Reyes v. Jeffcoat

Filing 36

ORDER Federal courts have been given jurisdiction of actions arising, such as this one, arising under the Hague Convention, this court has jurisdiction over this case. Court denies 18 Amended MOTION to Dismiss , or in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Harry Lee Langford Jeffcoat, and finding as moot 15 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Harry Lee Langford Jeffcoat. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/17/12. (mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Maritza Meszaros Reyes,
Petitioner,
vs.
Harry Lee Langford Jeffcoat,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:12-cv-298-JFA

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Respondent’s Amended Motion to Dismiss,
or in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 18). The parties
to this case are involved in a child custody dispute. However, this court is not called on
to decide which parent should have custody of the children—rather, it is this court’s duty
to determine whether the courts of Venezuela or the courts of the United States should
decide the underlying child custody dispute. In his motion, the respondent has called into
question this court’s jurisdiction over this matter. After thoroughly reviewing the parties’
briefs on this motion and after hearing argument by both sides on this motion, this court
denies Respondent’s motion.
This court believes that the instant matter is properly before it based on the
jurisdiction conferred to federal courts in 42 U.S.C. § 11603 over actions arising under
the Hague Convention. This court is not persuaded by Respondent’s arguments that this
court lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner has United States green card. As required by
the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, the petitioner in this case has properly
1

commenced judicial proceedings under the Hague Convention by filing her petition in a
federal court where the children were located at the time of the filing. See 42 U.S.C. §
11603(b). Because federal courts have been given jurisdiction of actions, such as this
one, arising under the Hague Convention, this court has jurisdiction over this case.
This court hereby denies Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 18). Additionally, the original Motion
to Dismiss filed by Respondent is moot. (ECF No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 17, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2