Child Custody and Visitation in Boynton Beach, Florida

In a child custody and visitation proceeding under the Hague Convention, if there is a wrongful removal or retention of a child, the child must be returned unless it can be shown that: (1) the action for the child’s return was commenced more than one year after the removal of the child and the child has become well-settled in his or her new environment; (2) the petitioner consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; (3) there is a grave risk that the return of the child would expose him or her to physical or psychological harm; or(4) the return of the child would not be permitted under the fundamental principles of the requested country relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Convention also allows courts to decline to order removal if the child objects, if the child has reached a sufficient age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.

In Sanchez v. Suasti the Florida Court of Appeal recently stated: “If the petitioner demonstrates a wrongful removal or retention of a child under the Hague Convention, the child must be returned to his or her country of habitual residence unless the respondent can establish one of the following affirmative defenses: (1) the proceeding for the return of the child was commenced more than one year after the removal of the child and the child has become well-settled in his or her new environment; (2) the petitioner consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; (3) there is a grave risk that the return of the child would expose him or her to physical or psychological harm; or(4) the return of the child would not be permitted under the fundamental principles of the requested country relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In re Ahumada Cabrera, 323 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1310 (S.D. Fla. 2004). The Convention also allows courts to decline to order removal if the child objects, if the child has reached a sufficient age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.” Abbott, 560 U.S. at 22 (citation and internal quotation omitted). The non-custodial parent in Abbott had a ne exeat right. Black’s Law Dictionary 1131 (9th ed. 2009) states that ne exeat is a Latin phrase meaning “that he not depart” and defines it in family law as “an equitable writ restraining a person from leaving, or removing a child…from, the jurisdiction.”

To speak with a divorce attorney in Boynton Beach, Florida, contact Matthew Lane & Associates, P.A. at (561) 651-7273.

Archives

FindLaw Network