MK Family Law

Ms. Cha (South Korean) married Mr. Kim (American) and had a child in 2014.  In April 2016, Ms. Cha left their home in Guam with the child for South Korea.  Mr. Kim filed for divorce in Guam 3 months later, and in September 2016, Ms. Cha filed for divorce in South Korea. Mr. Kim also filed a request to return the minor child to Guam using the Hague Abduction Convention.  The South Korean court rejected his request saying that both Guam and South Korea were the child's habitual residence and Mr. Kim had, at least in part, consented to the child's prior and current time in South Korea. His appeals were denied.   This case revolves around Mr. Kim's attempts to serve Ms. Cha with his Guam divorce papers using the Hague Service Convention .  He apparently made several attempts using the South Korean Central Authority, and he received a certificate of non-service from their office.  Mr. Kim then attempted to serve Ms. Cha by sending her the legal documents by...

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...

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...

The Hague Conference on Private International Law hosted a successful conference in December 2019 that focused on employing information technology in international service of process cases.  The conference was the motivation for a new publication, now available on the Hague Conference's website .  The publication includes articles from Ted Folkman about using email as a secure means of transmitting service, Katerina Ossenova  about using electronic platforms between Central Authorities, Brody Warren  about the relevance of service by postal channels in today's tech era, and Dr.  Gerardine Escolar  about future-proofing the Hague Service Convention, among many others.  Extra congratulations to Dr. Escolar, who not only headlines extremely important portfolios in the field of international family law for the HCCH, but whose dedication lead to this successful conference.  The next iteration will be held virtually on December 2nd . 

The Supreme Court of New York, Warren County, in Sweet-Martinez v. Martinez , ( 2020 NY Slip Op 20195)  authorized alternative service by Federal Express to a Defendant for an uncontested divorce proceeding (without children).  The Defendant had previously been removed and returned to Mexico.  Plaintiff had communicated with her Husband in Mexico, and had, what she believed to be his residential address in Mexico.  She sent paperwork to this address by postal mail, but the Defendant did not acknowledge receipt nor file any responsive pleadings in the divorce case.   The Supreme Court acknowledged that the U.S. and Mexico are treaty partners under the Hague Service Convention, and inquired as to what steps Sweet-Martinez had taken to ensure service was effectuated pursuant to this treaty.  She indicated that, on June 12, 2020 (less than 2 months prior to this court's opinion), she had prepared and submitted, by postal mail, a request for service to the ...