Emily Rose Hindle

Karl Hindle should be awarded custody of his daughter Emily Rose Hindle.

After the child, Emily Rose Hindle, was unilaterally removed from the U.K. to the U.S. by the mother in February 2003, the father attempted to seek relief in the Minnesota courts in March 2003, but was denied due to lack of jurisdiction in the United States.

Subsequently, he sought relief before the Wisconsin courts in April 2003 but was denied due to lack of jurisdiction in the United States.

On June 6th 2003, the father petitioned Chelmsford County Court, Essex, England (where the child had been born and lived until her unilateral removal to the United States). That court seized jurisdiction and issued the father with parental responsibility order on August 14, 2003.

The child was voluntarily returned to the U.K. on September 19, 2003 and placed into the father’s care by British police. The father returned to the English court for a permanent residency order on September 24, 2003, however these proceedings were stayed by the British High Court (the British Supreme Court).

The British Supreme Court received an application on September 24, 2003 under the Hague Convention filed by Barbara J. Greig, a U.S. Department of State official, on behalf of the mother claiming the State of Florida held jurisdiction on the basis of her six month’s residency in that state.

On October 3, 2003 the British Supreme Court “returned” the child to the State of Florida on the basis of that application, and also vacated the father’s English orders based on lack of jurisdiction as Florida held it. The Hague Convention order includes a series of orders, known as “undertakings”, which included that the child was to receive medical treatment “forthwith” for her eye condition, upon arrival and that proceedings were to be filed in the State of Florida to determine the child’s future. Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, n. 8 (2nd Cir. 2001), explains the term "undertaking".

On November 10, 2003 the father filed in Volusia County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit, Florida for primary residency and other issues.

On April 20, 2004 the court accepted a certified copy of the foreign order of the British Supreme Court and both mother and father’s attorneys argued there was no jurisdiction in the State of Florida based on mother’s lack of residency in the state.

It transpired that far from residing for six months or more in Florida, as she and the U.S. Government’s Barbara Greig claimed to the British Supreme Court, residency had been approximately six weeks if at all.

Nevertheless, the Lower Court ignored the lack of jurisdiction and continued proceedings, which were then substantially delayed by the arrest and deportation of the father at the request of Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State, his subsequent life-time ban from travel to the U.S. and when overcome, the further abduction of the child out of state and further concealment of the child by the mother and Ms. Greig in 2005.

The father was awarded a temporary sole custody order on October 26, 2005.

The child was located and returned to Florida in December 2006; however the father had again to depart the country due to visa restrictions placed upon him by the U.S. Department of State.

He was subsequently denied entry to the U.S. until May 2008 again at the behest of the Ms Greig and others at the Office of Childrens Issues, the U.S. Central Authority.

Final judgment was issued on October 6, 2008 after a hearing on May 23, 2008. The Lower Court claimed jurisdiction on basis of mother’s six month residency in the State prior to filing of the action and stated, “In this County, we’re provincials. We don’t do the Hague Convention.”

No enforcement of the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for the child’s blindness is provided at any time during proceedings or in the final judgment of the Lower Court, despite the father’s continuous efforts.

Father appeals to Fifth District Court of Appeal on a timely basis on November 7, 2008. In his briefs filed with that Court, the father argued lack of jurisdiction of the Florida court based on six month residency not being satisfied and the fraudulent claim of the mother and before the British Supreme Court that Florida held jurisdiction (cf art 31)..

The father further argued that his and/or the child’s 14th Amendment rights had been violated by the arbitrary seizure of jurisdiction by the Lower Court and that the removal of the child from the U.K. on both occasions constituted “wrongful removal” for the purposes of the Hague Convention, an “illicit removal” for the purposes of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and such seizure of jurisdiction was also not in conformity with the U.C.C.J.A. or U.C.C.J.E.A. as subsequently enacted, i.e. to prevent forum shopping and the wrongful removal and retention of children across jurisdictional borders.

The father also argued that the lower court had not held fair hearings, nor had it acted in a timely fashion as required under Florida judicial standards nor the Hague Convention for speedy resolution of issues, having taken almost 5 years to issue a final judgment.

In addition, the father argued that comity should have been granted for the British Supreme Court order for the child to receive medical treatment for her blindness (Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993)- treaty between United States and Greece elevated foreign judgment to status of sister state judgment). Further, that the mother allowing the child to go blind precluded an award of custody based on T.B. v. Department of Children & Families 718 So.2d 397. Other matters were argued including child support and visitation costs.

The Appellate court issued a judgment and opinion on April 23, 2010 reversing in part and affirming in part. The Appellate court agreed that the child had been abducted from the U.K. by the mother (referring to the mother’s “unilateral removal” from the U.K., this being the language of the U.C.C.J.E.A. for ‘child abduction’), but then proceeded to claim jurisdiction on the basis no other state in the United States held it, whilst ignoring the fraud on the British Supreme Court which resulted in the child physical presence in Florida. The father also claimed that his and/or the child’s due process rights had been violated as a consequence.

The Appellate court agreed to review the child support and visitation cost issues and reversed, but refused to review any other matter, including the failure to enforce the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for the child’s blindness.

The father issued a timely appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida on May 25, 2010 based on the conflict of the Lower Court’s decision with the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for the child’s blindness (lack of comity), lack of jurisdiction and violation of his and the child’s rights to due process.

On June 24, 2010 that Honorable Court struck the British Supreme Court order from the record.

Subsequently, that Honorable Court refused review on July 12, 2010.

The father/petitioner subsequently files a timely application for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.