HDE Attorney Kevin Segler – Board Certified in Family Law

Holmes, Diggs & Eames congratulates Kevin Segler, an attorney in our Dallas office, on becoming Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization!  Kevin Segler has been an attorney with HDE since 2012 and handles all manner of family law cases including cases involving international family law issues such as the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Kevin Segler Pic

TBLS - Board Certified - Family Law (Black)

If you need assistance with a family law matter in Texas please contact us at (214) 520-8100 or through our main website at www.texasfamilylawyers.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Board Certified Family Lawyer, Hague Convention, Texas Family Law

HAGUE CONVENTION: Home State of Infants

The central tenant of the Hague Convention is the idea of the home state of the child. The home state is where the substantive custody determination should take place. The home state’s laws are used to decide whether the left-behind parent has a “right of custody,” which triggers the Convention, or merely a “right of access,” which does not. Retuning the child to his or her rightful home state is the goal of the Convention. But how do you determine the home state for a baby or an infant?

Some courts in the US focus on what was the parents’ last shared intention to determine habitual residence. These Courts include the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. In these courts, determining an infant’s home state requires no different analysis than for an older child.

Other courts look to more objective standards, like whether the child has enrolled in a new school, made friends in the new country, joined extracurricular activities in the home country, etc. For these courts, the determination of the home state of an infant is more difficult. In many cases, the courts in these circuits have adopted the parent intent test for very young children (typically, under 18 months), while focusing more on the child for children older than 18 months. See Delvoye v. Leem 329 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2003); See Whitting v. Krassner, 391 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2004). However, this is not a hard and fast rule, as courts have also used a blended approach, combining both the parental intent approach and the child-based approach for children of different ages. See In re Application of Adan, 437 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 2006); See Kijowska v. Haines, 463 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2006).

In courts that do not strictly follow the parental-intent approach, determining the home state of an infant is much more difficult, and the cases have not produced a clear answer as to how to make this determination.

Leave a comment

Filed under Hague Convention, Texas Family Code, Texas Family Law

Hague Convention is Jurisdictional Treaty

The Hague Convention is unique in that it is almost purely about jurisdiction. The drafters designed it “to restore the status quo prior to any wrongful removal or retention and to deter parents from engaging in international forum shopping.” Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363, (3d Cir. 2005). The treaty does not set parameters for making a substantive, custody decision; instead, it outlines the procedures to decide where the case should be heard. In these cases, then, it determines under which nation’s laws, procedures, and judges will decide the ultimate outcome of the case.

Article 19 explicitly says, “A decision made under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.” Instead, the Convention focuses on whether or not a child “should be returned to a country for custody proceedings and not what the outcome of those proceedings should be.” Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004).

Why did the drafters of the Convention focus on jurisdiction? In the text of the Convention itself, it is made expressly clear that one of the primary goals of the Convention is “to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State.” Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (Citing Convention, art. 1, 19 I.L.M. at 1501). One of the major reasons to return the child is to ensure that parents do not move the child to a different country in order to gain some sort of tactical advantage by picking and choosing which legal system to litigate the case. This underlying concern for forum shopping is why the Convention focuses on jurisdiction.

Bottom Line:  The Hague Convention treaty is not meant to resolve substantive custody issues.  It is used to determine where the custody dispute will take place.

1 Comment

Filed under Hague Convention, International Abduction, Jurisdiction, Texas Family Law

HAGUE CONVENTION: International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

On January 1, 2013, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance came into effect with the ratifications of Albania, Bosnia-HerzegovinaNorway, and later Ukraine. Both the United States and the European Union have both signed the convention and are currently in the process of ratifying it. In June 2013, the Convention passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and is currently under review by the Senate’s Committee on Finance.




Establishes a Central Authority for each member.

Applications for child support will be processed through a Central Authority established by each country. The duties of a Central Authority will usually carried out through a country’s child support agencies. Although these Authorities have several roles, their primary function will be to transmit and receive applications and to facilitate the child support process.

Keeps costs down for applicants.

Prior to the Convention, costs of the process may have deterred obiligees from pursuing child support. The Convention mandates that each country provide free legal assistance for child support obligations in terms of the application process. It will be interesting to see how both state and federal legislatures budget for these new expenses here in the United States.

Determines whose laws apply.

The Convention applies the law of “habitual residence” of the individual obtaining maintenance. Generally, if the decision is made in the country where a person seeking maintenance resides, any future proceedings seeking to modify or make a new decision must be made in the same country as long as the original person seeking maintenance continues to reside there. For example, Husband and Wife get a divorce in Norway, resulting in Husband being ordered to pay child support to Wife. Immediately after the divorce, Husband moves to Ukraine. Five years later, he wants to file a motion to modify. If Wife still lives in Norway, Husband must file his motion there.
In conclusion, the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance will make it easier to recover a child support and family maintenance in an international setting. The goal of the Convention is not to examine decisions on child support orders, but rather to create an efficient process to enforce those orders. While the logistics of creating a Central Authority in each country may be cumbersome in the beginning, today’s globalized economy makes it a necessity to streamline the international family maintenance process.

Leave a comment

Filed under Hague Convention, International Child Support, International Family Maintenance, Uncategorized

HAGUE CONVENTION: Pending Case in United States Supreme Court (Lozano v. Alvarez)

United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Lozano v. Alvarez (Docket No. 12-820) which deals with the Hague Convention on International Abduction.  Recently, the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (IAML) filed an Amicus brief in the case.  Cheryl Hepfer, current president of IAML, described the case and the IAML’s brief in her recent blog post on the IAML blog.  You can visit the IAML blog here and Sheryl Hepfer’s post regarding the Lozano case is reproduced below.

Posted by : Cheryl Hepfer on Sunday 15th September 2013, posted in Hague Convention (Child Abduction)

The IAML has filed an Amicus Brief in the United States Supreme Court in the Lozano case.

The Amicus Committee,  under the able leadership of Ed Freedman, was granted permission by both parties to file a brief on an issue about which the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari.

The case involves the wrongful removal of a a child from England to the United States.  The abducting parent concealed the child post-abduction.  As a result, the left behind parent was unable to commence his petition within the one year period after removal, as is required to obligate the Court to order the return of the child.

The father contends that the one year period should be tolled during the time period when the child was concealed.  The United States Federal Courts have, in the past, taken different positions on this issue.  The question before the Supreme Court is whether equitable tolling should be read into the interpretation of the one year period.

Our Amicus Committee supports the principle of tolling.  Our Brief suggests one of two alternatives for the Court to consider regarding one year period.  The IAML suggests that courts should either adopt the provisions of the 1996 Convention on Jurisdiction and Protection of Children, which provides a one  year period from the date when the concealed child is located, or one year from the date when the child could have been located; or, alternatively, to hold that in cases of concealment, the filling of an application with the Central Authority commences the action.

It was appropriate for us to convey our concerns and thoughts to the United States Supreme Court.  In doing so, we take our place as a leading, world-wide organization of the world’s experts in this area of the law.   We are grateful, indeed,  to Ed  for having brought this issue to our attention, and for his hard work, and that of the Committee, in taking all of the necessary action, within a very short period of time, to facilitate our filing of the Amicus Brief.

The Lozano case is set for oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 11, 2013.

You can read the Second Court of Appeals opinion in the case here:  Lozano – Second Court of Appeals Opinion

You can read the Petition for Certiorari here: Lozano – Petition for Certiorari

Follow the case on the United States Supreme Court’s docket here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Hague Convention, International Abduction

Hague Convention: “Habitual Residence” of the Child

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction, contrary to popular belief, is not an international child custody treaty.  By this, I mean that the treaty was not created for the purpose of deciding which parent should have custody of a child.  The purpose, generally speaking, is to provide a method of determining which country the child custody case will occur.  In determining where a custody case will occur, the Hague Convention asks the pivotal question, “Where was the habitual residence of the child at the time the child was allegedly wrongfully removed or retained?”

Notably, the Hague Convention itself does not define habitual residence.  Thus, it has been left to the courts to decipher this important question.  First, the habitual residence of a child is almost entirely determined based on the unique facts and circumstances of a particular case.  Basically, the court will dive into the facts and circumstances of the parties and the child in each case and make a determination of the child’s habitual residence.

Some of the factors the courts look at in determining habitual residence (but definitely not all of them)  are as follows:

  • The intentions of the parents
  • Statements made by the parents
  • Employment of the parents
  • The location of the parents’ families
  • Whether a move was intended to be temporary or permanent
  • The length of time the parent(s) or child have resided in a particular country
  • The child’s schooling in a particular country
  • The child’s involvement in extracurricular activities
  • The child’s involvement in the community

This is by no means a comprehensive list but it gives a sense of what courts will consider.  It also shows just how fact intensive the habitual residence inquiry can be and it demonstrates how the unique facts of each case can determine the outcome.  Further, different courts attribute different weight to these various factors.  Some courts weigh heavily the actions and intentions of the parents.  Other courts focus more on where the child is and what the child has been doing.  Other courts weigh all of these factors almost equally.  Needless to say, it is important in any Hague Convention case to articulate the facts of your case and, depending on your jurisdiction, emphasize those facts that the court in your jurisdiction weighs most heavily.

1 Comment

Filed under Hague Convention, International Abduction

HAGUE CONVENTION: Exceptions to Requirement to Return Wrongfully Removed or Retained Children

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction is widely thought of as the legal means of having a wrongfully removed or retained child returned to their country of habitual residence.  While the Hague Convention certainly does that, it also provides circumstances in which a wrongfully removed or retained child may not necessarily be ordered to return to the country of the child’s habitual residence.  Article 13 of the Hague Convention sets forth those exceptions as follows:

Article 13

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –

a)   the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or 
b)   there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.

In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.

Leave a comment

Filed under Hague Convention, International Abduction