Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010  (Read 17769 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« on: April 23, 2010, 10:53:18 AM »
Below is the text of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Florida - they agree that Florida was not home state, that Emily was unilaterally removed to the US from the UK be her mother but that they have jurisdiction (I do not understand how) - they have ignored Emily's medical neglect and the attempted sale of Emily to a pedophile.  The matter is remanded to lower court to deal with child support and visitation expense issues.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010
KARL ERNEST HINDLE,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D08-3850
SHEILA KAY FUITH,
Appellee.
________________________ ________/
Opinion filed April 23, 2010
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
John V. Doyle, Judge.
Karl E. Hindle, Richmond, VA, pro se.
C. Kim Banister, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
The father, Karl E. Hindle, appeals a final judgment of paternity, which determined
that Florida courts have jurisdiction over the custody dispute concerning the parties’ eightyear-
old daughter; granted custody of the child to the mother, Sheila K. Fuith; ordered
monthly child support; and placed the burden of visitation costs entirely on the father. We
find that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to make an initial custody
determination and acted within its discretion in granting custody to the mother. However,
we reverse as to the child support and visitation costs.
2
Subject matter jurisdiction over child custody matters is governed by the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), sections 61.502 to 61.542,
Florida Statutes (2003).1 See Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
One of the stated purposes of the UCCJEA is to “[a]void jurisdictional competition and
conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody.” § 61.502(1), Fla. Stat.
(2003). Under the UCCJEA, a foreign country is treated “as if it were a state of the United
States” for purposes of applying the provisions of the UCCJEA. § 61.506(1), Fla. Stat.
(2003). A Florida court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if
Florida “is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the
proceeding.” § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003).2 “Home state” is defined in relevant part as
“the state in which a child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least 6
consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.
. . . A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.”
§ 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003).
1 “Subject matter jurisdiction--the ‘power of the trial court to deal with a class of
cases to which a particular case belongs’--is conferred upon a court by constitution or by
statute.” Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting
Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179, 181 (Fla. 1994)). Parties cannot
agree to jurisdiction over the subject matter where none exists, and the defense of lack of
subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Cunningham, 630 So. 2d at 181. “A
trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void . . . .” Strommen,
927 So. 2d at 179.
2 Contrary to the mother’s contention, section 61.1312, Florida Statutes (2002),
does not apply in this case. In 2002, the Florida Legislature adopted the UCCJEA, to
replace the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, sections 61.1302 to 61.1348, Florida
Statutes, which had included that section. The UCCJEA became effective on October 1,
2002. See ch. 2002-65, Laws of Fla. As this paternity action was commenced in
November 2003, the applicable statute is section 61.514, Florida Statutes.
3
The UCCJEA gives jurisdictional priority to the child’s home state. Arjona, 941 So.
2d at 455. However, the UCCJEA grants an exception to the home state jurisdictional
requirement when “[a] court of another state does not have jurisdiction . . . .” §
61.514(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Therefore, under the UCCJEA, even if Florida is not the
child’s home state, Florida may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody
matter if another state does not have jurisdiction.
On the date that the paternity action was commenced in this case, Florida was not
the “home state” of the child because the child had not lived in Florida for six consecutive
months prior to the commencement of the paternity action in November 2003. §
61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, no other state had jurisdiction since the mother and
the child had lived in several states in the six months prior to their arrival in Florida and the
commencement of the paternity action. § 61.514(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). As a result,
because no court of any other state would have had jurisdiction under section 61.514, the
Florida trial court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination.
In making an initial custody determination, the trial court must evaluate the noninclusive
factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and determine the best
interests of the child. See § 61.13(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2008); Fuller v. Fuller, 13 So. 3d 1108,
1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see Burgess v. Burgess, 347 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA
1977) (stating that polestar for guidance in custody proceedings is best interests of child).
However, there is no statutory requirement that the trial court make specific written findings
in a custody decision. See Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998);
Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455, 456-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Thus, a final judgment is
4
not erroneous simply for failing to list the factors on which it relied in making its
determination. Aguirre v. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Here, the court found that it was in the best interest of the child that the mother have
primary residential custody. A finding that primary residential custody is in the “best
interests” of the child, whether made in the final judgment or at trial, is sufficient to uphold
a custody determination so long as there is substantial competent evidence in the record
that permits the court to properly evaluate the relevant factors. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d at
1206; see Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bader v. Bader, 639
So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because no transcript of the final hearing is contained in
the record, this Court can review only errors that appear on the face of the judgment.
Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As no error appears on the
face of the judgment, this Court is unable to review the evidentiary basis of the court’s
ruling, and must affirm on appeal. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d at 1206.
However, our review of the judgment does reveal several matters requiring further
consideration. In determining child support, the court found that the mother earned $8 per
hour working twenty hours per week. With respect to the father’s income, the court found
that he “has the capacity to be employed[,] earning at least minimum wage and has no
disability that would prevent him from working a full-time schedule of forty (40) hours per
week.” The court then calculated the father’s current child support obligation to be
$623.53 per month, and determined that he owed retroactive child support in the amount
of $29,154. The judgment required the father to pay $124.71 per month toward the
arrearage for a total support obligation of $748.24. However, in calculating child support,
the court never disclosed the net incomes of each party and the parties’ respective shares
5
of the child support expenses. And, the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, which would
have provided some insight on this issue, was not attached to the final judgment of
paternity as the final judgment indicated.3
Child support awards must be supported by substantial competent evidence.
Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The failure to make adequate
findings requires remand for determination of child support. Armour v. McMiller, 15 So. 3d
923, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Crouch v. Crouch, 898 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In
making an award of child support, the trial court is required to determine the net income of
each parent pursuant to section 61.30, and to include findings in the final judgment. See
Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also § 61.30(2)
(includable income), (3) (allowable deductions), (4)-(6) (determination of net income), Fla.
Stat. (2008). On remand, the trial court shall make sufficient findings to permit meaningful
review of its ruling on any child support amount, both monthly and retroactive. See, e.g.,
Aguirre, 985 So. 2d at 1207 (explaining that final judgment is facially erroneous, requiring
remand, where it does not make any findings as to net income of each party as starting
point for calculating child support or explain how calculation was performed); Sumlar v.
3 We cannot determine how the court calculated the father’s child support
obligation. At the time that the final judgment was entered, the federal minimum wage was
$6.55 per hour, which multiplied by 40 totals $262 per week and a gross salary of
$1,126.60 per month. The court found that the mother earned $8 per hour, which
multiplied by 20 hours, totals a gross salary of $688 per month. Thus, the parties’
combined gross income is $1,814.60, which under the guidelines provides for the sum of
$400 to $410 in monthly child support. While it does not appear that the court used the
parties’ financial affidavits, even if calculated based on those numbers (which include the
father’s disability checks), the court’s child support calculation is still unclear. According to
the father, he has a net monthly income of $2,823.01 and the mother calculates her net
income as $1,161.75, for a combined net income of $3,984.76, which under the guidelines
provides for $819 to $828 in monthly child support. If the court did use the father’s
disability benefits to calculate the child support obligation (after finding that he was not
disabled), then it must make specific findings, clarifying this source of income.
6
Sumlar, 827 So. 2d 1079, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (explaining that final judgment must
include factual findings sufficiently specific to allow reviewing court to ascertain basis of
calculations relating to child support); Savery v. Savery, 670 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1996) (explaining that to determine child support, trial court required to make specific
findings with regard to parties’ net incomes, derived from gross incomes minus allowable
deductions).
The father also contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to bear all
visitation costs associated with visiting the child in Florida. He contends that these costs
should be borne equally by both parents. The child was born in the United Kingdom where
the father resides and removed to Florida by the mother’s unilateral decision. The trial
court ruled that the father can only visit the child in Florida, thereby, incurring substantial
travel expenses to effectuate his visitation.
The expense of visiting the child in Florida from the father’s residence in the United
Kingdom is a childrearing expense like any other. See Miller v. Miller, 826 So. 2d 480 (Fla.
1st DCA 2002); Drakulich v. Drakulich, 705 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Child
support guidelines provide that transportation expenses, like other childrearing costs,
should be shared by the parents in accordance with their financial means. McKenna v.
Fisher, 778 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). On remand, the trial court is directed to
reconsider the visitation expense issue. See Bevil v. Carson, 966 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla.
5th DCA 2007).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2010, 11:28:32 AM »
Below is the text of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Florida - they agree that Florida was not home state, that Emily was unilaterally removed to the US from the UK be her mother but that they have jurisdiction (I do not understand how) - they have ignored Emily's medical neglect and the attempted sale of Emily to a pedophile.  The matter is remanded to lower court to deal with child support and visitation expense issues.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010
KARL ERNEST HINDLE,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D08-3850
SHEILA KAY FUITH,
Appellee.
________________________ ________/
Opinion filed April 23, 2010
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
John V. Doyle, Judge.
Karl E. Hindle, Richmond, VA, pro se.
C. Kim Banister, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
ORFINGER, J.
The father, Karl E. Hindle, appeals a final judgment of paternity, which determined
that Florida courts have jurisdiction over the custody dispute concerning the parties’ eightyear-
old daughter; granted custody of the child to the mother, Sheila K. Fuith; ordered
monthly child support; and placed the burden of visitation costs entirely on the father. We
find that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to make an initial custody
determination and acted within its discretion in granting custody to the mother. However,
we reverse as to the child support and visitation costs.
2
Subject matter jurisdiction over child custody matters is governed by the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), sections 61.502 to 61.542,
Florida Statutes (2003).1 See Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
One of the stated purposes of the UCCJEA is to “[a]void jurisdictional competition and
conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody.” § 61.502(1), Fla. Stat.
(2003). Under the UCCJEA, a foreign country is treated “as if it were a state of the United
States” for purposes of applying the provisions of the UCCJEA. § 61.506(1), Fla. Stat.
(2003). A Florida court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if
Florida “is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the
proceeding.” § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003).2 “Home state” is defined in relevant part as
“the state in which a child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least 6
consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.
. . . A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.”
§ 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003).
1 “Subject matter jurisdiction--the ‘power of the trial court to deal with a class of
cases to which a particular case belongs’--is conferred upon a court by constitution or by
statute.” Strommen v. Strommen, 927 So. 2d 176, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting
Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179, 181 (Fla. 1994)). Parties cannot
agree to jurisdiction over the subject matter where none exists, and the defense of lack of
subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Cunningham, 630 So. 2d at 181. “A
trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void . . . .” Strommen,
927 So. 2d at 179.
2 Contrary to the mother’s contention, section 61.1312, Florida Statutes (2002),
does not apply in this case. In 2002, the Florida Legislature adopted the UCCJEA, to
replace the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, sections 61.1302 to 61.1348, Florida
Statutes, which had included that section. The UCCJEA became effective on October 1,
2002. See ch. 2002-65, Laws of Fla. As this paternity action was commenced in
November 2003, the applicable statute is section 61.514, Florida Statutes.
3
The UCCJEA gives jurisdictional priority to the child’s home state. Arjona, 941 So.
2d at 455. However, the UCCJEA grants an exception to the home state jurisdictional
requirement when “[a] court of another state does not have jurisdiction . . . .” §
61.514(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Therefore, under the UCCJEA, even if Florida is not the
child’s home state, Florida may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a child custody
matter if another state does not have jurisdiction.
On the date that the paternity action was commenced in this case, Florida was not
the “home state” of the child because the child had not lived in Florida for six consecutive
months prior to the commencement of the paternity action in November 2003. §
61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, no other state had jurisdiction since the mother and
the child had lived in several states in the six months prior to their arrival in Florida and the
commencement of the paternity action. § 61.514(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). As a result,
because no court of any other state would have had jurisdiction under section 61.514, the
Florida trial court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination.
In making an initial custody determination, the trial court must evaluate the noninclusive
factors listed in section 61.13(3), Florida Statutes, and determine the best
interests of the child. See § 61.13(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2008); Fuller v. Fuller, 13 So. 3d 1108,
1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see Burgess v. Burgess, 347 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA
1977) (stating that polestar for guidance in custody proceedings is best interests of child).
However, there is no statutory requirement that the trial court make specific written findings
in a custody decision. See Adair v. Adair, 720 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998);
Murphy v. Murphy, 621 So. 2d 455, 456-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Thus, a final judgment is
4
not erroneous simply for failing to list the factors on which it relied in making its
determination. Aguirre v. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d 1203, 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Here, the court found that it was in the best interest of the child that the mother have
primary residential custody. A finding that primary residential custody is in the “best
interests” of the child, whether made in the final judgment or at trial, is sufficient to uphold
a custody determination so long as there is substantial competent evidence in the record
that permits the court to properly evaluate the relevant factors. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d at
1206; see Clark v. Clark, 825 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bader v. Bader, 639
So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because no transcript of the final hearing is contained in
the record, this Court can review only errors that appear on the face of the judgment.
Casella v. Casella, 569 So. 2d 848, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As no error appears on the
face of the judgment, this Court is unable to review the evidentiary basis of the court’s
ruling, and must affirm on appeal. Aguirre, 985 So. 2d at 1206.
However, our review of the judgment does reveal several matters requiring further
consideration. In determining child support, the court found that the mother earned $8 per
hour working twenty hours per week. With respect to the father’s income, the court found
that he “has the capacity to be employed[,] earning at least minimum wage and has no
disability that would prevent him from working a full-time schedule of forty (40) hours per
week.” The court then calculated the father’s current child support obligation to be
$623.53 per month, and determined that he owed retroactive child support in the amount
of $29,154. The judgment required the father to pay $124.71 per month toward the
arrearage for a total support obligation of $748.24. However, in calculating child support,
the court never disclosed the net incomes of each party and the parties’ respective shares
5
of the child support expenses. And, the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet, which would
have provided some insight on this issue, was not attached to the final judgment of
paternity as the final judgment indicated.3
Child support awards must be supported by substantial competent evidence.
Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The failure to make adequate
findings requires remand for determination of child support. Armour v. McMiller, 15 So. 3d
923, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Crouch v. Crouch, 898 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In
making an award of child support, the trial court is required to determine the net income of
each parent pursuant to section 61.30, and to include findings in the final judgment. See
Deoca v. Deoca, 837 So. 2d 1137, 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also § 61.30(2)
(includable income), (3) (allowable deductions), (4)-(6) (determination of net income), Fla.
Stat. (2008). On remand, the trial court shall make sufficient findings to permit meaningful
review of its ruling on any child support amount, both monthly and retroactive. See, e.g.,
Aguirre, 985 So. 2d at 1207 (explaining that final judgment is facially erroneous, requiring
remand, where it does not make any findings as to net income of each party as starting
point for calculating child support or explain how calculation was performed); Sumlar v.
3 We cannot determine how the court calculated the father’s child support
obligation. At the time that the final judgment was entered, the federal minimum wage was
$6.55 per hour, which multiplied by 40 totals $262 per week and a gross salary of
$1,126.60 per month. The court found that the mother earned $8 per hour, which
multiplied by 20 hours, totals a gross salary of $688 per month. Thus, the parties’
combined gross income is $1,814.60, which under the guidelines provides for the sum of
$400 to $410 in monthly child support. While it does not appear that the court used the
parties’ financial affidavits, even if calculated based on those numbers (which include the
father’s disability checks), the court’s child support calculation is still unclear. According to
the father, he has a net monthly income of $2,823.01 and the mother calculates her net
income as $1,161.75, for a combined net income of $3,984.76, which under the guidelines
provides for $819 to $828 in monthly child support. If the court did use the father’s
disability benefits to calculate the child support obligation (after finding that he was not
disabled), then it must make specific findings, clarifying this source of income.
6
Sumlar, 827 So. 2d 1079, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (explaining that final judgment must
include factual findings sufficiently specific to allow reviewing court to ascertain basis of
calculations relating to child support); Savery v. Savery, 670 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1996) (explaining that to determine child support, trial court required to make specific
findings with regard to parties’ net incomes, derived from gross incomes minus allowable
deductions).
The father also contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to bear all
visitation costs associated with visiting the child in Florida. He contends that these costs
should be borne equally by both parents. The child was born in the United Kingdom where
the father resides and removed to Florida by the mother’s unilateral decision. The trial
court ruled that the father can only visit the child in Florida, thereby, incurring substantial
travel expenses to effectuate his visitation.
The expense of visiting the child in Florida from the father’s residence in the United
Kingdom is a childrearing expense like any other. See Miller v. Miller, 826 So. 2d 480 (Fla.
1st DCA 2002); Drakulich v. Drakulich, 705 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Child
support guidelines provide that transportation expenses, like other childrearing costs,
should be shared by the parents in accordance with their financial means. McKenna v.
Fisher, 778 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). On remand, the trial court is directed to
reconsider the visitation expense issue. See Bevil v. Carson, 966 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla.
5th DCA 2007).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Karl I'm so sorry to hear about this. Somebody doesn't know what they're doing. They agree she was unlawfully removed? But only the child support decision is being overturned?!!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 11:31:20 AM by JonathanR »

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2010, 11:41:49 AM »
@Jonathan R. - in a nutshell - yup   :madgo
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

Offline lovellboys

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • @lovellboys
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2010, 11:47:52 AM »
@Jonathan R. - in a nutshell - yup   :madgo

This just - well sucks really.  What is your next step?  They completely ignored the fact that she was removed illegally from the UK. 

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2010, 12:24:36 PM »
Take the issue to Federal court - I'm going to think what to do over the weekend.

What angers me is the hypocrisy involved and the simple ignorance of letting Emily go blind and so on.

Next time a kid is being mistreated overseas and observers are remarking how this is happening to poor Americans, just remember this bloody mess right here at home and how appallingly bad it can be if you are foreign parent in America - more to the point, if you're a kid stuck here in America.

HR3240 has my support because for the only time I can see, the issues confronting foreign parents here in America is noticed.
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

Offline kittykat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2010, 12:49:41 PM »
Is there anyone in Florida that we can e-mail or write or bother to try to get some attention to this issue there?

Offline lovellboys

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • @lovellboys
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2010, 03:13:30 PM »
http://bringseanhome.org/forums/index.php/topic,3011.msg70314/boardseen.html#new

I would try the same individuals who got this legistation passed.  I would hope this would also protect children abducted TO Florida, not just FROM Florida.

Offline sue

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3053
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2010, 03:34:35 PM »
The whole thing is nuts.  How can they calculate child support without any information from you?  They said she was abducted and yet they say Florida has jurisdiction.....this is just crazy.

Offline Bree

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2010, 12:08:30 PM »
Is there anyone in Florida that we can e-mail or write or bother to try to get some attention to this issue there?

I contacted the Congressman for the area that Emily resides, as he is my Congressman too.  He will not get involved in the case, not surprising though. 
"Every parent who has a child and they tuck him in at night, or her in at night, and they wish the best and only the best and they will always protect the child and do whatever they can, but most of the time they don't have to prove it. I'm in the proving grounds, to myself and to my child.  I have to get him home and I will do whatever I have to. I'll never stop to save him."  --David Goldman

Offline UD_student

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2010, 05:23:18 PM »
Karl, TWeinstein posted an article in the main foundation forum about some lawyers who do pro-bono work? Have you contacted them and they were not interested in your case? I'm sure many of us would be happy to politely request they take your case since it is a huge miscarriage of justice to not even have the proper laws/conventions applied or even mentioned in the courts decision. [I would have thought they would at least state why the Hague Convention didn't apply-clearly it would be erroneous to not grant a return, but they didn't even mention why they felt it didn't apply].

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2010, 08:19:58 PM »
I've read the ruling several times.  I am convinced the FL Appellate court used the language it did in order to avoid stating the obvious - Emily was internationally abducted.

"Unilateral removal" is the language of the UCCJA (and UCCJEA) for child abduction.  Nevertheless, the FL court has ruled Emily's American mother "unilaterally removed" Emily from the UK AND that FL, NOR ANY OTHER US STATE, had jurisdiction.

For those observers who have claimed "confusion" over Emily's case it is straight forward - Emily was abducted from the UK to the US - what causes some to baulk is that I am claiming this removal was with the unlawful assistance of the US Government, particularly Barbara J Greig at the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State who claimed FL did have jurisdiction to get Emily sent to Florida after her mother returned Emily to the UK some 7 months after initially removing her form the UK in February 2003.  

Greig then had my visas revoked and when I did legally travel to the US to litigate, then had me arrested and deported (http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-asked-for-arrest-of-emilys-dad.html) helped to hide Emily when she was missing and endangered (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7847/3251/1600/FDLE%20Poster.0.jpg) and when I had won a custody order in FL.

Some private emails have asked about the issue regarding Emily going blind and the sale/adoption of Emily involving a convicted pedophile:

Blindness

Emily was going blind for a treatable birth defect - known as amblyopia - 9 US and British doctors recommended therapy but none has been enforced in the US and she has been left to go blind in her right eye.

US report: http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com/2009/06/dr-cordero-medical-report-on-treatment.html
British report: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7847/3251/1600/Emily's%20medical%20report.3.jpg

Pedophile & Adoption/Sale of Emily

Sex Offender Register Entry: http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com/2006/06/leslie-merriam-convicted-paedophile.html
Pedophile deposition: http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com/2006/11/convicted-paedophile-testifies-to.html

I will be filing in Federal court next week and bringing this "controversy" to a federal forum - I'll post the lawsuit when it is filed with some collateral evidence.

As for who to call etc - bluntly I don't know yet but I am going to give this some thought - if you have ideas, I'd like to hear from you directly and if you are prepared to lend an organizing and helping hand, I'd definitely want to hear from you - this is too much for me on my own now.

Thanks to everyone - very much appreciated.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 08:23:15 PM by KarlHindle »
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

Offline kittykat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2010, 03:34:34 PM »
You know, I support HR 3240 and all but the real issue here is gender equality. The world will never be perfect, but the best way to stop most of these cases here on this site is by passing something like Title 9 for men regarding parenting issues. This needs to give men the right to sue women who make false abuse claims against them and any government official or agency that acts with undue haste on an abuse allegation. Criminal charges need to be filed against women who make proven false abuse claims. Men should also be able to sue in class action litigation a government agency, including a court system, for gender discrimination if they can show that it acts in a consistently bias manner against male parents. Joint legal and physical custody has to be mandatory in all cases and only awarded to one parent if physical abuse can be proven by one parent against the other. Until this happens, none of this will change. I actually think HR 3240 might make things worse for men. I think some countries will attempt to increase their compliance rate by coming down even harder on men and still letting women off the hook. I know someone will come at me with cases of men who abduct, but the fact of the matter is that this is a gender issue and the problems that exist in international disputes are exactly the same that exist in domestic custody cases, just with a twist. A parent can create parental alienation just as well without leaving the country.

Offline forthelost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
    • For the Lost
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2010, 04:15:51 PM »
For those who don't know, here's an explanation of what precisely needed to be done with Emily's eye, and why. Amblyopia is a condition where one eye is weaker than the other. The weak eye sees double images, and to compensate for this, the brain does not process the images from that eye. However, if the stronger eye is patched periodically, the weak eye is strengthened by its forced use and the double images will go away. If this is not done, the brain continues to stop images from the eye. While there isn't anything physically wrong with the eye, it is rendered sightless. Nothing can be done at that point.

Offline LDJVR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2010, 11:24:42 PM »
Who can we write to/make calls to about the negligence of this Judge. How long does the child have before she is permanently blind. What an embarrassment to our country!

JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2010, 01:04:59 AM »
Who can we write to/make calls to about the negligence of this Judge. How long does the child have before she is permanently blind. What an embarrassment to our country!


why is the court not addressing this for what it is? "unilateral removal"....?? too embarassing that they unwittingly facilitated an abduction?

prayers for a successful federal intervention!!