Riley v. Gooch et al

Filing 8

Temporary Restraining Order (access hyperlink for specific terms and conditions) which includes direction to the United States Marshal for service of Summons and supporting documents upon Respondents; directs filing of written submissions no later than 11/2/2009; sets a hearing for 1:30PM on 11/3/2009 and sets a court trial for 1:30 PM on 12/14/2009. Signed on 10/21/2009 at 3:00PM by Judge Owen M. Panner. (wk)

FILED'09tJCT 2115:03USnc-ORN

I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON STEFANIE R I L E Y , Petitioner, v. JOSEPH DANIEL GOOCH; TED DUELL; AND BONNIE DUELL, Respondents.
PANNER, J u d g e .

FILED'09 OCT 2115:0:3usnc-ORN

CV 0 9 - 1 0 1 9 - P A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
NE EXEAT

(ISSUED EX PARTE)

Petitioner Stefanie Riley brings this petition under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done a t the Hague on 25 Oct 1980 ("The Convention"), and the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C.
§

11601 e t

seq, which implements The Convention within the united S t a t e s .
Presently before the Court is Petitioner's Request for a Temporary Restraining Order ne exeat to ensure that a minor c h i l d , i d e n t i f i e d h e r e i n b y t h e i n i t i a l s ZVG,l r e m a i n s i n O r e g o n until the Court can hear the merits of the matter.

1 The p a r t i e s know the c h i l d ' s f u l l name. no reason t o make i t public a t t h i s time. 1-

The Court sees

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE EXEAT (EX PARTE)

Petitioner s t a t e s t h a t i n 2 0 0 7 s h e g a v e b i r t h t o ZVG, a n d t h a t Respondent Joseph Gooch i s the c h i l d ' s father. Respondents

Ted and Bonnie Duell reportedly are the parents of Joseph Gooch. P e t i t i o n e r s t a t e s t h a t ZVG w a s b o r n i n G e r m a n y . For a time

d u r i n g 2 0 0 8 , P e t i t i o n e r R i l e y , R e s p o n d e n t G o o c h , a n d ZVG temporarily resided with Ted and Bonnie Duell in Klamath County, Oregon. After mesne events and temporary habitations, Petitioner

went back to Germany to care for her i l l mother. Petitioner alleges that Respondents subsequently refused to r e t u r n ZVG t o G e r m a n y , r e f u s e d t o l e t P e t i t i o n e r v i s i t w i t h t h e child or speak with the child by telephone, and refused to t e l l Petitioner where the child presently i s . Petitioner believes the

child presently i s in Oregon, most likely in the Medford Division of t h i s jUdicial d i s t r i c t , which i s where Respondents Ted and Bonnie Duell reside. Petitioner represents that she has sole legal custody of the child, and offers documents to substantiate that claim. P e t i t i o n e r further alleges that Germany i s the c h i l d ' s Place of Habitual Residence under The Convention. In April 2009, Respondents Ted and Bonnie Duell reportedly commenced a guardianship proceeding i n the C i r c u i t Court for the S t a t e of Oregon, Klamath County, Case No. 0901641CV. The present p e t i t i o n was f i l e d on August 27, 2009, approximately one year a f t e r Petitioner returned to Germany.

IIII

2-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE E X E A T (EX PARTE)

Legal S t a n d a r d s

A TRO i s i n t e n d e d t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s q u o u n t i l t h e c o u r t can rule upon the application for a preliminary injunction. Wright, Miller
&

K a n e , FEDERAL PRACTICE

&

PROCEDURE

§

2951 (1995)

Until recently, precedent in t h i s c i r c u i t required the moving p a r t y t o show e i t h e r (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the p o s s i b i l i t y of i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y , o r (2) t h a t serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Id. Serious questions are those

sufficiently substantial to warrant further consideration by the court and to present f a i r ground for litigation. PGA T o u r , I n c . , 9 3 6 F . 2 d 4 1 7 , 4 2 2 (9th Cir. 1991). See Gilder v. The court American

must also consider the public i n t e r e s t , i f applicable.

Motorcyclist Ass'n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1983) In Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. c t . 365, 374 U.S.

(2008), the Supreme Court disapproved the

Ninth Circuit's standard, in so far as i t required only a "possibility of irreparable injury" instead of a showing that irreparable injury is "likely" to result unless the injunction is granted. Id. at 375. winter addressed only the standard for I t remains to be seen whether

granting a preliminary injunction.

the Winter standard will also be applied to applications for a temporary restraining order, which seek to preserve the status quo for a b r i e f time u n t i l the p a r t i e s can be heard more fully.

////

3-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE EXEAT (EX PARTE)

It a l s o r e m a i n s t o b e s e e n w h e t h e r , u n d e r t h i s n e w s t a n d a r d , a d i s t r i c t court may p r o p e r l y consider the g r a v i t y of the p o t e n t i a l h a r m t o b e a v e r t e d , i . e . , w h e t h e r a 49% p r o b a b i l i t y o f a very grave injury is insufficient to warrant an injunction, but a 51% p r o b a b i l i t y o f a l e s s e r i n j u r y i s s u f f i c i e n t . For purposes of the present motion, the Court will apply the stricter standard. Discussion The Convention seeks to r e t u r n children (under age 16) to their country of habitual residence for resolution of any custody dispute, and to avoid international forum-shopping. v. England, 234 F.3d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 2000) F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154
i

See England

Lalo v. Malca, 318

( S . D. F l a . 2 0 0 4 ) i J o u r n e v . J o u r n e , 9 1 1

F . S u p p . 4 3 , 4 6 (D. P . R . 1 9 9 5 ) . The Convention e s t a b l i s h e s a very strong presumption in favor of returning the child to the country of habitual residence. This is not the time to decide which is the better Blondin v. DUbois, 189 F.3d

parent or more deserving of custody. 240, 246 (2d Cir. 1999).

Any custody d i s p u t e s o r concerns should Friedrich v.
i

be r e s o l v e d i n the c o u r t s of t h e home country. F r i e d r i c h , 983 F.2d 1396, 1403 Supp. at 46. (6th Cir. 1993)

Journe, 911 F.

At t h i s stage in the present proceedings, the Court i s not d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r ZVG s h o u l d b e r e t u r n e d t o G e r m a n y . Based upon

the limited record presently before the Court, Petitioner has

4-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE E X E A T (EX PARTE)

made a s u f f i c i e n t s h o w i n g o f l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c c e s s t o s a t i s f y t h e winter standard. From the materials furnished by P e t i t i o n e r ,

there also appears to be a substantial r i s k t h a t one or more Respondents might take steps to conceal the child or to remove the child from this District. In addition, Petitioner fears that

Respondent Gooch might harm himself and/or the child, and she has provided specific reasons for such concern. The Court has authority to prevent a c h i l d ' s concealment or removal from the District u n t i l the Petition i s ruled upon. 42 U.S.C.
§

1 1 6 0 4 ( a ) ; Fed. R. c i v . P. 65.

Given the strong emotions frequently aroused in child custody matters, the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made t o the Court by Petitioner, and the very serious irreparable harm that i s likely to result both to the child and to Petitioner in the event the child i s wrongly removed from this jurisdiction or harmed, a Temporary Restraining Order is j u s t i f i e d to preserve the status quo pending a hearing. For purposes of Fed. R. c i v . P. 65(b), P e t i t i o n e r has made a s u f f i c i e n t showing t h a t unless the i n j u n c t i o n i s granted, she may sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there i s an opportunity to hear from a l l parties. From the present record,

i t does not appear that irreparable harm to Respondents will result from the granting of this temporary injunction. The

balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of Petitioner.

////

5-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE EXEAT (EX PARTE)

Issuance o f a n i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t p r i o r n o t i c e t o Respondents i s necessary due to the serious possibility (judging by Petitioner's submissions) that the child might be concealed or taken from this s t a t e before the injunction can be served. In

addition, the exact whereabouts of Respondent Gooch are unclear. The Court, in the exercise of i t s d i s c r e t i o n , declines to require Petitioner to post a bond as a condition of obtaining this injunction.

A.

Temporary Restraining Order

RESPONDENTS JOSEPH DANIEL GOOCH, TED DUELL, AND BONNIE DUELL, t h e i r a g e n t s , a n d a l l o t h e r s a c t i n g i n c o n c e r t w i t h t h e m , a r e HEREBY ENJOINED f r o m t a k i n g t h e c h i l d ZVG, o r a l l o w i n g t h e child to be taken, outside the State of Oregon without express written authorization from this Court. The Court w i l l not

h e s i t a t e t o o r d e r t h e a r r e s t o f any p e r s o n who v i o l a t e s t h i s injunction. RESPONDENTS JOSEPH DANIEL GOOCH, TED DUELL, AND BONNIE DUELL, t h e i r a g e n t s , a n d a l l o t h e r s a c t i n g i n c o n c e r t w i t h t h e m , a r e FURTHER ENJOINED f r o m c o n c e a l i n g ZVG o r c h a n g i n g Z V G ' s physical place of residence without express written authorization from this Court. RESPONDENTS JOSEPH DANIEL GOOCH, TED DUELL, AND BONNIE DUELL shall deliver to the United States Marshal, for safekeeping, any p a s s p o r t f o r ZVG t h a t i s i n R e s p o n d e n t s ' p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y , o r c o n t r o l , and s h a l l f u r t h e r n o t i f y the Marshal i f Respondents know

6-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE EXEAT (EX PARTE)

of a n y p e r s o n h a v i n g p o s s e s s i o n o f s u c h a p a s s p o r t .

The united

states Marshal is authorized to receive and to hold any such passport pending further instructions from this Court. This Temporary Restraining Order i s effective immediately, and s h a l l remain in e f f e c t u n t i l 5:00 p.m. on November 4, 2009, unless this court extends or modifies the injunction or enters an order terminating the injunction sooner. Any extension of t h i s

injunction will be effective immediately regardless of whether i t has yet been physically served upon an individual. In other

words, before taking any action that would violate the injunction, Respondents and a l l others must check with the Clerk of the Court and specifically verify that the injunction has not been extended.
B. Service.

The U n i t e d S t a t e s M a r s h a l s h a l l s e r v e Summons u p o n e a c h Respondent, along with copies of the Petition (docket # 3), the Declaration of Petitioner Establishing Habitual Residence of the Child (# 6 ) , and t h e Request f o r Issuance of Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g Order (# 7), with a l l attachments t h e r e t o .

c.

Hearing on Whether to Extend, Modify or Dissolve the Injunction.

The Court w i l l conduct a hearing on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, a t 1:30 p.m., a t the James A. Redden u n i t e d S t a t e s Courthouse a t 310 West s i x t h S t r e e t , i n Medford, Oregon, and hear any arguments for extending, modifying, or dissolving this

7-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE E X E A T (EX PARTE)

injunction. counsel.

Respondents may appear p e r s o n a l l y o r through

Upon request and with s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n , the

Court will consider allowing a party to appear via telephone, p r o v i d e d t h e C o u r t h a s p r o o f t h a t t h e c h i l d ZVG i s s a f e a n d t h e whereabouts of the child are disclosed to this Court. Any w r i t t e n submissions must be received by the Clerk no l a t e r than November 2, 2009, to ensure the Court has s u f f i c i e n t time to consider the material prior to the hearing.

D.

Trial.

A c o u r t t r i a l o n w h e t h e r t o g r a n t t h e P e t i t i o n t o r e t u r n ZVG to Germany i s s e t for Monday, December 14, 2009, commencing a t 1 : 3 0 p . m . , a t t h e J a m e s A. R e d d e n u n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t h o u s e a t 3 1 0 West Sixth S t r e e t , Medford, Oregon. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s 2 1 s t d a y o f O c t o b e r , 2 0 0 9 , a t

3 , 1 0 0 P.M.

OWEN M. PANNER UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T JUDGE

o{!U( )t(i)21~

8-

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER NE EXEAT (EX PARTE)