"the Greek court's ruling was not worthy of comity
because it improperly focused on matters relevant to merits of a custody determination
and made findings plainly unsupported which was contradicted by the evidence."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS;
ASVESTA V. PETROUTSAS
because it improperly focused on matters relevant to merits of a custody determination
and made findings plainly unsupported which was contradicted by the evidence."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS;
ASVESTA V. PETROUTSAS
UNITED STATES
LANDMARK (HAGUE) CASES THE UNITED STATES
HAS REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE
(and U.S. precedent on wrongful removals)
|
NOTE I: The Hague cases below were refused recognition by the United States, as they ran contrary to the purpose & objectives of the Convention; namely Artices 3, 5, 12, 16 & 19. In the first case below (like Alessia's) the foreign judgment never mentioned or considered the laws of the child's prior habitual residence pursuant to Article's 3 & 5. Instead, the entire judgment read more like a 'custody' hearing, focusing on issues having nothing to do with a Hague Application. Where people live or what their job title is has nothing to do with habitual residence...
Hague is about the ' COUNTRY ' of habitual residence, not the ' HOUSE' of habitual residence.' In the following case, this child's mother, like Alessia's father, was denied even the most basic right of Due Process to submit evidence to prove her judgment had been procurred by fraud. Bart's case had a double breach of Due Process when the UK Court of Appeals forbade Bart the opportunity to submit fresh evidence to prove the lower court's decision had been procured by fraud. |
NOTE II: These Hague cases were also refused recognition by the United States and are nearly identical in principle to Bart and Alessia's case; as the UK judgment NEVER mentioned ANYTHING about the laws of Alessia's prior habitual residence; despite a respectful attempt to address them by two Senators and a Texas House Representative, pursuant to the UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act). Like these cases illustrate: "The legislative policy of the United States requires positive opposition to the wrongful removal of its native children and will act against the demands of comity where proposed comity is not reciprocated; Fantony v. Fantony 36; J.Super.375,(Ch.1955), modified on other grounds by 21 N.J.525. ‘
"It would be apart from the inherent illogic’ of a court’s reasoning in this Country to accept a bald statement that our courts be expected to apply foreign law ‘in total disregard’ of the laws of the United States as well as those required by the Hague Convention. " "... especially laws that were breached while Alessia was still habitually resident in the United States and according to United States law, Texas is still Alessia's home." - Senator Shapiro WE NEED YOUR VOICE |
|
1.) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS;
ASVESTA V.PETROUTSAS , 580 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2009): August 29, 2009: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court's decision granting a mother’s petition under the Hague Convention. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in granting comity to a previous Hague court in Greece which denied the father's Hague Convention petition brought against the mother. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Greek court’s analysis (1) "misapplied provisions of the Convention, (2) "that it relied on unreasonable factual findings, and (3) "it contradicted principles and objectives of the Hague Convention.” The U.S. Court decided it may properly decline to extend comity to the Greek court's determination if it clearly misinterprets the Hague Convention and/or contravenes the Convention's fundamental premises or objectives [Arts, 1 and 3], or “fails to meet a minimum standard of reasonableness.” The father successfully argued: "the Greek court's ruling was not worthy of comity because it improperly focused on matters relevant to the merits of a custody determination and made findings plainly unsupported which was contradicted by the evidence" the US Court agreed. |
3.) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT;
CARRASCOSA vs MCGUIRE; 2:07-cv-00355-DRD-ES 25, 02/08/2007; Pages 16, 18 & 19: February 08, 2007: “There was a glaring departure of the Spanish Court from the mandate of the Hague Convention; recognized by its total failure to determine Innes’s rights of custody under New Jersey law; the law of the state in which Victoria Solenne was habitually resident immediately before her removal. The Court never mentioned the applicable New Jersey Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]…” “Despite the fact that a court has power to decide wrongly, a decision such as this can [not] stand because, on its very face and applying facts found by the Spanish Court, the decision is outside of the terms of the Hague Convention... "This is not simply judicial error to be corrected by appeal. It is a departure from jurisdiction conferred by the Hague Convention. The Spanish Courts, not the New Jersey courts, violated principals of international comity by failing even to attempt to apply New Jersey law" [...] “Comity prevails [if] a foreign judgment ‘does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.” Id. (citing Victrix S.S. Co, S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo) A.B.,82 F.2d 709 (2 Cir. 1987).” |
|
2.) TEXAS COURT OF APPEAL; 8TH DIST:
Velez v. Mitsak: No. 08-01-00246-CV: Velez argued that 'blindly' awarding full-faith & credit to an Italian judgment caused the court to deny an evidentiary hearing on whether it should defer to the Italian judgment, alleging that it had been procurred by fraud. In her third and fourth points, Velez contended the trial court's failure to hear testimony on material issues that would illustrate the foreign judgment had been procurred by fraud, denied her Due Process of law under the United States Constitution and therefore constituted reversible error - the Court of Appeal Agreed: “Velez was entitled to the opportunity to establish the defenses she had pled and to challenge the Italian judgment on the ground that it was procured by fraud. It was surely not contemplated by the drafters of the Convention that the provision requiring contracting states to use the most expeditious procedures available to implement the objectives of the Convention would override a party's right to present evidence on possible defenses as provided in the articles or on considerations of whether a foreign judgment was obtained by fraud." |
5.) A parent cannot create a new `habitual residence' by the wrongful removal and sequestering of a child." Id. at *4 (citing Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir.1995)).
ALESSIA HAS RIGHTS TOO...
|