U.S. Courts of Appeals

Displaying 71 - 80 of 141, sorted by most recent

form.antibot { display: none !important; } You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form.

Case Commentary: Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016)

James D. Garbolino

March 4, 2016

Grave Risk | Domestic Violence

Even though the child is not directly harmed by violent conduct against a parent and his or her family, the child may be subjected to grave risk of physical and/or psychological harm as a result of that violence.

Case Commentary: Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)

James D. Garbolino

February 23, 2016

Habitual Residence

Mozes remains the most-followed case for determining habitual residence and stands out as the most-cited circuit case dealing with the 1980 Convention.

Facts

Case Commentary: Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013)

James D. Garbolino

February 2, 2016

Mootness | Stays | Expeditious Handling

Case Commentary: Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)

James D. Garbolino

January 21, 2016

Interpreting the Convention | Custody Rights | Ne Exeat Clauses^{^[1]}

Case Commentary: Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Order Compelling Parent to Return | Recognition or Enforcement of Custody Orders | No Retroactive Wrongful Retention | Habitual Residence

Case Commentary: Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Consent and Acquiescence

Article 13 establishes a defense to return when the left-behind parent has consented or acquiesced to the removal or retention of the child. Consent or acquiescence, however, must be clearly established.

Facts

Case Commentary: Mendez v. May, 778 F.3d 337 (1st Cir. 2015)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence

Facts

Case Commentary: Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2006)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence

Case Commentry: Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich I), 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993), & Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich II), 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Habitual Residence | Rights of Custody | Grave Risk | Consent and Acquiescence

Case Commentary: Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour I), 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002), & Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour II), 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004)

James D. Garbolino

January 20, 2016

Grave Risk | Sexual Abuse of Child

The Danaipour cases deal with the responsibilities of trial courts to hear and rule on defenses to return as opposed to relying upon the courts or services of the habitual residence to inquire into allegations of abuse.

Federal Judicial Center

You are here

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Case Commentary: Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016)

Case Commentary: Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2001)

Case Commentary: Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013)

Case Commentary: Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)

Case Commentary: Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013)

Case Commentary: Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010)

Case Commentary: Mendez v. May, 778 F.3d 337 (1st Cir. 2015)

Case Commentary: Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2006)

Case Commentry: Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich I), 983 F.2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993), & Friedrich v. Friedrich (Friedrich II), 78 F.3d 1060 (6th Cir. 1996)

Case Commentary: Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour I), 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002), & Danaipour v. McLarey (Danaipour II), 386 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2004)

Pages