MK Family Law

Mr. Adjei and the U.S. government filed cross motions for summary judgment in a recent case before the U.S. District Court for the EDVa.  On March 23, 2021, the court granted the U.S. government's motion for summary judgment, but denied Mr. Adjei's .   This case revolves around USCIS's denial of Mr. Adjei's 2014 application for naturalization.  The key argument used by the U.S. government to deny his application was that Mr. Adjei's wife was not legally divorced from her first Husband before she married Mr. Adjei, and therefore, his marriage, on which his application was based, is void.   Petitioner's wife married her first Husband in June 1996 in Ghana, lived there for three years before moving with her Husband to the United States, and, while residing in the United States, divorced that Husband according to Ghanaian law in April 2001.  This divorce involved the wife's father and the husband's uncle submitting declarations of the divorce, later confir...

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...

My law firm will be offering a free webinar on January 13th at noon ET, where I will provide a summary of the most important international family law updates of 2020.  You can learn more about it, and register by clicking here .

In the case of Glory and Sunita Jayagaran , the Washington Court of Appeals refused to recognize an Indian divorce decree because the Husband did not properly serve his Wife, thereby denying her due process.  The couple lived approximately 18 years, having 3 children, in Washington State.  In March 2015, the couple returned to India for Husband's job.  Shortly thereafter, the Wife brought the children back to the United States, allegedly escaping a bad marriage.  The Husband initiated a divorce proceeding in India, and attempted service several times on the Wife's parents' house in India, with each attempt at service being rejected because she was not residing there ("return to sender" and her mother telling the person serving process that she had returned to the United States a year earlier).  Husband sought alternative service from the Indian court, and mailed the new "Form 11" to the Wife's friend's house and a Microsoft Campus Building (presu...

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 ...

2020 was not for the faint of heart, with a global pandemic and a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the Hague Abduction Convention authored by the late Justice Ginsburg.  Here are the TOP TEN most clicked blog posts from MK Family Law's Family Law Across Borders  BLOG.   No. 10     Case Update: International Service of Process using the Hague Service Convention - Winston v. Walsh No. 9     Case Update: Hague Abduction Convention's application between Hong Kong and the United States after July 2020 Executive Order - Wan v. DeBolt No. 8     Case Update: Issuing a U.S. passport to a minor child, abduction prevention issues - LO v. NO No. 7      HCCH Update: COVID-19 Toolkit for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention No. 6    Case Update: Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree, Notice of Foreign Order, Court Deadlines - Derbez v. Derbez No. 5     Case Update: Simultaneous divorce proceedings, comity - Vica...

 Mr. Imad Jaffal sues the U.S. government for citizenship ( Jaffal v. Thompson ).  The underlying issue for whether Jaffal can be granted citizenship revolves around his parents' divorce, which occurred in Jordan.  Apparently, his father obtained a unilateral divorce from his mother in the shari'a court in Jordan.  The divorce was revocable and then turned into an irrevocable divorce after the requisite period of time passed.  Further, at the time of the divorce, both of Jaffal's parents were domiciliaries of the state of Ohio in the United States.  The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded it could not recognize the Jordanian divorce, which was fatal to Jaffal's citizenship claim.  The divorce was unilateral and there was no evidence that Jaffal's mother had any notice of it, therefore it was not entitled to recognition as a matter of comity as it violated public policy.  Furthermore, it was, in all reality, equal to a "mai...

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed a recent argument made numerous times before in virtually every U.S. state: if a couple is married overseas, particularly in a religious marriage ceremony, then the couple must also divorce overseas.  In the case of Melki v. Melki, the couple married in an Orthodox Christian ceremony in Lebanon.   The couple then began residing in Montgomery County, Maryland and ultimately the Wife filed for divorce years later in Maryland.  Dr. Melki, the Husband, fought the divorce, and among his numerous arguments was that Lebanon was the only appropriate jurisdiction that could divorce the couple ( i.e ., that Maryland has no subject matter jurisdiction).   As the Maryland COSA indicated,  "'[A]n essential element of the judicial power to grant a divorce, or jurisdiction,' is that one spouse be domiciled within the state at the time the complaint was filed. ...  A court must have jurisdiction of the res, or the ...

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 ...

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 ...

 On August 19, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, in Vicario v. Blanch , reversed the trial court's order staying a dissolution proceeding in lieu of a dissolution proceeding in Spain.   The parties have a complicated timeline of court filings in both jurisdictions.  The Husband first filed for divorce in Florida.  The parties began litigating, but then he voluntarily dismissed his Florida divorce action and filed a few days later in Spain.  Nearly simultaneous to when the Husband filed in Spain, the Wife filed her divorce action in Florida. Ultimately, the Husband served his Spanish divorce action on the Wife a few months before the Wife served her action on the Husband.  When the Husband dismissed his Florida suit, the case was closed.  With him then serving the Wife first with the newly filed divorce action, the Spanish suit took priority and was first-in-time.  Therefore, the trial court deferred to th...

In the case of Pawananun v. Pettit, the U.S. District Court addressed the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendant’s asserted defense of a grave risk of harm if the children were returned to Thailand. The parties were married and had two daughters.  The family lived in Thailand.  When the parents separated and divorced, they agreed to joint custody, sharing time with their daughters on a week-on, week-off schedule.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff Mother, began a relationship with a man named Roger Ian Hardy.   The Defendant Father alleges that Mr. Hardy touched his daughters inappropriately. His oldest daughter allegedly reported this behavior to her Father, and subsequently reported to a psychologist that Mr. Hardy inappropriately touched her younger sister.   Defendant Father petitioned a Thai Court to revoke Plaintiff Mother’s custodial rights/parental powers because the Mother supported Mr. Hardy, despite the alleged behavior.  The Thai Court refused to...

The Claflins spent significant time and energy litigating in two countries over their divorce.   Ms. Zamora Claflin filed for divorce in Florida.  Mr. Claflin sought to dismiss her divorce petition, alleging that Ms. Zamora could not have legally married Mr. Claflin because she was already married at the time they said their vows. Both Ms. Zamora's first marriage and her marriage to Mr. Claflin occurred in the Philippines.   Therefore, the Florida court sent the couple packing to resolve the issue of Ms. Zamora’s sequential marriages in the Philippines.   A court in San Mateo, Philippines declared Ms. Zamora’s first marriage invalid because she lacked the legal capacity to marry her first “husband” as she was too young.  Mr. Claflin, dissatisfied with this answer, took his grievance to a court in Pasig City, Philippines, where he argued that his marriage in the Philippines to Ms. Zamora was void ab initio because her first marriage was never declared invalid p...

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...

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania consolidated two appeals in the case of   Ileiwat v. Labadi (2020 PA Super 132 (2020) ) and, on June 3, 2020, rejected the Husband’s argument that the Pennsylvania court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the division of the parties’ property or award support to the Wife because neither party was domiciled in Pennsylvania for the requisite period of time prior to Wife’s initiation of the PA divorce suit. The parties, both dual-Jordanian-US nationals, had been living in Saudi Arabia for the Husband’s work since 2003. In 2014, the Husband took a 10-month project in Philadelphia.  The family purchased a condo and their children moved to the United States.  Approximately six months later, the family traveled to Saudi Arabia to renew their visas.  While the Husband and children returned to Philadelphia in January 2015, the Wife detoured to their native Jordan to visit family.  While she was in Jordan, the Husband calle...

Mr. Choupak filed a suit for conversion and unjust enrichment against his ex-Wife in their former state of residence, New York. On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed his claims.  ( Choupak v. Koroleva, 2020 NY Slip Op 31443(U) (NY Sup Ct 2020) ) Mr. Choupak and Ms. Koroleva moved from New York to London in 2010.  Shortly thereafter, due to certain unreported foreign bank accounts and wages from Ms. Koroleva, the parties learned they owed back taxes, so they entered into an arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service for payment.  Then, in 2012, Ms. Koroleva filed for divorce in the Family Court in London, with the parties entering into a Separation Agreement on February 22, 2013. The separation agreement was converted into a financial remedy order on March 4, 2015 by the Family Court.  Just over one year later, in May 2016, the IRS determined the couple had overpaid their back-taxes for 2010 and 2011, and issued a joint check ...

Two Italian nationals met, married in Italy, and then subsequently moved to the United States, where they made their marital home for 40 years, and had their children.  Both became US nationals. On a trip to Italy in 2015, the spouses had a dispute, and the Husband returned to the United States without his Wife.  In 2016, the parties filed a separation action in Italy based on consent, which was ultimately dismissed.  They then filed a non-consensual separation action in Italy.  A separation action in Italy is different from a divorce action.  It must precede a divorce action, but a divorce action does not need to follow (if neither party wants to request a divorce).  Both parties had Italian counsel, and the Wife ultimately fought the Italian separation action.  Despite her overtures, it continued.  In 2018, she filed a divorce action in New Jersey.  By now, both parties were back in New Jersey.  Upon a request by the Husband, the NJ c...

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...