MK Family Law

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 case of  Pawananun v. Pettit , the U.S. District Court returned the parties' two daughters to their habitual residence of Thailand.  The parties stipulated that the father, Mr. Pettit, had wrongfully removed the parties' children from Thailand.  Mr. Pettit focused on arguing that it would present a grave risk of harm to the children to return them to Thailand because of certain claims of abuse of his daughters that he believed were inflicted by a family friend that may have been having an affair with his ex-Wife. The family friend, Mr. Hardy, was a doctor who had moved to Thailand from the United States.  Mr. Hardy had been investigated in the U.S. after allegedly sexually assaulting patients and staff.  He surrendered his U.S. medical license.  Upon learning of this, Mr. Pettit began surreptitiously investigating Mr. Hardy and his involvement with his daughters by taking the children to a series of doctors without advising their mother of the s...

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 Interest of Doe I,  467 P.3d 442 (2020),  two minor children were removed from their mother's care in Idaho after they were found homeless and living in a car.  Their biological father's whereabouts were unknown, but presumably he had been deported to Mexico several years earlier.  About one year after the proceedings were started, the father's paternity was established, after he was located in Mexico.  The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare began a placement plan to send the children to live with their father in Mexico.  The children's Guardian Ad Litem, however, requested more information about the father's living situation before agreeing to the placement.  The Department was having difficulty obtaining a home study of the father's living situation because he was in Mexico.  The court ordered the children's prompt placement without a home study, but, then, in February 2020, additional evidence was discovered about the father's crimin...