Below, there are links to the Spanish court rulings that the Carrascosa family claim grant them custody of Victoria and make her abduction legal.
As anyone can see from these rulings, the Spanish Court made no decision about custody and they clearly understood and acknowledged that New Jersey was the habitual residence of the child, Mr. Innes and Ms. Carrascosa. The court also acknowledged that a New Jersey court order was issued for the return of the child. Certainly, the court was able to make the connection between the New Jersey court order and the fact that the child's removal was wrongful under New Jersey's law.
Also during this proceeding, the Spanish Court ordered its own psychological team to evaluate the child to ensure her return would not cause her harm. As stated in this report, the psychological team determined the child was being manipulated and she would only be harmed if she was not returned. However, the Spanish Court #9 in Valencia choose to completely disregard the laws of the child's habitual residence [New Jersey] and the best interest of the child as suggested by its own psychological staff.
This decision was in clear violation of the Hague Treaty and it did not reflect the best interest of the child. The incompetence of the Spanish court is exactly what made it impossible for the US courts to recognize the Spanish ruling.
Further, in NJ [and most civilized countries] both parents have equal rights of custody until a court order is issued. In these rulings, the Spanish Court determined that the agreement conferred custody to Ms. Carrascosa. Yet, the very same agreement the court relied on to make its decision, stated the child was not to be removed from the US! It appears the Spanish Court choose to accept only part of the agreement.
In the appeal decision, the court makes an even more convoluted ruling by saying "in Spain" the agreement wasn't binding! However, in New Jersey - the child's habitual residence - the agreement was absolutely binding. Here again, a significant departure from the mandate of the convention.
As stated by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, the Federal District Court and the Supreme Court of New Jersey - the Spanish Court did not follow the mandates of the Hague Convention therefore these rulings "can not and will not be recognized" in the United States.
Two additional decisions of the Spanish Court were made in conjunction with this matter - the first was a decision made by the very same Court #9. This decision was in response to Ms. Carrascosa's January 2005 filing of a petition for nullity of the marriage. This was dismissed for "lack of international jurisdiction" since the parties "resided in the United States at the time of the filing."
However, the appeals court in Spain overturned this decision citing Mr. Innes had made a "tacit submission" to the jurisdiction by hiring an attorney and responding to the lawsuit. Here's the most ridicules part, had Mr. Innes not responded to the lawsuit he would have lost in default. The lawsuit in question sought to terminate his parental rights, impose sanctions of over $5 million and demand $6,000 a month in child support. The classic Catch 22 - don't respond and you'll lose - or lose because you respond!
Since this nullity case can not proceed without litigants, it doesn't seem to be moving forward. However, since it's still technically open, I prefer not to post the decisions here.
So much for Spanish justice. In the end, the court in Spain has inflicted grave harm on a child and a Spanish citizen that it was empowered to protect.
|
|
