PILAR PEFAUR, APPELLANT/PETITIONER,
v.
HECTOR PEFAUR, APPELLEE/RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pilar Pefaur appeals a trial court order declining to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody dispute under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, deferring instead to Argentina as the children's home state. The appellate court affirms the trial court's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction while noting the trial court retains power to protect the children's security and prevent further unilateral removals.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in declining to exercise jurisdiction and deferring to Argentina. The trial court may impose the condition that the father advance the mother's reasonable expenses of travel and attorney's fees for litigating the custody issue in Argentina, and retains power to take interim steps to protect the children's security and prevent further unilateral removals.
[1] An appeal from a non-final order declining to exercise jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari.
[2] A trial court may impose conditions, such as the advancement of travel and attorney's fees, on a party seeking to litigate child custody issues in a foreign jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find no departure from the essential requirements of law.”
The court's holding that the trial court properly applied the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act in declining to exercise jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties have three children with dual Argentine-United States citizenship. The two younger children were born in Argentina and all three have resi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Home State Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Pilar Pefaur appeals a non-final order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.1 The trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the parties’ child custody dispute and deferred to Argentina, the home state of the children.2 We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See O’Connor v. O’Connor, 447 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047, 1048 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), review dismissed, 427 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1983).
We find no departure from the essential requirements of law. See § 61.1348, Fla. Stat. (1991); Izmery v. Izmery, 559 So. 2d 1211, 1212-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Suarez Ortega v. Pujals de Suarez, 465 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Brown v. Tan, 395 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 79 (Supp.1989); Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 485 (1987). As the father has conceded, the trial court may impose the condition that the father advance the mother’s reasonable expenses of travel and attorney’s fees associated with litigating the child custody issue in Argentina.
Each party in this case contends that the other has removed the children from Argentina and Florida, respectively, without the other party's consent.3 The trial court retains the power to take such interim steps as may be necessary or appropriate to assure the security of the child and household in this jurisdiction,4 and to assure that no further unilateral removals occur pending resolution of the custody dispute. See § 61.1308(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).
We note that Argentina, like the United States, is a signatory to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which recites that “the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody.” Martin-dale-Hubbell International Law Digest, at IC-35 (1993). The Convention establishes procedures “[a] to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and [b] to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” Id.
Certiorari denied.
. §§ 61.1302-61.1348, Fla.Stat. (1991).
. The children have dual Argentine-United States citizenship. The oldest child was born in the United States; the younger two children, in Argentina. The children have resided in Argentina since 1983 and attend school there. They take vacations in Florida. The father is a citizen of Argentina; the mother, the United States.
. The trial court made no ruling on whether the removals were wrongful and we express no view on the point.
. One child is in Florida at this time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pefaur v. Pilar Pefaur, 617 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
-
Winton-Ibanez v. Franck Louis Ibanez, 690 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…t’s order declining to exercise jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). We treat the non-final appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Kessler v. Davidian, 673 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Pefaur v. Pefaur, 617 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We conclude that the trial court properly declined jurisdiction in favor of the home state, France, and deny the petition. I. Petitioner-mother Stacey Winton-Ibanez and respondent-father Franck Louis Ibanez were married in…
-
Pefaur v. Pilar Pefaur, 661 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…for visitation. We reverse. Hector Pefaur argues that once this court reversed a trial court order granting Mrs. Pefaur’s 1.540 motion, see Pefaur v. Pefaur, 653 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the earlier opinion of this court in Pefaur v. Pefaur, 617 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), controlled as to the instant controversy. In that 1993 case, jurisdiction over the parties’ child custody dispute was affirmed to be in Argentina, home state of the children. Because under Argentinean law, the children could not…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Vivienne Brown and Arthur Brown v. TAN, 395 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Mitchell v. Robbins, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- O'Connor v. O'Connor, 447 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Antoine Izmery v. Dounia Richard Izmery, 559 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Augusto Suarez Ortega v. de Suarez, 465 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Pefaur v. Pilar Pefaur, 617 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)