Marriage of Witherspoon
California Court of Appeal
155 Cal. App. 4th 963, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 586 (2007)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Danny Witherspoon (plaintiff) and Julie Witherspoon (defendant) were married and had two children. Julie joined the Army reserves, and in 1998 she left Danny and took the children with her. Julie was deployed to Germany, and the children moved there in early 2003. In July 2006, the children became ill and were hospitalized in Germany. Julie threatened to hurt herself and the children, so the children were not released to her. The children entered and remained in foster care until they went to California to live with Danny in August 2006. Danny filed a petition for dissolution in California. In October 2006, Julie petitioned the California court to return the children to Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention). Danny and Julie agreed that Germany was the children’s habitual residence, and the trial court found that Danny and Julie shared custody under German law. Danny argued that his removal of the children to Germany was not wrongful because German law permitted him to determine the children’s residence. The California court granted Julie’s petition and ordered the children’s return to Germany. Danny appealed, arguing that his removal was not wrongful.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aronson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.