"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 ]

 

Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp.2d 413 (ED. Mich. 1997)

 

  

In Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp.2d 413 (ED. Mich. 1997), a French father petitioned for the return of his children to France. The court held that the settled in environment exception to automatic return applied even though the father contacted the United States Central Authority within a year of the wrongful retention.

The children were born in France, the father was French, the children had been residing in France continuously until their removal by the mother, the father was married to the mother and thus enjoyed the presumption of joint custody under French law, the father and mother were living together with the children immediately before the removal, and the father exercised his parental rights before the children were wrongfully retained in the United States.

The father did not commence proceedings before a judicial or administrative authority within a year of the mother s wrongful retention and the  settled in their environment exception to the automatic return of the children applied. No equitable reason existed to preclude application of A settled in their environment exception. The mother did not hide the children and in fact called the father the first day of the wrongful retention and told the father the location of the children.

The children, who were eight and five years old at the time of the hearing, were settled in their new environment. The children had been in the United States for 18 months. The mother and the children lived with the mother= s brother for eight months until they moved to a rented house. The children attended school or day care consistently and had friends and relatives in the area. The family attended church regularly, and the mother had stable employment with the same employer for more than one year.

Go To Top of Page