Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alvarez v. Alvarez

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 26, 2017

ENEDINA ALVAREZ Plaintiff
v.
JOSE CARMEN MAGANA ALVAREZ Defendant

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: COMITY

          Marvin J. Garbis United States District Judge.

         The Court has before it Petitioner's Motion in Limine With Incorporated Memorandum of Law Requesting Order According Comity to Mexico Hague Convention Proceedings [ECF No. 26] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Petitioner, Enedina Alvarez (the "Petitioner" or "Mother"), filed her Verified Petition for Return of the Children to Mexico and Issuance of Show Cause Order [ECF No. 1] ("Petition for Return")[1] on April 12, 2017 together with a Request for Expedited Consideration of Petition for Return of Children to Mexico and Issuance of Show Cause Order [ECF No. 2]. On April 13, 2017, the Court issued an Order Requiring Respondent to Appear [ECF No. 6], which ordered Respondent, Jose Carmen Magana Alvarez (the “Respondent” or “Father”) to appear for an initial hearing on April 27, 2017, and inter alia, to confirm that the children are physically located within the jurisdiction of the Court and to bring the children's passports and other travel documents for placement in the custody of the Court.

         On April 20, 2017, this Court held a telephone conference with counsel for the parties. At that time, an evidentiary hearing was scheduled to be held on May 30, 2017, and the Court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for confidential mediation[2] proceedings. Initial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 13. The Mother filed an Amended Verified Petition for Return of the Children to Mexico [ECF No. 11] on April 20, 2017, which added a request that this Court recognize and accord comity to the Mexico trial court's decision and the Mexico appellate court's decision.[3]

         On April 26, 2017, the Court issued an Agreed Scheduling Order [ECF No. 16] based upon the parties' Consent Scheduling Order [ECF No. 15]. It stated, in part:

1. Petitioner, Enedina Alvarez (the “Petitioner”), and Respondent, Jose Carmen Magana Alvarez (the “Respondent”) are prohibited from removing the minor children, M.K.A., born in 2013, and A.S.A., born in 2015 (collectively the “minor children”), or causing the minor children, to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction pending final disposition of the Petitioner's Amended Verified Petition for Return of Children to Mexico (Doc. No. 11) (“Petition for Return”).
2. Respondent promptly shall deliver the minor children's passports and travel documents to the Clerk of the Court to be held subject to further Order.
3. Petitioner and Respondent shall appear before this Court on the 30th day of May, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5C of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 101 W. Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Petition for Return.

         Agreed Scheduling Order 1-2, ECF No. 16.[4] As a result of the parties' agreement, the Initial Hearing scheduled for April 27, 2017 was cancelled.

         With her Petition for Return, the Mother included a copy of a Custody Agreement [ECF No. 1-1] dated January 6, 2016 and a copy of the Mexico Appellate Court Decision [ECF No. 1-2] issued September 7, 2016.[5] The Father filed his Answer [ECF No. 21] on May 10, 2017, denying that the Mother had legal custody over the children and denying that the children had been wrongfully removed from Mexico. Answer ¶¶ 35-39, ECF No. 21. In his Answer, the Father did not specifically respond to each of the Mother's allegations nor did he include any response regarding the Mexico Appellate Court Decision.

         By the current Motion in Limine, the Mother requests this Court to accord comity to the Mexico Hague Convention Proceedings.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. The Hague Convention[6]

         “[T]he primary purpose of the Hague Convention is to preserve the status quo and to deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court.” Miller v. Miller,240 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The Hague Convention does not address the underlying custody issues but rather the jurisdiction under which the custody issues will be decided. Id.; see also Holder v. Holder,392 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) “The Convention's focus is thus ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.