|
[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 ]
|
|
Belay v Getachew, 272 F.Supp.2d 553,(D. Md, 2003)
|
|
In Belay v Getachew, 272 F.Supp.2d 553,(D. Md, 2003) the
Court held that Petitioner had established the prima facie case of
wrongful removal. The child was habitually resident in Sweden prior to
the removal; the removal was in breach of Petitioner's custody rights;
and Petitioner was exercising those custody rights at the time of
removal. It also held that Respondent had established the two elements
that make up the well-settled Article 12
defense. Courts considering whether a child is well-settled can take
into account numerous factors which can include: the circumstances
surrounding the children's living environment; the stability of the
child's residence in her new environment; social ties with family and
friends; and attendance at school and other social institutions such as
religious institutions. Although the child was "well-settled" in the new
environment and more than one-year had passed between the wrongful
removal and the filing of the petition, the Court found that all of the
equities demand that Respondent not benefit from the protective sweep of
Article 12. It concluded that, there was no affirmative defense to
prevent return.
|
|
Go To Top of Page |
|