Referee Dean Richardson-Mendelson

Read Full-Text Decision

Attorney for the Children (AFC) sought to extend a final order of protection (FOP) issued against father in favor of mother and the parties' two sons. Father sought to repatriate mother and sons to Italy, and enforcement of various orders of the Italian courts. The FOP was previously extended, but father argued he did not violate it before the AFC filed her motion, nor did he commit any acts specified in Family Court Act §812. The court found father's reliance on §812 was misplaced as the legal authority to extend an FOP was within §842. It found nothing changed since the previous order granting an extension. The domestic violence findings by the District Court, as affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the “good cause” standard of §842 being met, warranting extending the FOP another year years. Also, the court noted there were questions as to the validity of the Italian court order, and the accuracy of the translation, but even assuming validity, the court stated it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the order. Further, it noted the Italian order required repatriation which this could lacked jurisdiction to order, noting the issue was previously litigated in federal court, thus, father's application was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel/res judicata.