Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody
When a child is removed from Florida and taken to another country by a parent, what can be done? International child custody disputes can be very complex because they involve application of international treaties as well as domestic laws. This is illustrated in the case Stone v. Suzuki, 2D20-451 (Fla. 2d DCA December 23, 2020).
The husband in this case, a U.S. citizen, filed a motion for emergency temporary custody, alleging that his wife, a Japanese national, took the parties’ child with her to Japan without his consent. He alleged that he went to Japan to renew a spousal visa, and on the day he was set to return to Florida, his wife took the parties’ child on a plane in Orlando and fled the country. He was unable to locate his son but eventually regained physical custody of him in Japan. However, he was unable to leave because the wife allegedly destroyed the child’s U.S. passport.
In Florida, the husband filed numerous motions seeking return of the child as well as another child born in Japan after the wife fled. These motions and petitions were filed under the Hague convention and under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (UCCJEA). He also filed a petition in federal court seeking a passport for the oldest child. The trial court denied the motions and petitions, finding that the husband could not establish that Florida was the home state of the children. The husband appealed.
First, examining the husband’s application under the Hague Convention, the appellate court ruled “A return order under the Hague Convention requires that an abducted child be brought back to the child's country of habitual residence, and then it is left to the courts of that nation to determine matters involving the child's custody. [. . .] Under the Convention, ‘a court in the abducted-to nation has jurisdiction to decide the merits of an abduction claim, but not the merits of the underlying custody dispute.’ Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1063 (6th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Convention ‘is generally intended to restore the pre-abduction status quo and to deter parents from crossing borders in search of a more sympathetic court.’ Id. at 1064 (citations omitted). Although the circuit court did not make written findings addressing [the husband’s] request for a return order, we conclude that [the husband’s] request was properly denied. Under 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b), a person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the Convention for the return of a child must file a petition ‘in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.’”
Turning to the husband’s argument that the trial court erroneously failed to exercise emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, the appellate court held “The circuit court did not err in failing to apply this subsection. In order for section 61.517(1) to apply, the child must be present in the state where the petition is filed.” However, the appellate court found error with the trial court’s failure to communicate with the Japanese court regarding jurisdiction. The court held “We conclude that the circuit court prematurely denied Mr. Stone the opportunity to prove that Japan had declined to exercise its jurisdiction over the custody issue and that Florida was the more appropriate forum for either an initial custody determination or a modification of custody. [citation omitted]. At a minimum, the court should have stayed the proceedings and communicated with the Japanese court to determine whether custody proceedings in Japan had been terminated.”
International child custody disputes can be filled with technical requirements. This is why it is important to consult with a knowledgeable attorney regarding the rules that may apply to your Florida child custody case.