Case Update (14 Oct 2025): Winchester v. Winchester; trial court clearly erred in registering English custody order and ordering child returned under Abduction Convention
In late 2023, a family moved to the United Kingdom for the Father’s work in the U.S. Air Force. In September 2024, the Mother reported domestic violence, resulting in the Father being removed from the family residence. There were then a series of No Contact Orders, eventually replaced by a Military Protective Order. The Mother requested assistance from the USAF to arrange travel to return to the USA. The USAF approved of her request, and on March 14, 2025, the Mother and Children flew to Indiana and moved in with her parents. The same day, the Father filed a custody proceeding in the Family Court in Norwich, England, and the court held a “without notice urgent hearing” resulting in an order, with the English court concluding it had jurisdiction as the children’s “habitual residence.” The Father sought to register that order in Indiana under Indiana’s enactment of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and separately filed an application for return of the children under the Hague Abduction Convention with the UK Central Authority. He produced a copy of that application to the Indiana court. After this, Mother sought temporary emergency custody and the Father obtained a child arrangements order from the court in England. Ultimately, the court in Indiana ordered the return of the children under the Abduction Convention and registered the English orders. The Mother appeals.
On appeal, the court reversed and remanded. On the issue of the registered English orders, the Indiana court concluded the Mother had no notice of the English proceedings, and even though the English solicitor advised the Mother of potential consequences if she removed the children from the UK, this correspondence from the solicitor was not equal to the notice required under the UCCJEA. Further, the Indiana trial court, upon learning of the English proceedings, did not stay its proceedings and try to communicate with the court in the UK before issuing an order. Further, the Father, while filing an application for assistance in securing the children’s voluntary return with the Central Authority, did NOT properly commence a request to return the children in a legal proceeding - by filing a lawsuit where the children were sitting in Indiana - which is required under the U.S. Implementing legislation. Therefore, the court in Indiana should not have “granted” his request to return the children because he never actually made a proper request under the law.
[*] Quick note, the court refers to Indiana’s enactment of the UCCJEA as the UCCJA. Indiana actually adopted the UCCJEA, to replaces the UCCJA, in 2007. The opinion continues to refer to the UCCJA, which is the predecessor legislation that was enacted in Indiana before 2007. I anticipate the court simply continues to use the same acronym, and was referring to the current legislation - the UCCJEA.
