Kufner v. Kufner

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 162 Emergency Expedited Motion for Relief. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 8/9/13. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
_________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TINA KUFNER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________)
DOMINIK KUFNER,

C.A. No. 07-046-S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 12, 2013, Respondent Tina Kufner filed an Emergency
Expidited [sic] Motion for Relief.

(ECF No. 162.)

In her

Motion, Ms. Kufner seeks to “correct” several docket entries in
this

case,

including

“to

the

correct

Opinion

the

and

mistakes

Order

of

made

March

by

25,

this

2007,”

Court,
and

to

reopen the case and “hold the [Petitioner Dominik Kufner] in
contempt of Court for violating the Opinion and Order of March
25, 2007 ‘undertakings.’”

(Id. at 24, 26.)

On January 31, 2007, Mr. Kufner filed a Petition for Return
of

Children

brought

pursuant

to

the

International

Child

Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq., and the Hague
Convention

on

the

Civil

Aspects

of

International

Child

Abduction.

Mr. Kufner’s Petition sought the return of his two

sons (then, ages eight and seven and now, ages fourteen and
thirteen) to Germany.

After several hearing days, the Court, on

March 28, 2007, granted the Petition and found that the children
had

been

wrongfully

removed

from

their

country

of

habitual

residence by Ms. Kufner and ordered their return to Germany.
(Opinion and Order (“Opinion”) 49, March 28, 2007, ECF No. 69.)
The

Court’s

Order

was

also

subject

to

three

“Undertakings”

intended to protect the children from any risk of harm upon
return

to

Germany

and

“[u]ntil

the

appropriate

German

court

makes specific determinations regarding custody and access and
visitation rights.”

(Id. at 43-50); see also Walsh v. Walsh,

221

(1st

F.3d

204,

undertakings

219

“allows

Cir.

courts

placement

options

and

legal

habitual

residence

to

preserve

(The

conduct

to

2000)

an

safeguards
the

consideration
evaluation

in

child’s

of

of
the

the

country

of

safety

while

the

courts of that country have the opportunity to determine custody
of

the

children

jurisdiction”).

within

the

physical

boundaries

of

their

Ms. Kufner unsuccessfully appealed the Court’s

decision to grant Mr. Kufner’s Petition for the return of the
children

to

Germany

March 7, 2008.

and

the

Court’s

(ECF No. 127.)

Orders

were

affirmed

on

Despite further litigation in

this Court in 2008 and 2009 over the award of attorney’s fees
and costs, Ms. Kufner did not timely move for correction of any
claimed docketing or other errors and never timely filed any
formal

motion

seeking

to

hold

Mr.

Kufner

in

contempt

for

violating

any

of

the

interim

“undertakings”

ordered

by

this

this

closed

and

long

Court.
Now,

several

years

after

case

was

after any rights Ms. Kufner had to appeal and/or reopen this
case have expired, see Fed. R. App. P. 4 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60,
she seeks to reopen this case for various reasons.

While Ms.

Kufner’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of this case and the
subsequent family court proceedings in Germany is apparent and
understandable from her perspective, this Court has no ongoing
legal basis to interfere with child custody issues which are
within the jurisdiction of the courts of the children’s country
of habitual residence, i.e., Germany.

Furthermore, while this

Court may have had limited contempt jurisdiction to enforce the
“undertakings” it ordered, those “undertakings” were ordered in
2007 and were plainly intended as only interim safeguards to
protect the children from harm during their period of return and
“[u]ntil

the

determinations

appropriate
regarding

German

custody

and

court

makes

access

rights” which apparently occurred long ago.

and

specific
visitation

(Opinion 50.)

The

“undertakings” were not intended to be and are not permanent,
ongoing

orders

enforceable

in

perpetuity.

This

is

a

closed

case, and Ms. Kufner has presented no valid legal or factual
bases

to

reopen

it.

Accordingly,

Respondent’s

Emergency

Expidited [sic] Motion for Relief (ECF No. 162) is DENIED and
this case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith
United States District Judge
Date: August 9, 2013