Bliss v. Bliss __ A2d. ___ (DC App 7/22/99)
UCCJA — ENFORCEMENT OF RUSSIAN ORDER — NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY — FEES — SIMILAR LAW
A Russian custody order is enforceable in DC where the DC father had due process, no-tice and an opportunity to be heard. The par-ties were living in Moscow together when the father took the child to DC. The mother fol-lowed and filed for custody there, asking the DC Superior court to exercise emergency ju-risdiction. It refused, so she returned to Moscow and filed for custody, and won, then asked the Superior Court to enforce the Rus-sian order.
Notice and Opportunity. The court carefully examined the extent of the opportu-nities the father had to participate in the Rus-sian trial and found that he had been granted continuances, was represented by counsel of his own choosing, and had unsuccessfully ap-pealed the decision in the Russian courts. It also looked at whether he had the time and ability to obtain a visa to attend the hearing, and found that he did.
Fee award. The DC trial court’s fee award was upheld, as UCCJA Section 15b allows fee and cost awards for litigation result-ing from the violation of another state’s order. The father argued that he should not have to pay fees for litigation to determine whether the order was enforceable, and also that the trial court did not explicitly find that he had vio-lated the Russian order. The appeals court said that father’s proposed doctrine was “inconsistent with the purpose of the overall statutory scheme of the UCCJA to provide an efficient mechanism for mutual recognition and enforcement of custody decrees”, and “would give every parent unhappy with a for-eign custody decree one initial free pass at vio-lating it.” Also, the UCCJA “does not require an explicit finding” of violation, and anyhow, “there could have been no other basis for” the fee award other than a violation, which the record showed that the father obviously had committed, so the trial judge must have based the award on that.
Similar law. In the trial court, but not the appellate court, the father argued that Russia should not get comity because it has a “tender years” preference. However, the DC court noted that this Russian order said on its face that it was made solely using the best in-terests standard. Also, the “tender years” pref-erence was only one factor in an overall best interests framework, the DC court pointed out, citing the similar reasoning of Hosain v. Ma-lik, 671 A.2d 988 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996).
