|
[HOME]
NEW YORK DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW
[SITE MAP]
ARTICLES BY SUBJECT
Adoption
Agreements
Alimony, Maintenance and Spousal Support
Child Abuse
Child Abduction
Child Custody
and Parental Alienation
Child
Support
Child Visitation
Common Law Marriage
Domestic Violence
Degrees
and Licenses
Engagement Gifts
Enforcement
Grandparent Visitation and
Non-Parent Visitation
Grounds For Divorce
International Child Abduction
Legal Fee Awards and Awards
For Expenses
Litigation and Procedure
Marital Property
Property
Distribution
Questions About
Taxes
Retirement Benefits
Separate Property
Spousal Support
Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
[HOME]
[SITE MAP]
| |
| [ Home |
News |
Feedback
| Search ] |
| Tavaras v Tavaras, 477 F.3d 767
(Sixth Cir., 2006)
|
|
In Tavaras v Tavaras, 477 F.3d 767 (Sixth Cir., 2006)
the Plaintiff-Appellant Romil Rafael Estrella Taveras ("Mr. Taveras")
and Defendant-Appellee Carolyn R. Paiewosky Taveraz ("Ms. Taveraz") were
citizens of the Dominican Republic. They had two children born during
their marriage, both of whom were still minors. On December 22, 2003,
the couple divorced in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and Ms.
Taveraz was granted full guardianship (or "sole physical and legal
custody") of the children. On August 24, 2004, Ms. Taveraz traveled to
the United States with the children under a visitor's visa, purportedly
for a two-week vacation in Boston, Massachusetts. On September 8, 2004,
while she was in the United States, Ms. Taveraz telephoned Mr. Taveras
and told him to forget the children because she would never return to
the Dominican Republic. A couple of weeks later, Mr. Taveras discovered
that Ms. Taveraz and the children were living with Ms. Taveraz's family
in Westerville, Ohio. On October 28, 2004, Mr. Taveras filed a criminal
complaint with the District Attorney for the Dominican Republic alleging
that Ms. Taveraz was unlawfully withholding their children from the
Dominican Republic. Later, on December 21, 2004, Mr. Taveras filed a
civil action in the Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Court of Children
and Adolescents ("Santo Domingo family court"), seeking to terminate Ms.
Taveraz's guardianship and to establish himself as the children's
guardian. On July 14, 2005, the Santo Domingo family court ordered the
return of Ms. Taveraz and the children to the Dominican Republic to
appear for a hearing to be held on September 1, 2005. Neither Ms.
Taveraz nor the children returned to the Dominican Republic for this or
any other hearing. On September 20, 2005, Mr. Taveras filed an action
against Ms. Taveraz in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio alleging parental child abduction. Mr. Taveras asserted
his claims pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the
Constitution, U.S. Const. art. IV 1; The Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction of October 25, 1980; and the
International Child Abduction Remedies Act, Mr. Taveras sought a
declaratory judgment that the children were being unlawfully withheld
from their country of habitual residence; an order that the children be
returned to the Dominican Republic to appear before the Santo Domingo
family court for a redetermination of their guardianship; and an order
placing the children in the temporary custody of Mr. Taveras for the
purpose of assuring their appearance at the Santo Domingo family court
proceedings. On October 7, 2005, Ms. Taveraz moved to dismiss the action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the ICARA
and The Hague Convention could not supply jurisdiction since the
Dominican Republic is not a member of The Hague Convention. On October
24, 2005, Mr. Taveras amended his complaint to include a cause of action
under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. 1350. Thereafter, the
district court granted the motion to dismiss. The district court held
that it did not have jurisdiction under The Hague Convention or
the ICARA because the United States has not declared its acceptance of
the Dominican Republic's accession to The Hague Convention. Taveras v.
Taveras, 397 F.Supp.2d 908, 912 (S.D.Ohio 2005). Additionally, the
district court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the ATS
because Mr. Taveras's allegations did not qualify as a violation of any
treaty or the law of nations, and the result of permitting such a cause
of action would have the practical ramification of "turning district
courts nationwide into ill-suited family courts." On appeal Mr. Taveras
did not dispute the district court's holding that The Hague Convention
and the ICARA did not provide any independent basis for jurisdiction.
The appeal primarily centered on whether the district court had subject
matter jurisdiction over the parental child abduction action pursuant to
the ATS. The Court of Appeals held that the mother's alleged conduct did
not violate the terms for "safe conducts" under the law of nations, as
would confer subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS. It also held
that cross-border parental child abduction by an individual with full
guardianship or custody did not otherwise violate the "law of nations,"
as would confer jurisdiction under the ATS and that the District Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of comity to
enforce an order of the family court in the Dominican Republic. |
|
Go To Top of Page |
|
