MK Family Law

In the unpublished opinion of  FY v. JL , the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division denied a Mother's attempt to modify the parties' Chinese child support order.   The parties, parents to a minor child born in China in 2006, entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) in China, and divorced by consent in China in 2009.  Their agreement was made part of their "certificate of divorce" issued by the Chinese authorities, and the NJ court concluded this made it equivalent to a court order.  Their MSA settled issues related to property, finances, custody, and child support.  More specifically, the child was to remain in China with his mother, and she would also retain all of the parties' assets.  In return for retaining all assets, the father was not obligated to pay child support.  He remarried and moved to NJ with his new wife in 2017.  The child came and lived with his father in NJ in 2018 for almost a year, returned to China, and ...

The Hague Conference on Private International Law engages in a lot of post-Convention work that benefits countries interested in or party to its treaties.  Part of its post-Convention work involves meetings of Experts Groups.  One such Experts Group on International Transfers of Maintenance Funds met for its second meeting from February 8-11, 2021.  Its meeting included a discussion on good practices and how to improve the cross-border transfer of child support payments, such as making it more cost-effective, transparent, and efficient.  The Experts Group summarized the outcome of its meeting and published it here .  It is common that prior to meetings, the Hague Conference staff (its Permanent Bureau) produces a questionnaire for attendees.  This occurred prior to the February 2021 meeting. You can find that questionnaire and a summary of its responses here .   The United States reported its plan to create a centralized international payment serv...

In a rare appellate opinion that addresses international child support, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas reversed its trial court and concluded that Arkansas did have jurisdiction to issue an initial child support order .   Natalie Tompkins and the parties' child resided in Germany, which the parties agreed was the child's "home state" (pursuant to the UCCJEA for purposes of custody jurisdiction).  Lawrence Tompkins was active duty military and his permanent residence was Arkansas.  The parties proceeded to a divorce hearing in Arkansas in November 2018.  It did not address custody of the parties' child.  During the hearing, Natalie's lawyer raised the issue of child support, and requested a child support order.  The trial court conflated the issue of child support with jurisdiction over the child's custody, and denied Natalie's request for a support order.  The Court of Appeals clarified that the UCCJEA dictates child-custody jurisdiction, but th...

On December 1, 2020, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division II, affirmed a Superior Court order that had the effect of refusing to recognize a Polish child support order. David and Eva Hedges are parents to two children .  The Hedges divorced in Arizona, where they resolved their dissolution by settlement agreement.  They apparently re-married, and then divorced a second time, in 1998, in New York, where the NY court incorporated their Arizona settlement agreement into their NY divorce decree.  The divorce decree obligated David to pay child support until the children reached the age of majority, and he continued making those payments until each child reached the age of 21 respectively.  After his obligation ceased, Eva and the adult children moved to Poland.  A few years later, Eva requested child support from a court in Krakow, arguing that the children were disabled.  By now, the children were ages 28 and 29.  The court in Krakow ...

The Supreme Court of North Carolina addressed yet another case this year that dealt with the registration of a foreign family court order.  In the case of Gyger v. Clement , they dealt with a Swiss child support order.  The parents were never married, but had 2 children born in Geneva, Switzerland.  The mother established parentage and obtained a Swiss child support order.  She then brought it to North Carolina to register it and enforce it on the children's father.  More specifically, the Swiss Central Authority attempted to register its child support order through the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (presumably NC's Title IV-D agency).  Defendant father was served about a week after the order's filing in June 2016.  He then sought to vacate that child support order, claiming a lack of notice.  The Mother presented an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, about the case, and submitted it as evidence in the North Carol...

In Tompkins v. Tompkins , (2020 Ark. App. 122 (Ark. App. 2020), the Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division IV, made certain that the parties understood the distinction between custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and child support jurisdiction under UIFSA .   The minor child had been residing in Germany with her mother for some time prior to the filing of a divorce action in Arkansas, where the father was a bona fide resident.  Everyone acknowledged that the custody matters must be brought in Germany, which, at the time, was the minor child’s “home state” under the UCCJEA.  At the trial, however, the mother requested child support from the father, and the trial court denied her request, accepting the father’s lawyer’s references to the UCCJEA and “the Hague Convention” (presumably referencing the Hague Child Abduction Convention).  Neither the UCCJEA nor the Hague Abduction Convention have any relevance to child support.  The appellate court corrected the m...