MK Family Law

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 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...

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 ...

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...

In a March 2, 2020 opinion by the Supreme Court in New York County in Federbush v. Shah (2020 NY Slip Op 50300(U)), the court addressed a multi-jurisdictional divorce suit between a couple that had married in Thailand 8 years earlier.  The couple had signed a prenuptial agreement on the same date as their wedding, which divided property by title, and Wife gave birth to a child about 2 months later.  The family lived in Thailand until mid-2017 when they then relocated to NY.  While Husband is American, the Wife’s nationality presented problems for her remaining in the United States for more than a set number of days at a time.  Approximately 1 year after their arrival in NY, the parties separated while vacationing in Thailand.  The family was embroiled in 3 separate court cases.  Wife filed a Hague return petition in NY that was denied, finding that NY had become the child’s habitual residence by agreement of his parents.  Before this decision was...