Case Update (23 April 2025): Niemeyer v. Niemeyer; no abuse of discretion in denying an ASI that would have enjoined Mother from proceeding with Turkish custody case

This case is a rare, but interesting, issue that we see in some international family law cases - an antisuit injunction. In this case, the Husband appeals a non-final order from a Florida court that denied his request for an ASI, which would enjoin his Wife from litigating the dissolution and custody lawsuit she filed in the Turkish courts. The parties married in Florida in 2016, and their only child was born in 2017. On March 9, 2023, the Mother abducted the parties’ child from Florida to Turkey. She filed a dissolution and custody lawsuit in Turkey just over one week later. On March 20, 2023, the Turkish court issued an interim custody order, finding Turkey to be the child’s “habitual residence”. The Husband had not yet been served with process in the Turkish suit. Three days later, “evidently unaware of the pending Turkish case”, the Husband filed a dissolution and custody action in Florida, and two weeks later, he filed an application with the U.S. Department of State Office of Children’s Issues under the Abduction Convention, seeking the child’s return. On October 19, 2023, he served the Wife with the Florida lawsuit. On October 31, 2023, she answered the petition, asserting that Turkey had jurisdiction over the child’s custody, not Florida, “under the UCCJEA”. She alleged that the child was a Turkish citizen, began her education in Turkey, spent up to 6 months annually in Turkey, and was enrolled in school is Istanbul. On November 23, 2023, the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursued the Hague Abduction Convention case against the Mother. It was then, on February 14, 2024, that the Father filed the request for an ASI, which is at issue in this appeal. On May 8, 2024, the Turkish courts ordered the child returned to the USA. The Mother’s appeal was unsuccessful. The Abduction Convention return order is currently stayed by order of the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Florida court denied the ASI request.

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal noted that a Florida court is permitted to order an ASI, “[b]ut the general rule is that ‘when concurrent jurisdiction exists’ in parallel fora, ‘each forum is ordinarily free to proceed to a judgment.’” “Antisuit injunctions involving foreign proceedings implicate an additional layer of concern. ‘[S]ince the effect of an injunction is to ‘restrict the foreign court’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction,’ which may invite reciprocal action in kind, ‘only in the most compelling circumstances does a court have discretion to issue an antisuit injunction.’” The considerations are: whether the Turkish court prevents Florida’s jurisdiction or threaten’s a vital Florida policy, and whether the domestic interests outweigh concerns of international comity.

In this case, the Husband argues that Florida has “jurisdictional priority” over the parties’ child because it is the home state under the UCCJEA. Therefore, he argues that the trial court erred in not granting the ASI, because an ASI “is necessary to protect its [Florida’s] jurisdiction.” Ergo, “the Turkish family court’s interim ruling runs afoul of the UCCJEA and given the lack of service, traditional notions of due process.” The Court of Appeal noted that there are “insurmountable procedural hurdles.” The court noted that the Husband and Wife have different stories as to where the child resided throughout the year, with the Mother asserting that the child was in Turkey for up to 6 months each year and attended school there, while the Father contended the child has lived in Miami continuously since birth and was enrolled in Miami-Dade public school. There is an insufficient record at present to resolve the factual dispute. Further, while the Turkish court has stayed the Hague Abduction return order, the Florida Court of Appeal “cannot, at this stage in the proceedings, impute any abuse of discretion.” Therefore, the trial court is affirmed.