judge, Joni Hiramoto, be enjoined from imposing any such bond requirement on him in the state family court proceedings.  Judge Hiramoto files to dismiss, and the court ordered Mr. Matrai to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the action under the Younger doctrine.  Younger abstention is appropriate in civil cases “when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve a state's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important state interest, and (4) allow litigants to raise federal challenges." If those “thresho...

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 case of LO v. NO, No. CAAP-19-0000762 , gives me the opportunity to provide some reminders to everyone about child abduction prevention.   The actual underlying issue in this case was the Father’s appeal of the trial court’s post-decree order granting the Mother’s request for a U.S. passport for the parties’ minor child.  The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s order because the Father’s brief did not quote any of the family court’s findings of fact, nor did the Father append any findings of fact to the brief, which is required by the Hawai’i Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Because of this, the Father was bound by the findings of fact made by the trial court, and the family court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Father to cooperate in securing a passport for the minor child, something he argued he did not want to do out of concern the Mother would take the child to Vietnam. Here are some useful points to remember, spurred by the opinion:...