Opinion
2:23-cv-1712
12-19-2023
DALE HARVEY, Petitioner, v. GARANN ROSE MEANS, Respondent.
ORDER
JAMAL N. WHITEHEAD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
At an in-person hearing on December 19, 2023, the Court heard argument on Respondent Garann Rose Means's motion to continue the scheduled evidentiary hearing on Petitioner Dale Harvey's petition for the return of their children under the Hague Convention. After thoroughly considering the motion, Petitioner's response, the relevant record, and the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS Means's motion to continue the hearing. Dkt. No. 40.
Means has only recently appeared in the case, and she is seeking an attorney to represent her given the complexities of international child custody disputes. See Dkt. No. 40. During the hearing, Means detailed her attempts to find counsel so far, and she expects to hear from an attorney about possible representation soon.
Moreover, given the nature of Means's anticipated defenses to the petition, including claims of child abuse, additional time is needed to prepare for the hearing. Beyond delaying the proceedings, which have been pending for five weeks, Harvey did not articulate prejudice caused by a continuance. On this record, the Court finds good cause to continue the evidentiary hearing to a later date.
To allow the Court to set a new date, the parties are directed to submit separate status reportsto the Court by December 29, 2023, addressing the issues below:
Ordinarily, the Court would order the parties to meet and confer, but the King County Superior Court issued a Protection Order restricting communications between the parties. See Dkt. 46-2. The Court takes no position at this time whether the Protection Order limits Harvey's ability to communicate through counsel with Means's outside the courtroom about this case.
1. The number of hours the parties anticipate needing for their case during the evidentiary hearing. The Court anticipates holding a six (6) hour, inperson evidentiary hearing total.
2. Any suggestions for shortening or simplifying the case.
3. Whether and to what extent the parties anticipate engaging in discovery and the date by which discovery will be completed.
4. Any dates on which the parties or counsel may have conflicts or other complications to be considered in setting a hearing date in January 2024.
5. The date the parties will be ready for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition and all related due dates, including exchange of witness/exhibit lists, prehearing statements, and pretrial motions. The
Court has identified January 19 or January 24, 2024, as possible hearing dates, but the parties may propose alternative dates in January 2024.
While the Court recognizes that Means is working to secure counsel, failure to hire an attorney is no excuse for failure to comply with the Court's Order. In other words, the parties must submit the required status report regardless of their representations status.
If any party intends to appear at the hearing pro se, or without legal counsel to represent them, they are directed to review the resources provided by this District entitled Representing Yourself that are available online at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se.
Finally, the Court finds good cause to modify the Preliminary Injunction to strike the requirement that Means post a bond in the amount of no less than $25,000. Dkt. Nos. 20, 34. Means is unemployed and lacks the ability to post a bond. So long as she remains cooperative with the Court and continues to participate in the proceedings, the Court will not require a bond to deter subsequent concealment to remedy violations of the Court's injunction. But see Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Art. 22 (“No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required to guarantee the payment of costs and expenses in the judicial or administrative proceedings falling within the scope of this Convention.”).