Child Custody and Visitation Flashcards
(223 cards)
The court may enforce an order for the return of a child made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as if it were a ______.
child custody determination
Fam. Code 3442
Notice of 6 month review does not _____ service. Service by mail at last known address was sufficient.
require Convention
In re Jennifer O. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539
Although father was not properly served, he made a general appearance through counsel, which _____.
gave court jurisdiction
In re Vanessa Q. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 128
Hague abduction applies when a child _____ at the time of hearing who was wrongfully removed to or retained in a member country and the child’s habitual residence immediately before abduction was a member country, when removed from a party that had and was _______, or that would have been lawful but for removal.
under 16
exercising lawful rights of custody
Court may refuse to return child only if application was not actually exercising custody rights when child was removed or retained, or applicant _____ in the removal or retention.
consented to or subsequently acquiesced
Court erred by deferring to Greek court under comity where Greek court _____.
misapplied Hague provisions
Asvesta v. Petroutsas (2009) 580 F.3d 1000
Status as undocumented for immigration purposes ______ whether a child is settled in a country.
has no effect on
In re B. Del C.S.B. (2009) 559 F.3d 999
State department adopts consent that rights of custody are only protected if ne exeat orders are given _____. Purpose of Hague is to disallow forum shopping.
full force and effect
Abbott v. Abbott (2010) 560 U.S. 1
A repatriation agreement to change country of residence may be agreement of where children are permanently settled but it is not ______ under Hague.
dispositive
Barzilay v. Barzilay (2010) 600 F.3d 912
Stating intention to return to US, is _____. Consent to DV order with temporary custody orders does not constitute ______ of new country.
not consent or acquiescence of the other party
unequivocal acquiescence or waiver
Nicolson v. Pappalardo (2010) 605 F.3d 100
Finding that application of “unclean hands” for Hague _____.
undermines Hague Convention goals
Karpenko v. Leendertz (2010) 619 F.3d 259
The “retention date” for Hague is the date beyond which the non-custodial parent _____ to child’s continued habitation. Have _____ to file petition.
no longer consents
1 year period
Palencia v. Perez (2019) 921 F.3d 1333
An infant’s “mere physical presence” is not a dispositive indicator for ______. Domestic violence should be fully explored in adjudicating whether a child shall be returned.
determining habitual residence
Monasky v. Taglieri (2020) 140 S.Ct. 719
The 1 year provision does not preclude the left behind parent from asserting the return of the child but the passage of 1 year requires that the court determines _____.
whether the child is now settled.
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1224
Visiting NY does not make the child _____ to NY.
acclimated
Hofmann v. Sender (2013) 716 F.3d 282
Hague not appropriate where one parent had sole legal custody and did not ______ at the time of relocation.
breach any custody rights
White v. White (2013) 718 F.3d 300
Habitual residence is not the same as _____.
domicile
Guzzo v. Cristofano (2013) 719 F.3d 100
Parties agreement the child would be raised in Ireland does not equate to ______.
habitual residence of Ireland alone
Redmond v. Redmond (2013) 724 F.3d 729
An agreement for shared custody between M in Mexico and F in U.S. was sufficient basis to determine a shared intent to _____.
abandon Mexico and adopt U.S. as habitual residence
Valenzuela v. Michel (2013) 736 F.3d 1173
Traveling to a new country temporarily for relocation of job for one parent ______.
does not modify child’s habitual residence
Neergaard-Colon v. Neergaard (2014) 752 F.3d 526
Habitual residence is a fact based determination based on parents’ ______ regarding child’s residence.
shared intent or settled purpose
Larbie v. Larbie (2012) 690 F.3d 295
Letter discussing settlement was not sufficient basis to find _____.
consent to new residence
Walker v. Walker (2012) 701 F.3d 1110
Exception to return is not best interest is not the standard; the court must make specific findings of _____.
potential for harm
Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley (1995) 58 F.3d 374
Normal readjustment problems do not constitute ______ order.
grave harm sufficient to preclude return
Friedrich v. Friedrich (1996) 78 F.3d 1060