Case Update (14 Oct 2026): Acosta v. Martinez-Borges; Father’s appeal dismissed under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine after he absconded with the child
This is the case of divorced parents with a ten-year-old son. The parents divorced in 2021, but continued to disagree about the child’s educational and medical needs. In March 2025, after a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the Miami-Dade trial court gave the Mother sole parental responsibility and reduced the Father’s timesharing. The Father appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Father asked the court for permission to travel with the child and his long-term partner to the Dominican Republic for a week in July 2026. The court agreed. The Father did not return, and told the Mother, through their court-ordered communication platform, that he would not be bringing the child back. His partner testified that, the day before they were all to fly home, the Father claimed an emergency and left the Dominican Republic with the child on an unknown airline to an unknown location. The trial court entered a pick-up order, suspended the Father’s timesharing, and issued an arrest warrant, which remains unserved. The Mother asked the appellate court to dismiss the Father’s appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal explained that the doctrine comes from a court’s inherent power to refuse to hear claims from someone who is a fugitive from justice. While it began in criminal cases, it has been applied in civil cases, including custody cases. Some courts use a three-part test: (1) the party is a fugitive; (2) the fugitive status is connected to the case; and (3) dismissal is necessary to serve the purposes of the doctrine. In custody cases, courts apply it sparingly, and only where there is a strong connection between the fugitive status and the order being challenged, such as where a parent has removed or hidden the child, making enforcement of any decision unlikely.
The court found the doctrine applied here. The Father engaged in “self-help” by fleeing with the child to an unknown place, and he will not even tell his partner where he is. His fugitive status is directly connected to the timesharing order on appeal. Whether the court affirmed or reversed, its decision could not be enforced, and the court declined to decide what might be a moot case. It would also be inequitable to let the Father use the court’s resources while ignoring the very order he is asking the court to review. The appeal was dismissed.
Compare this case to USA v. Gaulsh, where the U.S. District Court for the SDNY declined to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to a Father charged with international parental kidnapping, because he had not concealed himself, but had simply remained in his home country of Denmark.
