Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-04980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana, Judge Cronan ordered a response to a request for notice of Dominican Republic law in a child-abduction case.
The petitioner and respondent in an international child-abduction proceeding; the request concerns the petitioner’s asserted custody rights under the Hague Convention.
What happened
In Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana, the petitioner asked the court to determine or formally recognize relevant Dominican Republic laws concerning his custody rights under the Hague Convention on international child abduction.
The petitioner submitted translated provisions of Dominican Republic Law 136-06 and argued that the court could consider them without requiring additional proof. The opinion does not show that the respondent had yet stated whether she objected.
Judge Cronan ordered the respondent to say by July 28, 2022, whether she objected to the court recognizing the cited Dominican Republic laws. The order did not decide the request itself.
The detailed version
- Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana · No. 1:22-cv-04980
- John Cronan
- July 27, 2022
Background
The petitioner asked the court to determine the law of the Dominican Republic or formally recognize that law for purposes of deciding his custody rights under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. He relied on provisions of Dominican Republic Law 136-06, identified as Articles 67, 72, 82, 86, and 87, and submitted a certified translation of those provisions from CONANI, dated November 11, 2021.
Request
The petitioner argued that the Hague Convention, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 allow a court to determine foreign law using relevant materials. He asked the court to formally recognize the cited Dominican Republic provisions for purposes of determining his custody rights under the Hague Convention.
Court’s Action
The court ordered the respondent to state whether she objected to the court recognizing the cited provisions of Dominican Republic law, as translated. The response was due July 28, 2022. The opinion text does not show a final ruling granting or denying the petitioner’s request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.