Bromley v. Bromley

17 Citing cases

  1. Cantor v. Cohen

    442 F.3d 196 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 95 times
    Noting "the long established precedent that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and generally abstain from hearing child custody matters"

    See In re Application of Adams ex. rel. Naik v. Naik, 363 F.Supp.2d 1025, 1030 (N.D.Ill. 2005); Wiggill v. Janicki, 262 F.Supp.2d 687, 689 (S.D.W.Va. 2003); Neng Nhia Yi Ly v. Heu, 296 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1011 (D.Minn. 2003); Teijeiro Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125 (W.D.Mich. 2000); Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d 857, 860-61 (E.D.Pa. 1998). The Appellant acknowledges the decision of these courts, however, she attempts to distinguish this case by arguing that in all of the above cases the petitions for access were only brought and considered under the Convention, and not under ICARA.

  2. Wiggill v. Janicki

    262 F. Supp. 2d 687 (S.D.W. Va. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    In Wiggill, unlike in this case, the petitioning mother conceded that the respondent father had sole custody and requested only that the father pay costs of visitation; moreover, the petition in that case was premised on Article 21 — not Article 12 — of the Convention.

    The State Department is the Central Authority for the United States. See Exec. Order No. 12,648, 53 Fed. Reg. 30,637 (Aug. 11, 1988), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. § 11606 (1994). In Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp.2d 857 (E.D.Pa. 1998), the district court thoroughly analyzed the issue whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over claims for right of access. Review of the Convention and particularly Article 21 showed it provided no remedy for obstacles to rights of access absent a "wrongful" removal of a child. Id. at 860; see also Teijeiro Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F. Supp.2d 1118, 1123 (W.D.Mich.

  3. Wiezel v. Wiezel-Tyrnauer

    388 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    In response, the Yi Ly court concluded that, although "[f]ew federal courts have had occasion to examine the question whether federal jurisdiction over proceedings under the Hague Convention includes power to issue orders to secure access rights . . ., [t]he consensus among those that have considered the issue is that such jurisdiction does not exist." Id. citing Wiggill v. Janicki, 262 F. Supp. 2d 687 (S.D.W. Va. 2003); Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (W.D. Mich. 2000); Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp. 2d 857 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Admittedly, however, the cases cited in Yi Ly are distinguishable from the facts of this case, which arguably weakens its precedential value here.

  4. Fernandez v. Yeager

    121 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (W.D. Mich. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enforce rights of access under Convention

    The Court first addressed this issue in its March 15, 2000, Order denying Petitioner's request to stay the State Proceedings. In that Order, the Court cited Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp.2d 857 (E.D.Pa. 1998), as indicating that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce Petitioner's rights of access under the Convention. After discussing Bromley, this Court stated that it found the Bromley court's reasoning persuasive but deferred ruling on the issue of jurisdiction to allow further briefing of the issue.

  5. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin

    708 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 96 times
    Holding an issue not raised on appeal to be waived

    With regard to the right of access claim, the Mother argues, as she did before the District Court, that “federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking to enforce rights of access.” Appellant's Br. 26 (citing Wiezel v. Wiezel–Tyrnauer, 388 F.Supp.2d 206, 211 (S.D.N.Y.2005); Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d 857, 860 (E.D.Pa.1998)). The relevant provision of the Hague Convention—Article 21, see note 7, ante—does not mention judicial remedies for enforcing access rights, the Mother argues, and therefore such remedies cannot be available under ICARA.

  6. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin (In re S.E.O.)

    873 F. Supp. 2d 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    In support of this contention, Respondent cites two cases— Wiezel v. Wiezel–Tyrnauer, 388 F.Supp.2d 206 (S.D.N.Y.2005) and Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d 857 (E.D.Pa.1998), In Wiezel, the court considered whether it “had jurisdiction over an Article 12 claim by a petitioning parent who claims to have custody rights but is seeking as, a remedy, only visitation and other access rights.”

  7. IN RE YI LY v. HEU

    296 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (D. Minn. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Noting "[t]he lack of parallelism between Article 12 and Article 21 has led the district courts that have considered the issue to conclude that the Convention creates no judicial power to enforce rights of access"

    Few federal courts have had occasion to examine the question whether federal jurisdiction over proceedings under the Hague Convention includes power to issue orders to secure access rights. The consensus among those that have considered the issue is that such jurisdiction does not exist.See Wiggill v. Janicki, 262 F. Supp.2d 687 (S.D. W. Va. 2003);Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F. Supp.2d 1118 (W.D. Mich. 2000); Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp.2d 857 (E.D.Pa. 1998). ICARA provides that "the United States shall have concurrent original jurisdiction of actions arising under the Convention."

  8. In re Application of Ulrich Dieter Janzik v. Schand

    No. 99 C 6515 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2000)   Cited 1 times
    Finding no judicial remedy for access right petitions

    In addition, the Convention does not preclude a person claiming a breach of custody or access rights from directly applying to the judicial authorities for relief under other applicable laws. Hague Convention, arts. 18, 29, 34, 51 Fed. Reg. at 10,499-501; State Department Legal Analysis of Convention (State Department), 51 Fed. Reg. 10,514. In Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp.2d 857 (E.D. Penn.) the district court dismissed a petition seeking access rights, finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims for right of access. After reviewing Article 21 of the Convention, the court found that the Convention did not provide a remedy for obstacles to rights of access absent a "wrongful" removal of a child. Bromley, 30 F. Supp.2d at 860.

  9. In re Vernor

    94 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App. 2002)   Cited 24 times
    Concluding trial court abused its discretion in imposing temporary orders without due regard for the stability of the child's current living situation

    Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133, 137-38 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 342 (2001); Teijeiro-Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F. Supp.2d 1118, 1125 (W.D.Mich. 2000); Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F. Supp.2d 857, 861 (E.D.Pa. 1998); Viragh v. Foldes, 612 N.E.2d 241, 246-50 (Mass. 1993). The applicant bears the burden to prove rights of custody and wrongful removal.

  10. Gonzalez v. Gutierrez

    311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that “the parties ha[d] executed a formal, legal custody agreement, thus eliminating any basis for relying on patria potestas”

    Whether a judicial remedy is available to parents possessing only access rights is an unresolved issue in American courts. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 11603(b) (suggesting that non-custodial parent may petition court to secure access rights) with Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1124-25 (W.D.Mich. 2000) (holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to enforce rights of access under Convention) and Bromley v. Bromley, 30 F.Supp.2d 857, 860 (E.D.Pa. 1998) (holding that "plain language of Convention does not provide federal courts with jurisdiction over access rights."). Here, Arce argues that he has custodial rights under the Convention because the ne exeat clause of the divorce agreement constitutes "the right to determine [his children's] place of residence."