Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner (Father) brought this suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11603(b), seeking the return of his two minor children to Turkey, as well as an order enforcing his rights under Turkish law to visit the children as long as they stayed in the United States with their mother. The court held that the Father had demonstrated that he retained custody rights under Turkish law and that the Mother's removal of the children from Turkey in 2011 interfered with the exercise of his custody rights. With regard to visitation claims, the court held that section 11603(b) created a federal right of action to enforce "access" rights protected under the Hague Convention. With regard to costs, however, the court concluded that in light of the particular circumstances of this case, an award of full costs would be "clearly inappropriate." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's return order and vacated the costs award. View "Ozaltin v. Ozaltin" on Justia Law

Intervenor appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff sued as surviving spouse of a same-sex couple that was married in Canada in 2007 and was resident in New York at the time of her spouse's death in 2009. Plaintiff was denied the benefit of the spousal deduction for federal estate taxes under 26 U.S.C. 2056(A) solely because Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. 7, defined the words "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law in a way that barred the IRS from recognizing plaintiff as a spouse or the couple as married. The court held that plaintiff had standing in this action; plaintiff's suit was not foreclosed by Baker v. Nelson; Section 3 of DOMA was subject to intermediate scrutiny under the factors enumerated in City of Cleburn v. Cleburn Living Center, and other cases; and the statute did not withstand that review because it violated equal protection and was therefore unconstitutional. View "Windsor v. United States" on Justia Law

Two now-separated parents dispute whether courts in the United States or the United Kingdom should decide who has custody of their five-year-old child. At issue was the interpretation of Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494. The court held that courts could not equitably toll the one-year period before a parent could raise the now settled defense available under Article 12 of the Convention, and that when making a now settled determination, courts need not give controlling weight to a child's immigration status. The court also considered and rejected petitioner's objections to the district court's findings of fact. View "Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez" on Justia Law

Mota and Castillo married in Mexico, where their daughter, Elena, was born. In 2007, when Elena was six months old, Castillo entered the U.S. illegally and began sending financial support to his wife and daughter. In 2010 Mota and Castillo decided to reunite. They hired a smuggler to take Elena across the border. After Elena had entered the U.S., Mota tried to cross the border, but was repeatedly blocked by American border guards. Meanwhile, the smugglers had transported Elena to New York, where she began living with her father. After one attempt to enter, Mota was arrested and prosecuted for use of false identification. Castillo began living with another woman, no longer sent financial support, and declared that he would keep Elena. Mexican authorities applied to the U.S. government for the child’s return. Castillo then instituted custody proceedings in New York. Having obtained no relief through official diplomatic channels, Mota filed a petition seeking an order requiring Castillo to return Elena to her in Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601. The district court granted the order. The Second Circuit affirmed. View "Mota v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)-(3), seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from his pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife. The district court entered judgment against the Plan, including the principal amount, accumulated earnings, and pre-judgment interest. On appeal, the Plan argued that enforcement of the judgment was prohibited by the terms of the pension agreement, ERISA's anti-alienation provision, and other provisions of federal and state law. The Plan also argued that the district court's award of accumulated earnings was inconsistent with the court's decision in Dobson v. Hartford Financial Services Group. The court considered all the Plan's arguments and found that none of them warranted reversal of the district court's judgment that the Plan must pay plaintiff what he was due, whether or not it could succeed in recovering the funds that it, through no fault of plaintiff's, erroneously paid to his former wife.

This case arose out of the attempts of two federal agencies to disgorge funds from Janet Schaberg, the ex-wife of alleged Ponzi-scheme artist Stephen Walsh. Schaberg subsequently appealed from a memorandum decision and orders of the district court granting preliminary injunctions freezing Schaberg's assets. In response to certified questions, the New York Court of Appeals held that (a) proceeds of a fraud could constitute marital property, and (b) when part or all of the marital estate consisted of the proceeds of fraud, that fact did not, as a matter of law, preclude a determination that a spouse paid fair consideration according to the terms of New York's Debtor and Creditor Law section 272. The court held that because those rulings undermined the key legal assumptions supporting the preliminary injunctions, the court vacated those orders, without prejudice to further proceedings applying the legal principles pronounced by the New York Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs, a father and his children, brought various claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 asserting that a children's services caseworker entered their home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of the children into state custody. At issue was whether the district court properly concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him and granted summary judgment in his favor. The court held that the caseworker was not entitled to qualified immunity and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for Fourth Amendment violations arising out of the allegedly unlawful search of plaintiffs' home; plaintiffs' claims for violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; the father's claim for violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and the children's claim for unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.