- Husband, Wife and their daughter, ________ (“Child”), never resided together as a family in
New State (except, perhaps arguably, for less than one week in October of_____, just days after
Child’s birth).
- During that week, Wife’s father (“Father-in-Law”) made several unprovoked threats against
the life of Husband. Father-in-Law possessed numerous weapons which gave him the then present
apparent ability easily to carry out those threats, and Husband was in reasonable apprehension that
Father-in-Law would in fact do so.
- Husband, Wife and Child most recently resided together as a family in Florida, for nearly a
year, from September 20, ____ through July 30, _____. During that time, Florida was both the marital
domicile and the Child’s home state.
- The Family all laid down roots here in Florida. Husband really enjoyed his job here with
the _____________. Wife and Husband both made new friends. Wife became active in the choir at a
local church in Florida. (In fact, Wife remains registered as a member at that local church.) One
of Wife’s close friends from that church included Friend 1. The Child had a nursery, play groups
that she belonged to and a pediatrician who saw her in Florida.
- In or about April of ____, after Husband’s employer, the _______________, shut down, Wife
unilaterally made plans to go temporarily to New State with Child. Wife gave as her reason her desire
to take advantage of a rare offer of a full scholarship to attain her doctorate in music (as well as
her parents’ promise of additional financial assistance). Wife said this would enable her to
contribute more income to her family, that is, Husband and Child, when Wife completed her degree
and returned home to Florida.
- Wife not only gave this explanation to Husband, but she also gave it to Husband’s mother
(within earshot of Husband’s father) and to several of Husband’s and Wife’s friends, including,
without limitation, Friend 2, Friend 3 and Friend 1.
- Husband never doubted Wife’s explanation. He had no reason to.
- Husband repeated Wife’s explanation to several of Husband’s friends, including, without
limitation, Friend 4, Friend 5 and Friend 6.
- On July 30, ____, Wife unilaterally removed herself and the Child from the marital home,
the marital domicile and the Child’s home state, this jurisdiction.
- Anxious to preserve his marriage and family, Husband made a huge effort to show Wife that
he supported her in her newfound goals, but it was still against Husband’s wishes that Wife and Child
went so far away. Further, implied acquiescence by Husband, if any, was, based on recent revelations
made by Wife in her New State pleadings and affidavits, wholly predicated upon and induced by false
pretenses and fraud by Wife for the purpose of obtaining a jurisdictional advantage in obtaining a
custody award. Any such implied consent by Husband was, therefore, not informed and is, therefore,
void.
- Since Wife’s departure for college, Husband has continued to reside in the marital domicile,
this jurisdiction.
- Right after Wife left for school, Wife, Husband and Child all spoke on the phone frequently
and made plans for Husband to visit Wife and Child and for Wife and Child to come and visit Husband
at home in Florida.
- But as time went by, particularly in the spring semester, scheduling visits became more and
more difficult as Wife appeared to become busier and busier with college and something always seemed
to come up to interfere, usually at the last minute.
- It later turned out that two several days’ long New State visits were the only access to Child
that Wife permitted Husband while Wife was away at college.
- On May 29, ____, Husband was served with New State pleadings from which Husband for the first
time inferred that Wife no longer intended to return with Child to the marital domicile and resume
their family life in Florida. This was Wife’s first and only communication to Husband that Wife had
decided not to continue their marriage and family life.
- Upon information and belief formed by Husband on May 29, ____ and later supported by
affidavits offered by Wife in New State, on July 30, ____ Wife secretly permanently separated from
Husband and purposefully removed their Child from the marital home, the marital domicile and the
Child’s home state, this jurisdiction to a friendlier forum.
- Wife certainly could have, but did not file for dissolution of marriage in Florida before
unilaterally removing the Child from this jurisdiction under false pretenses unknown to Husband.
- Had Wife not deceived Husband about her actions and intentions, Husband would have filed a
dissolution and custody action in Florida promptly upon Wife’s departure for college in New State.
As long as Husband believed, quite reasonably, that Wife and Child were going to be coming home to
Husband in Florida soon, after Wife’s school year ended, it would have been absurd and outrageous to
sue Wife over custody of Child.
- This jurisdiction (and Another State, but not New State) is the only marital and family
domicile in which evidence exists as to both parents’ parenting skills and abilities so as facilitate
a determination as to which parent is the most fit custodial parent who can best serve the best
interests of the Child.
- On May 29, ____, Husband learned that Wife, under oath, made numerous false and misleading
allegations against Husband in the New State pleadings, obviously intended to interfere still further
with Husband’s ability to enjoy any semblance of a normal parental relationship with Child. These
allegations are wholly inconsistent with Husband’s personality and lifetime of conduct, as described
by all who know him well.
- Husband has at all times throughout the marriage attempted to communicate with Wife and to
resolve any issues arising in the course of married life, right up to this day. It is Wife who has
steadfastly refused communication, and who doggedly advances the position in New State that Husband
and Child should be deprived of normal parental relations.
- Prior to and since October of ______, Husband has had no contact with the New State (except
for passing through by car) other than two several days’ long visits there with Child.
- On May 20, ____, in the ________ Judicial Circuit, ________ County, New State, the Respondent
Wife filed a Verified Complaint (unconnected with dissolution of marriage) seeking sole (legal and
physical) custody of the Child and requesting supervised visitation only (Case No. _________). On
the same date, the New State court issued an order for Husband to appear personally at a pendente lite
hearing scheduled at 12:00pm on June 24, ____ in _______ County, New State.
- On May 29, ____, Husband, out of the blue, was served with the New State pleadings while on an
extended visit with his parents and siblings in Another State. Thereafter, Husband, caught completely
off-guard, struggled to re-arrange his vacation plans.
- Husband, who does not know anyone else in New State and is afraid to set foot in New State for
fear of an encounter with Father-in-Law, hastened to identify unknown attorneys in a strange and hostile
place, without the benefit of so much as a single personal referral.
- On June 8, ____, Husband filed with this Court a Petition for Dissolution for Marriage with
Minor Child. As one part of the relief requested therein, Husband requested joint legal custody, as
well as primary residential and physical custody, of the Child.
- On June 14, ____, prior to any non-ex parte hearing in New State, Husband filed with this
Court a Motion to Set Expedited Hearing on Exercise of Jurisdiction in Custody Proceeding.
- On or about June 14, ____, Husband engaged an attorney to represent him in a limited appearance
in New State.
- Despite the short time frame and the vast amount of work to be done, Husband was not given the
option of a continuance on all hearings in New State to afford Husband and his New State counsel a
better opportunity to prepare for a previously unanticipated hearing in New State – except by Wife,
who had apparently planned for it in secret from the moment she left for college.
- On June 24, ____ in New State, the scheduled pendente lite hearing was continued by stipulation
and instead a jurisdictional hearing was held on Husband’s Motion to Dismiss Wife’s Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction over the Child and lack of personal jurisdiction over the Husband.
- According to Husband’s former New State counsel, the New State court ruled that the New State
had both subject matter jurisdiction over the Child and personal jurisdiction over Husband - even
though Husband has practically no contacts with the New State.
- Further, according to Husband’s former New State counsel, the New State court ruled on these
complex issues summarily, without offering any explanation or rationale for its rulings.
- According to Husband’s former New State counsel, the New State court ignored Husband’s New
State counsel’s urgings that the court communicate with Florida Court about the most proper forum for
the custody proceedings over the Child.
- Upon information and belief, Wife has never filed a dissolution of marriage action either in
Florida or in New State.
- New State lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the marriage of the parties (other than,
perhaps, the mere res thereof) and personal jurisdiction over the Husband for purposes of adjudicating
any financial aspects of the marriage.
|
