Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-04980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Poix v. Espaillat Santana, Judge Cronan granted Poix’s unopposed motion to recognize specified Dominican laws in a child-custody dispute.
The ruling directly affected Joseph Marcel Etienne Jean Poix’s request to use specified Dominican Republic laws in his Hague Convention custody-rights petition and Susibel Altagracia Espaillat Santana’s opportunity to object.
What happened
In Poix v. Espaillat Santana, the petitioner asked the court to recognize provisions of Dominican Republic law when deciding his custody rights under an international child-abduction treaty. He submitted translated provisions of Law 136-06, the Dominican Republic’s code concerning children and adolescents.
The court gave the respondent opportunities to state whether she objected to recognizing those provisions. She did not respond by the required deadlines, so the court treated the motion as unopposed.
On August 9, 2022, Judge John P. Cronan granted the motion and recognized the provisions included in the petitioner’s exhibit. The opinion addressed this procedural request and did not decide the underlying custody dispute.
The detailed version
- Etienne Jean Poix v. Espaillat Santana · No. 1:22-cv-04980
- John Cronan
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
Petitioner Joseph Marcel Etienne Jean Poix filed a petition under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, commonly called the Hague Convention, and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. He asked the court to determine, or formally recognize, relevant Dominican Republic law for purposes of deciding whether he had custody rights under the Hague Convention.
The requested provisions were Articles 67, 72, 82, 86, and 87 of Dominican Republic Law 136-06, also known as the Code for the System of Protection and Fundamental Rights of Boys, Girls, and Adolescents. The petitioner submitted a statement from CONANI dated November 11, 2021, with a certified translation of those provisions.
Motion and Response
The petitioner relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, which permits a federal court to consider relevant sources when determining foreign law. He also relied on the Hague Convention’s provision allowing courts to take direct notice of the law of the child’s habitual-residence country.
The court ordered Respondent Susibel Altagracia Espaillat Santana to state whether she objected to the request. After she did not respond to the initial deadline, the court gave her another deadline. She still had not objected as of August 8, 2022, so the court treated the motion as unopposed.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the petitioner’s motion after reviewing the materials in the exhibit. The court recognized the referenced provisions of Dominican Republic law for use in determining the petitioner’s custody rights under the Hague Convention.
The opinion ruled on the request to recognize foreign law. It did not state a final decision on the underlying custody or child-return petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.