This page contains a table of cases since 1988, and are organized by (1) Subject Matter; (2) Alphabetically; and (3) Unreported Cases. The links to the decisions have been discontinued.
The page, titled Federal Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases to date contains Hague Convention cases from 2011 to date.
Attorneys Fees, Necessary Costs and Travel Expenses
In re Bates, High Court of Justice, No. CA 122/89, Family Division, Royal Courts of Justice, London WC2, February 23, 1989 [United Kingdom]
Notice of Commencement of Proceedings
Brooke v Willis, 907 F. Supp. 57 (S.D. N. Y. 1995) [United Kingdom] [ Notice of proceedings] Egervary v. Rooney, 80 F.Supp.2d 491 (E. D. Pa. 2000) [Hungary] Green v Green, NYLJ, 7-6-93, P.33, Col. 2, Sup. Ct., Kings Co. (Rigler, J.)
Klam v. Klam, 797 F. Supp. 202 (E. D. N. Y. 1992) [Gemany]
A.A.M. v. J.L.R.C.,--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 75049 (E.D.N.Y.) [Mexico] [Rights of Custody] [Patria Potestas] Abbott v Abbott, --- S.Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1946730 [Chile] [Rights of Custody] Abbott v Abbott, 495 F.Supp.2d 635 (W.D. Texas, 2007) [Chile] [Rights of Custody] Abbott v Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008) [Chile] [Rights of Custody] Aguirre v Calle, 2008 WL 4461931 (E. D. N. Y.) [Colombia] [Patria Potestas Creates Rights of Custody] Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284 (D. Puerto Rico) [Germany] [Rights of Custody]
Currier v. Currier, 845 F. Supp. 916 (D.N.H.1994) Dalsgaard v Montoya,2011 WL 5037223 (M.D.Fla.) [Denmark] [Habitual Residence] [Wishes of the child defense]
Whallon v. Lynn, 230, F.3d 450 (1st Cir. (Mass.) 2000) Whallon v. Lynn, 356 F.3d 138 (1st Cir.,2004) White v White,2012 WL 3041660 (S.D.N.Y.) [Germany] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Rooker-Feldman Doctrine] [Res Judicata] [Collateral Estoppel][Failure to State a Claim] White v. White, 556 Fed. Appx. 10 (2d Cir., 2014) [Fed & State Judicial Remedies] [Petition Denied] White v White, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 2284877 (C.A.4 (Va.)) [Switzerland] [Rights of Custody] White v White, 893 F.Supp.2d 755 (E.D. Va, 2013) [Switzerland] [Attorneys Fees and Costs] Whiting v Krassner, 391 F.3d 540 ( 3rd Cir, 2004) Wiezel v. Wiezel-Tyranauer, 385 F.Supp.2d 240 (S. D. N. Y., 2005) Wiggill v Janicki, 262 F.Supp.2d 687 ( S.D. West Virginia, 2003) Witherspoon v Orange County Dept. of Social Services, 646 F. Supp 2d 1176, (C.D. California, 2009) Wood v Wood, 2013 WL 1907492, (E. D. Washington) [United Kingdom] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies ][Temporary Restraining Order] [Deposit Passport with Court] Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp.2d 413 (ED. Mich. 1997) Yaman v. Yaman, 2013 WL 322204 (D.N.H.) [Turkey] [Well-Settled] [Equitable Tolling] Yaman v. Yaman, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4827587 (C.A.1 (N.H.)) [Turkey] [Now Settled] [Equitable Tolling] [Article 18] [Guardian Ad Litem] [Petition Denied] Yang v Tsui, 416 F.3d 199 (3d Cir.,2005) Yang v Tsui,499 F.3d 259 (3d Cir., 2007) Zajaczkowski v. Zajaczkowska, 932 F. Supp. 128 (D. Maryland) Zuker v. Andrews, 2 F.Supp.2d 134 (D. Mass. 1998)
Unpublished Federal and New York State Hague Convention Cases through May 20, 2015. (Alphabetical)
Caution Should be Exercised in Citing Opinions Designated As "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent"
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule, 28 U.S.C.A. 32.1 (a) now provide that a court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of federal judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been: (i) designated as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like; and (ii) issued on or after January 1, 2007.
Rule 32.1(a) applies only to unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007. The citation of unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 2007, continues to be governed by the local rules of the circuits, which counsel is advised to refer to before citing such opinions. See Advisory Committee Notes. Under Rule 32.1(b), a party who cites an opinion of a federal court must provide a copy of that opinion to the court of appeals and to the other parties, unless that opinion is available in a publicly accessible electronic database -- such as a commercial database maintained by a legal research service or a database maintained by a court. A party who is required under Rule 32.1(b) to provide a copy of an opinion must file and serve the copy with the brief or other paper in which the opinion is cited. Rule 32.1(b) applies to all unpublished opinions, regardless of when they were issued.
Rule 32.1 was added April. 12, 2006, effective December 1, 2006 and is a new rule addressing the citation of judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been designated by a federal court as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like. Rule 32.1 addresses only the citation of federal judicial dispositions that have been designated as "unpublished" or "non-precedential" -- whether or not those dispositions have been published in some way or are precedential in some sense. Every court of appeals has allowed unpublished opinions to be cited in some circumstances, such as to support a contention of issue preclusion or claim preclusion. But the circuits have differed dramatically with respect to the restrictions that they have placed on the citation of unpublished opinions for their persuasive value. Some circuits have freely permitted such citation, others have discouraged it but permitted it in limited circumstances, and still others have forbidden it altogether.
See also Local Rule U.S. Ct. of App. 2nd Cir. 0.23, 28 U.S.C.A. 0.23. Dispositions by Summary Order (a) Use of Summary Orders The demands of contemporary case loads require the court to be conscious of the need to utilize judicial time effectively. Accordingly, in those cases in which decision is unanimous and each judge of the panel believes that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion (i.e., a ruling having precedential effect), the ruling may be by summary order instead of by opinion. (b) Precedential Effect of Summary Orders Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. (c) Citation of Summary Orders (1) Citation to summary orders filed after January 1, 2007, is permitted. (A) In a brief or other paper in which a litigant cites a summary order, in each paragraph in which a citation appears, at least one citation must either be to the Federal Appendix or be accompanied by the notation: "(summary order)." (B) Unless the summary order is available in an electronic database which is publicly accessible without payment of fee (such as the database available athttp://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/), the party citing the summary order must file and serve a copy of that summary order together with the paper in which the summary order is cited. If no copy is served by reason of the availability of the order on such a database, the citation must include reference to that database and the docket number of the case in which the order was entered.
Alonzo v. Claudino, 2007 WL 475340 (M.D.N.C) [Honduras][ Habitual Residence] Andreopoullos v Koutroulos, 2009 WL 1850928 (D. Colo.))[Greece] [Wishes of Child] Application of Hirtz v Hirtz, 2004 WL 1588227 (E. D. Pa.) [Germany] [Attorneys Fees and Costs] Application of Nicholson v. Nicholson, 1997 WL 446432 (D. Kan.) [Germany] [Habitual Residence] Axford v Axford, 2009 WL 2030755 (E.D.Pa.))[England] [Surrender Passports] Burns v Burns, No. Civ. A. 96-6268 (E.D. Pa., Dec 6, 1996) [United Kingdom] [Full Faith & Credit] Casimiro v Chavez, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 2938713 (N.D.Ga. 2007) [Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Wishes of the Child] Chechel v Brignol, 2010 WL 2510391 (M.D.Fla.) [Ukraine] [Consent] Clausier v. Mueller, 2004 WL 906514 (N. D. Tex.) [France][ Habitual Residence] Clarke v Clarke, 2008 WL 5191682 (E.D.Pa.))[Australia] [Attorneys Fees] Cook v Scott, 2008 WL 2947692 (E.D.Mich.) [England] [Rights of Custody] Copeland v Copeland, 134 F3d 362 (4th Cir., 1998) [France] [Colorado River Abstention] Etienne v. Zuniga, 2010 WL 2262341 (W.D.Wash.) [Mexico] [Well-Settled in New Environment] Fernandez v Bailey, 2010 WL 2773569 (E.D.Mo.) [Panama] [Rights of Custody] [Ne Exeat right] Flynn v Boarders, 2007 WL 862548 (M. D. Kentucky) [Ireland] [Attorneys Fees and Costs] Freiderich v Thompson, 1999 WL 33951234 (M. D. N. C.)[ Germany] [Attorneys Fees and Costs] Gatica v. Martinez, 2010 WL 6744790 (S.D.Fla.) [Mexico] [Rights of Custody] [Patria Potestas] [Wishes of the child] Gatica v. Martinez, 2011 WL 2110291 (S.D.Fla.)[Mexico] [Rights of Custody] [Patria Potestas] [Wishes of the child] Grammes v Grammes, 2003 WL 22518715 (E. D. Pa.)) [Canada][ Habitual Residence] Grijalva v. Escayola, 2006 WL 3827539 (M.D. Fla.) [Mexico] [Rights of Custody-Exercise] Halaf v Halaf, 08-CV-4958, Decided 02/24/09--3/2/2009 N.Y.L.J. 22, (col. 3) [Israel] [Habitual Residence] Haro v. Woltz, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 3279381 (E.D.Wis.) [Mexico] [Habitual Residence] [Sufficient age and maturity] Harris v Harris, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 23162326 (E.D.Pa.) [Czech Republic] [Habitual Residence] Hirts v Hirts, 153 Fed. Appx. 137 (3d Cir. 2005) [Germany] [Attorneys Fees and Costs] In re E.D.T. ex rel. Adamah v. Tayson, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 2265308 (E.D.N.Y.) [United Kingdom] [Habitual residence] In re Interest of Zarate, No. 96 C 50394, N.D. Ill., Dec 23, 1996 [Mexico] [Rights of Custody] In re Krishna v. Krishna, 1997 WL 195439 N. D. Cal.) [ Australia] [Grave risk of harm] [Consent] In re Roux v. Roux, 2007 WL 329138 (D. Ariz. 2007) [Canada] [Rights of Custody] [Dual Habitual Residence] In re Skrodzki, 2007 WL 1965391 (E.D.N.Y., 2007) [Poland] [Rights of Custody] Isaac v. Rice, 1998 WL 527107 (N. D. Miss.) [Israel] [Sufficient Age and Maturity] Jaet v Sisto 2009 WL 35270 (slip copy) SD Fla 2009)[Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] Janzik v Shand, (N.D., Ilinois, November 22, 2000) [Germany] [No Jurisdiction to Enforce Rights of Access] Jimenez v Lozano, 2007 WL 527499 (W. D. Wash.) [Mexico] [Rights of Custody] Kofler v. Kofler, 2007 WL 2081712 (W.D. Ark., 2007) [Germany] [Wishes of the Child] [Grave Risk of Harm] Lebiedzinski v Crane, 2005 WL 906368 (D. Alaska) [Poland] [Attorneys Fees and Costs] Leites v Mendiburu, 2008 WL 114954 (M.D. Fla.) [Argentina] [Wishes of Child] [Grave Risk of Harm] Lockhart v. Smith, 2006 WL 3091295 (D.Me. 2006) [Canada] [Well Settled in New Environment] Matter of Ago v Odu, 2009 WL 2169857 (M.D.Fla.)) [Italy] [Wishes of the Child] McCubbin v McCubbin, 2006 WL 1797922 (W. D .Mo.) [Australia] [Habitual Residence] Mohammad v Guuleed, 2009 WL 1229986 (E. D. Wis.))[England] [Child Age 16] Morrison v Dietz, 2008 WL 4280030 (W. D. La.) [Mexico] [Expert testimony] [equitable Tolling] Olagues v Kousharian, 177 Fed. Appx. 537 (9th Cir. 2006) [New Zealand] [Moot] Olesen-Frayne v. Olesen, 2009 WL 3048451 (M.D.Fla.) [United Kingdom] [Attorneys Fees] Olguin v Santana, 2004 WL 1752444 (E. D. N. Y.) [Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Rights of Custody - Exercise of Rights] Ostevoll v. Ostevoll, 2000 WL 1611123 (S.D. Ohio) [Norway][ Failure to Prosecute. Motion to Change Venue] Paz v. De Paz, 47 Fed. Appx. 22 (2d Cir.,2002) [not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter] [New Zealand] [Habitual Residence] Poliero v Centenaro, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2947193 (E. D. N. Y. 2009) [Italy] [Surrender Passport] Prinz v Faso, 2004 WL 1071761 (W. D. N. Y.) [Habitual Residence] [Germany] Riley v. Gooch, 2010 WL 373993 (D.Or.) [Germany] [Habitual Residence] Robert v. Tesson , 2005 WL 1652620 (S.D. Ohio) [France] [Habitual Residence] Robert v Tesson, 2006 WL 1401651 (S. D. Ohio) [France] [Habitual Residence] Samholt v Samholt, 2006 WL 2128061 (M. D. N. C.) [Habitual Residence] [Sweden] Silverman v. Silverman, 2004 WL 2066778 (D. Minn) [Attorneys Fees and Costs] Sita-Mambwene v. Keeton, 2009 WL 2836430 (E.D.Mo.) [Germany] [Equitable Tolling] [Well Settled in New Environment] Small v. Clark, 2006 WL 2024955 (M.D. Fla.) [Belize] [Habitual Residence] Smyth v Blatt,--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2009 WL 3786244 (E. D. N. Y.) [Switzerland] [Wishes of the Child] [Grave Risk of Harm] This opinion has been removed from electronic and print publication at the request of the court. Stewart v Marrun, 2009 WL 1530820 (E.D.Tex.)) [Canada] [Great Risk of Harm] Tabacchi v. Harrison, 2000 WL 190576 (D. Ill) [Italy] [Consent] Valverde v. Rivas, 2008 WL 4185831 (D.Ariz.))[Mexico] [Well Settled] Villata v Massie, No. 4:99cv 312-RH (N. D. Fla. Oct. 27, 1999) [Chile] [Habitual Residence] Wasniewski v Grzelak-Johannsen, 2007 WL 2344760 (N.D. Ohio) [Poland] [Habitual Residence] Yang v Tsui, --- F.Supp.2d ----, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 2466095 (W. D. Pa) [Taiwan] [Habitual Residence] [Wishes of the Child] Yocom v Yocom [Not reported in F. Supp. 2d] 2005 WL 1863422 [Habitual Residence] [Germany]