Rowe v. Vargason
Filing
60
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for the Return of the Child is GRANTED and that TJR return to his habitual residence in Australia. Petitioner is hereby awarded physical custody of TJR to allow for his return, unless the parties mutually agree to alternative travel arrangements.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 12/2/11. (GRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kim William Rowe,
Petitioner,
ORDER
Civil No. 11‐1966
v.
Tammie Joan Vargason,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
Mary E. Seaworth, Counsel for Petitioner.
Becky R. Thorson, Shira Shapiro, Laura E. Nelson and Seth A. Northrup,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Counsel for Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________
Pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 28,
2011 [Doc. No. 36] this Court granted the Petition for Return of Child, contingent
on Petitioner providing to the Court satisfactory documentation that custody
proceedings had been commenced in Australia. Petitioner attempted to
commence such custody proceedings in Western Australia, but the proceedings
were adjourned, as TJR had not yet been returned. [Doc. No. 48] The Court also
learned that Respondent registered the Intervention Order issued in the State of
Victoria, in Western Australia. [Doc. No. 43, Ex. 4]. As a result, an Intervention
1
Order is now effective in the Western State of Australia which prevents Petitioner
from having contact with TJR. The Court notes that the Intervention Order is set
to expire on January 7, 2012.
The Court held a hearing on October 20, 2011 at which time the Court
heard argument on Respondent’s motion to continue entry of a final return order,
to allow her time in which to seek permission from the Minnesota state courts to
travel to Australia with both children, as Respondent’s daughter is the subject of
a protective order entered in Minnesota. The Court agreed to continue the matter
until December 2, 2011.
Since the October 20, 2011, the Minnesota state court issued an order on
Respondent’s motion to Modify the Order for Protection. The state court granted
the motion, and ordered:
If the U.S. District Court orders that [TJR] be returned to Australia, and
Tammie accompanies [TJR] there and continues to reside there
permanently, it is in the best interests of [DV] that Paragraph 2 of
Tammie’s Motion be granted and this Court hereby orders that, under
those circumstances, Tammie shall continue to have sole physical and legal
custody of [DV] and that she be permitted to return to Australia with [DV]
and reside there without Andrew’s consent.
(Exhibit B to Weekly Status Report dated December 1, 2011 (Findings of Fact ,
Conclusions of Law, and Order dated November 21, 2011).)
2
Also since the October 20, 2011 hearing, Petitioner arranged for the
Midland Office of the Department for Child Protection in Australia (“DCP”) to
conduct an inspection of Petitioner’s home. Such an inspection was conducted
and DCP issued a report finding that Petitioner’s home was hygienically clean,
that an appropriate bedroom had been set up for TJR, and that workers had no
concerns for TJR’s safety in the home.
Based on the above, the Court finds that a final order for removal should
be issued at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for the Return of the Child is
GRANTED and that TJR return to his habitual residence in Australia. Petitioner
is hereby awarded physical custody of TJR to allow for his return, unless the
parties mutually agree to alternative travel arrangements.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: December 2, 2011
s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?