• 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): in re matter of ICJ; not actually exercising rights of custody

Case Update (2021): in re matter of ICJ; not actually exercising rights of custody

March 18, 2021

On January 28, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied a Father’s request to return his child to France using the Hague Abduction Convention in the case of In Re Matter of ICJ (Jones v. Fairfield).  The Father (Mr. Jones) has already appealed.

While the trial judge concluded that there would be a grave risk of harm to return the minor child to France, the interesting part of this opinion is that the Court actually found that Mr. Jones was not actually exercising his rights of custody at the time of the removal, and therefore the removal was not “wrongful” under the treaty.  This prong of the Petitioner’s case-in-chief is often given lip-service in Hague abduction litigation, often just being assumed.  The case of Friedrich v. Friedrich had addressed this question in 1996 and said, “The only acceptable solution, in the absence of a ruling from a court in the country of habitual residence, is to liberally find “exercise” whenever a parent with de jure custody rights keeps, or seeks to keep, any sort of regular contact with his or her child.”

In this case, the court concluded that Mr. Jones was not exercising his custody rights because Ms. “Fairfield and the child were living in a homeless shelter because [she] did not have the funds to pay for other lodging.”  Mr. Jones submitted a French bank account statement, arguing that Ms. Fairfield had access to funds, but the statement was not translated to English and the court had no way to verify that the highlighted debits actually went to Ms. Fairfield.  The court opined that the mere undisputed fact that Ms. Fairfield was living in a women’s homeless shelter “alone suggests that Jones intentionally cut off all support of Fairfield and his child, knowing that his child would suffer.”  

One last comment about this opinion:  it is unclear what role COVID played in the overall decision, but the court made a final comment that seemed unrelated to the rest of the analysis.  That is, “the COVID-19 pandemic provides an additional layer of concern for the child to travel to [sic] back to France. Notably, the French courts have permitted Fairfield to appear by Zoom, rather than require her presence at the February 4, 2021 [French custody] hearing.”  


Category iconActually Exercising,  Child Abduction,  coronavirus,  covid-19,  Hague Abduction Convention,  Right of Custody

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 109 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