"child custody" "child support" New York Family Law"

 

 

 

    [HOME]

                  New York Divorce and Family Law  

      nysdivorce.com    brandeslaw.com

The definitive site on the web for New York Divorce and Family Law.

 

[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 ]
 

Morgan v. Morgan, 289 F.Supp.2d 1067 (N.D. Iowa 2003)

 

In Morgan v. Morgan, 289 F.Supp.2d 1067 (N.D. Iowa 2003) the Petition alleged that, on or about July 23, 2003, the respondent, Freya Ruth Cecily Morgan, removed the parties' six-year-old child, Flavia Ruth Henrietta, from the parties' home in East Sussex, England, without the consent or acquiescence of the petitioner, Simon John Morgan; that Mrs. Morgan and Flavia have since traveled to the United States; and that they are now residing in Spirit Lake, Iowa, with a person named Mark Fluharty with whom Mrs. Morgan had developed a relationship via the Internet. The Petition also alleged that Mr. Morgan believes that Mr. Fluharty and Mrs. Morgan were planning to move from their present residence in Spirit Lake, Iowa, to a location outside of the jurisdiction of this court. The Petition sought, inter alia, the return of Flavia to Mr. Morgan's custody in England. The court found that Mr. Morgan demonstrated an adequate showing of likelihood of success on the merits of his petition for return of his child and his request for a temporary restraining order to prevent removal or concealment of his child before disposition of his petition, as well as the court's authority to order an expedited hearing; that Mr. Morgan made an adequate showing as to irreparable harm and that the balance of harms also favored entry of a temporary restraining order.

  

Go To Top of Page