• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Washington, D.C.
  • melissa@mkfamily.law
  • (202) 713-5165
  • mkfamily.law
Family Law Across Borders

Family Law Across Borders

International Family Law Resources

  • About MKFL
  • Websites
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Events
  • Contact

Case Update (2021): Colchester v. Lazaro, Contempt Filing, access under Hague Return Order

Case Update (2021): Colchester v. Lazaro, Contempt Filing, access under Hague Return Order

July 27, 2021

On February 26, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the W. District of Washington granted Mr. Colchester’s request to have his child returned to Spain. When the court issued its return order, it included the following language, ordering Mr. Colchester to “facilitate daily electronic communications between SLC and Ms. Lazaro.” Ms. Lazaro filed a motion in the same federal courthouse, arguing Mr. Colchester was in contempt of the order. He presented evidence, and the court concluded he was not in contempt. This round of court filings in this case raises a whole host of questions.

  • When the court required Mr. Colchester to “facilitate daily electronic communications” is that tantamount to issuing a custody order? Is requiring a parent to facilitate communication between parent and child something that requires a judge to analyze the child’s best interests? Can the court seized with the Hague return petition do this, or must the court in the habitual residence (or wherever there is jurisdiction over the child’s custody)? In this case, the Spanish courts had previously issued custody orders for this child. How would the U.S. federal court’s requirement that the father provide virtual access between child and mother meld with the existing Spanish custody order?
  • Would a U.S. federal court retain jurisdiction to address contempt of an access provision in its own order once the child is returned to a foreign country? In this case, Mr. Colchester appeared to have participated in the proceedings, so presumably it had personal jurisdiction over him.
  • If the mother were seeking to have her access rights respected under the Hague Abduction Convention, would she not need to proceed in the Spanish courts, under the clear reading of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act?
  • If the federal court did find Mr. Colchester in contempt, to what effect? Would Spain recognize that contempt order? What impact?
  • Was this provision intended to be a stop-gap for this child to, as the court stated, “mitigate the risk of harm” to the child? Is this a situation where the Hague Child Protection Convention may prove useful? (of course, the United States has not yet ratified this treaty, and in this case, there is presumably a current Spanish custody order)

Category iconaccess,  Contempt Proceedings,  Hague Abduction Convention,  jurisdiction,  personal jurisdiction,  return,  return order,  subject matter jurisdiction

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 108 others, and get a notification to our new posts right on your inbox.

We promise we’ll never spam! Only notifications of new posts.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The use of the name MK Family Law is protected as are the logo and content of this website. The information is provided by MK Family Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

© 2023 · MK Family Law · All Rights Reserved · Developed by RDK

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Attorney Advertising