MK Family Law

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 Appellate Division of the Superior Court of NJ's case of Begum v. Palanisamy involves a multi-jurisdictional family and a NJ custody order.  While the opinion itself is merely about a variety of motions filed between the parties, there are some interesting issues that arise that allow this blog to address the mirroring or domesticating of U.S. custody orders in foreign countries.  Under the parents' custody agreement, incorporated into a NJ court order, they shared joint legal custody of their minor daughter, and the child was permitted to relocate to Singapore, with the child's father in NJ having access to the child in Singapore and in the United States.  The order also specified that NJ would retain jurisdiction over the custody matter and the parties were permitted, but not required, to domesticate the NJ custody order in Singapore. The parties returned to the NJ court not long after when the plaintiff mother sought Singaporean citizenship for the child, Alexis....

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...

On July 7, 2020, in McDowell v. Buchman , the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed a trial court decision that refused registration of a Canadian custody order.  The parents have a long history of litigating, which started shortly after the minor child was born (DOB 4/22/2010).  In March 2011, the parents agreed to custody in a consent order, entered by an NC court.  In November 2012, the parents agreed to a modified consent order, which was also entered by an NC court. It was evident that the parents were “totally unable to cooperate with one another regarding custody issues of the minor child” and a few weeks before the Father was set to begin his access with the child under the modified Consent Order, the Mother absconded to Ontario, Canada with their minor child.  The Father initiated an ex parte emergency proceeding in North Carolina related to the child’s removal, and he received an ex parte custody order in early 2013.  An arrest warrant was als...

A parent can obtain a child-custody order from a foreign country, in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA, and that child-custody order may then be registered in a U.S. state so that enforcement of it can be sought.   In the case of Hamdan v. Freitekh , (Case No. COA19-929) the Court of Appeals of North Carolina vacated its trial court’s registration and subsequent enforcement of a Shar'ia custody order, obtained from the Shar'ia Court of Jerusalem by a Father after the parties’ children were removed from Ramallah and unilaterally relocated to North Carolina.  The father failed to meet the stringent requirements in the UCCJEA of what paperwork must be filed in order to seek registration of the Shar'ia custody order, specifically, he did not provide a certified copy of the custody order.  Citing to N.C. Gen. Stat. 50A-305, which are the UCCJEA’s registration provisions, “the out-of-state child-custody determination may be registe...