Court: Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial District, Collier County, Florida. Number: 89-0459-CA-01-CTC Applicant: Katharina Haefeli and Respondent: Derek Warren Date: 21 Feb 1989 ================================================================= IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN RE: The Application of ) ) KATHARINA HAEFELI, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) and ) CASE NO. 39-0459-CA-01-CTC ) DEREK WARREN, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Before the Honorable Charles T. Carlton, Judge of said Court, at the proceedings in the above-styled cause on February 21, 1989, commencing at 3:15 p.m., at the Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida. APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner: EUGENE A. LOJEWSKI, ESQ. 5101 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 For the Respondent: No Appearance PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: Be seated, please. THE BAILIFF: No talking in the courtroom, please. THE COURT: We are here this afternoon on the matter of the application of Katharina Haefeli, Petitioner, and Derek Warren, Respondent. Are the parties ready to proceed? MR. LOJEWSKI: Yes, we are, Your Honor. THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed, sir? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you have an opening statement? MR. LOJEWSKI: Yes, Your Honor, a brief opening statement, and this is necessary to the nature of this case. There have been no cases filed, in the State of Florida, with respect to the Hague Convention Treaty. On July 1, 1988, the Treaty went into law with United States as ICARA, the International Child Abduction remedies Act. By way of explanation, prior to the enactment of that Treaty, if a child crossed international lines, there was very little way to get expeditious return the child to the country where the child habitually resided. The Treaty was enacted and provides, among other things that a person can apply privately, as she has; to the Court for relief under the terms of the Treaty, that it can be done through a State agency, if one exists, none exist in the State of Florida, and it provides that the Court will take direct knowledge of the laws of the other states. It provides further that any attachments to a petition for the exercise of the Hague Convention powers, that any papers attached to that are admissible in Court without necessity of further proof. It provides for a fast method for the Court to return the child to the parent that was the residential parent of the child in the other country. It further does provide in the United States, as a mandatory thing, that all costs and expenses of the petitioning party be borne by the Respondent. In other countries, it's at the option or the court; in the United States, it's mandatory. Part of the reason it is mandatory in the United States is because of the fact that we don't have a comparable system, such as Great Britain does, where they provide the aid to people in these kind of cases at no cost and no charges. Here, expressly in our act, the petitioning party must bare all costs and expenses, but has the right to have the Court order that the Respondent to pay. The requirements under the Convention are that you have to prove that the taking was wrongful. You have to prove where the habitual residence of the child was, and you have to prove that there are no defenses to the taking of the child. With those allegations being met, then the Court does not, and expressly in the Federal Register and also the Court in the contracting statements in this case, the United States, in particular, Florida, does not make any custody determinations of the child. It is left to the laws of the country in which the custody proceedings can be brought. In this case, the country that would be involved would be Great Britain. It is not totally dissimilar from the UCCJA with the exception of those elements that I mentioned. We do have, coming in from London, certified copies of the decree of the courts of London. One other thing, at the time of the divorce, there was no award of custody made by the parents. Apparently this was not unusual in London. Under the Hague Convention, additionally, which is distinct from the UCCJA, terms of the Treaty do not require an order of that state, of that country, in this case, Great Britain, granted custody. So, even if they had not given the order February 10 granting her provisional custody, she still would be able to come in under Hague Convention and petition this Cour for return of the child to Switzerland. That is the opening statement. THE COURT: All right, sir, do you care to make an opening statement? MR. WARREN: Yes, I will. Thank you. Perhaps I can say first that, because I didn't know about this case until yesterday afternoon, a public holiday, I have had no time to find an attorney who is briefed on what's relatively new law in this country, the Hague Convention, and introduced in July of last year. Also, because of what's been happening in the UK, my assets have been frozen. I don't have access to my bank account, my credit cards have been withdrawn, and that makes it even more difficult to retain an attorney in this country, but I am prepared to make my own case, to represent myself, and I have taken some legal advice. The main points I would argue, as the attorney has acknowledged, there was no custody order made. Therefor, in my opinion, I had as much right to have my daughter with me as my former wife had to go with her at the time she began traveling. I think the other major point I would like to make is that if she is returned to the custody of my wife, my ex-wife, that would mean she would go to Switzerland, not to England, that was my problem originally. I couldn't get a court case in England where the findings of that court would actually be complied with in Switzerland. My access arrangements were being curtailed. I felt very upset about that, and I tried every way I could, but was unsuccessful while the child was in Switzerland. I will contest that it's her habitual residence. She is now almost nine years old. She lived for six-and-three-quarter years in England. She has also returned to England seven times since she went to live in Switzerland. THE COURT: Thank you. Call your first witness, please. MR. LOJEWSKI: My first witness is Katharina Haefeli, the Petitioner. THE BAILIFF: Face the clerk and raise your right hand, please. WHEREUPON KATHARINA HAEFELI, the Petitioner herein, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LOJEWSKI: Q Will you state your name, please? A Katharina Haefeli. Q I'll call you Kathy, it's easier, if you don't mind. Kathy, are you the Petitioner in the action to invoke the terms of the Hague Convention? A Yes, sir. Q Kathy, have you read the Petition that was filed in this particular case? A Yes. Q Do you know if the facts in it are true and correct? A Yes, they are. Q Could you tell me when you and your husband, ex-husband, got divorced? A Our divorce came through, it would be May, two year ago in '87. Q When did you leave England? A I left England the Christmas before, Christmas of '86. Q Did you leave England with your child? A That's right. Q What were the terms of your leaving with the child? Was the court there notified? A Yes. Q Was it with the court's approval that the child was removed to Switzerland? A Yes. Q How long did you reside in Switzerland with the child? A Ever since now. Q During that period of time, were visitation arrangements made for the child to see the father? A Yes. Q What were these arrangements? A Well, the arrangements were, basically, that Jessica should go over to England four times a year, for a holiday, one to two weeks, and that her father should also be able to come and visit her, which he did, and that she should be able to write to him, and they should be able to phone each other. Q Was that, in fact, done? A Yes. Q Now, how did your ex-husband, the father of the child, how did he obtain the child Christmas of 1988? A I sent Jessica over on December 24th on a flight to London for a holiday, which she was going to spend with her dad for a week, the duration of the week. Q Was he to return the child then at a date certain? A No. Q Was he to return the child back to you? A Yes, he should have returned her on that January 1st. Q What happened thereafter? A I just received a message on that day that my daughter wouldn't be coming home. Q Okay. Did you have any written communication from him? A Yes, the week after, I did. There was also a phone call. I tried to contact my ex-husband to find out what was going on. I finally got to talk to him. He just said he wouldn't return Jessica for now; he wasn't going to tell me where she was. I should just wait until he sent me a letter, and I should just wait and read the letter first, and then he would talk to me on the phone again. Q I am now showing you a copy of the letter, another copy of which is filed with the court. Can you identify that letter? A Yes. Q Is that the letter that you received? A Yes. Q Without reading the whole letter, does that letter state that he is not going to return the child? A Yes. It actually states that he wasn't happy with the visiting arrangement, that he didn't see enough of Jessica, and that he was going to keep Jessica for a year, and he was planning to travel probably in Africa. Q Did he subsequently then go to Africa? A As we did find out, yes, he did go to Egypt. Q How did you obtain that information? A Well, not right away, we found out. We asked the Swiss Authorities to tap our phones, because we knew that he was going to phone at a certain time, and the Swiss Authorities then found out that the phone call was coming from Jerusalem, Israel. Q So, he traveled from Egypt to Israel? A No, he traveled from England to Israel, first, and then on to Cairo, Egypt. Q At any time during that period of time, did you have any contact with your child? A Yes, Jessica was allowed to phone, and she also wrote. Q Okay. Was she allowed to tell you where she was? A No. Q What happened next? A Well, INTERPOL Israel did trace him back and confirmed that they were in the country, and they were also able to tell me the date they arrived in the country. They promised me that they would not be able to leave the country then. The next thing that happened, we had a Telex from INTERPOL again saying that Jessica was now in Cairo, Egypt. Q How did you trace her to the United States? A It was my lawyer in England finding out that the daughters of my ex-husband's girlfriend were going to meet her in Miami. Q Did you get any other letters from your former husband, the child's father? A Yes. Q Did any of those letters reflect that he was not going to return the child? A Yes. Q Did they make any comments about where the child belonged? A That's right. He wrote in his last letter that he was certain that Jessica belonged to England, and that she ought to go to school in England. Q Is it costly for you to stay here in the United States? A Yes. Q Is it necessary for you to return to Switzerland with the child? A Yes. Q What about the family that you have in Switzerland; what do you do with them? A Well, it's very difficult at the moment, because I do have a nine-month old daughter from my second marriage now, and she does need me. I have a very good friend looking after her at the moment, but the sooner I can return, the better. I've also got two stepsons, aged 12 and 8, and obviously, they miss me, too. Q All right. So, your return to Switzerland, as soon as possible, is very, very important? A Yes. Q Are you asking this Court to release the child in your custody for return to Switzerland? A Yes. Q Have you filed an affidavit, at this time, with the Court as to your expenditures at this time? A That's right. Q Is it a complete affidavit? A Yes. Q Well, from the standpoint that you have more costs and expenses that are not listed on that affidavit? A It's possible. Q For example, I am showing you a copy. Is this the affidavit that you signed? The original is with the Court file. A That's right. Q Item 6 reflects that there are additional expenses. Are you willing to provide them to the Court for consideration at a future date? A Yes. MR. LOJEWSKI: Your honor, I have no further questions. THE COURT: Would you care to ask any questions? MR. WARREN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WARREN: Q Could you say what the original agreement was that we had when you went to live in Switzerland with Jessica, how often I would have access to her and what contact I would have with her? A I think the original agreement was that Jessica should go over to England five times a year, and that her dad should be able to come to Switzerland to visit in between; obviously, too, that they should be able to write to each other and to have phone calls-- Q Did I say -- A -- but, we also said that we would review the situation after one year, because there was no telling how Jessica could put up with traveling forwards and backwards to the United Kingdom over time. As a matter of fact, it wasn't possible for her to fly over five times a year because of holidays. She only got a holiday four times a year. Q Could you say then what arrangements you proposed to changing those access arrangements in June of last year? MR. LOJEWSKI: Your Honor, respecfullly to the father of the child, the issues under the Convention are restricted to wrongful detention and any possible defenses for those which are not dissimilar to the UCCJA. Quite frankly, Switzerland and England and the United States are all signatory countries to the Treaty. The rights are also covered under the Hague Convention, and can easily be done between the countries of Great Britain and Switzerland. In fact, the proper forum that would be the courts of London or a transfer, for jurisdictional purposes, even though jurisdiction is not in it, transfer to Switzerland if that state has more in contention with respect to a custody dispute, but the Hague Convention does address those issues, but between Great Britain and Switzerland, not in this Court. He has not filed a petition for enforcement in this court. THE COURT: All right. I'm going to overrule the objection. Go right ahead. MR. WARREN: Thank you, Your Honor. CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WARREN: Q Could you then say what the arrangements for access you proposed in June of last year were? A I'm very sorry, I haven't got the paper on me. Q Well, just from memory then. A Yes. From memory, I think we said four times a year that she could come over, and that we always agreed on alternative Christmases. That's another thing. Q Maybe I could rephrase the question. Could you tell us what were the major changes in your proposal to the access arrangements from what they were originally to what you were then proposing? A The major changes were we realized that it wasn't possible if Jessica came for Christmas, then she should come over five times. That was impossible, because she didn't have enough holidays to come over five times, so we said four times a year. We said, really, three times a year plus alternate Christmases. Q What about phone calls? A And we did say that it was too much if you phoned every week. Q What were you proposing? A I was proposing once every fourth night (Editor's note: Probably every fortnight [14 days])-- Q Sorry, your memory has slipped. A -- once every fourth -- Q You were asking, proposing, once every month. Anything else you can remember about what you were proposing? A No, I'm sorry, I don't. Q Can you remember what you said would happen if I didn't agree to those proposals that was also written in the proposal that you handed to me? A Yes, we did say that we would go before the Swiss court. Q No, sorry. Can you say what you proposed would happen in terms of my access to Jessica if I didn't agree? A That we would cut down. Q In what way? A That you wouldn't be able to see her, because you did not agree to that. Q Do you think that sounds like a mutual agreement over access to Jessica? A No, it wasn't a mutual agreement. You never agreed to it. That's why we then called in the international social people to help us out and to talk about it. Q Who called in the International Social Services? A You did. That's right. Q I'm sorry to raise this. Can you say whether you feel Jessica gets along well with your new husband? A Yes. Q You feel she does? A Yes. Q Do you feel she is scared of him? A No. Q Do you feel that she has been scared about the problems raised when I phoned, because of his reaction? A Yes. Q Why do you think that is? A Because you have been intruding into our family life. Q I 'm talking about when I have phoned as we have agreed? A No, it was not a problem when you phoned as it was agreed. It was not a problem. Q When would you say we stopped complying with the original agreement for phone calls to be every week with me phoning Switzerland one week, and Jessica phoning England on alternate weeks? A I don't remember, and I don't think that's relevant at this point. Q I think it is. MR. WARREN: Okay. Thank you very much, Your Honor. MR. LOJEWSKI: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may step down. Call your next witness, please. MR. LOJEWSKI: Your Honor, we do not have a next witness. We are ready to rest out case and make a short, brief closing. THE COURT: All right, sir. At this time, you have an opportunity to present witnesses or make any statement under oath, if you so desire. MR. WARREN: I would like to make a statement, and I will keep it as brief as possible. May I make it from here? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Swear the witness, please, WHEREUPON DEREK WARREN, the Respondent herein, having been first duly sworn, testifies as follows: MR. WARREN: There arc several inaccuracies, first of all, that I would like to point out in the Petition that is before the Court. If I could refer, Your Honor, to specific sections of it. On the first page, Count One, No. 4, "The Petitioner has a right of custody," of the child's mother, under the meaning of the Convention. In my opinion, as the attorney said right at the beginning, no custody order was ever made in the UK. When our divorce settlement went through, because the Court knew in advance that Jessica was going to be leaving, with my consent, to live in Switzerland, and therefore going outside the Courts jurisdiction, they made no custody order, and they gave no order of parental power. [Editor's Note: Guardianship, Legal Custody] What they did agree to was a Section 41 certificate, which says that the Court recognizes that the arrangements made for the child are adequate, and that they have been agreed to by both parents. We agreed on an affidavit, presented by my former wife, laying out access arrangements, which I reluctantly agreed to, and it provides that we will review it after one year, and the affidavit launched [Editor's note: Should this be "lodged?"] by me with the Court in England said that will be happy to have it reviewed after one year, because I would consider in that time the access arrangements should be improved. I thought it was important for the first year, when she was going to live in a new country, learn a new language, that I shouldn't be too disruptive, but then my access to her in the two years previously, when we have been separated, have been very good, and I would like to see it returned to something like that, although the problems with living in two countries would have to be taken into account. Prior to my former wife moving back to Switzerland, Jessica has spent every other weekend with me, half of all her school holidays, and also, fairly frequent visit during evenings of the week when my former wife was working, and I was in Oxford as part of my job. So, I had very frequent access to her, and I would like to see that continue. So, I would certainly challenge thee is any right of custody. In my opinion, I never gave up any rights to my daughter; I never wanted to give up any rights to my daughter. I wanted to have as much involvement in her life as possible, and I wanted to be, as far as possible, in the circumstances, a full partner in her up-bringing. I certainly did not intend ever to forego any rights of custody or parental power. The second inaccuracy, as far as I am concerned, in here would be on Page 2, Count One, No. 5, "Pursuant to said Court orders, Petitioner is the custodial parent of the minor child." For the same reason, I would not accept that that is correct. On the same page, under No. 6, "at which time he notified the custodial parent that he was emigrating to Africa." That is simply not the truth. Your Honor, you have before you, I think, a copy of my letter which I sent explaining what I intended to do. I said I would be traveling and working for a period of a few months. There was a very specific reason for that apart from anything else, my intention was to take my daughter back to school in England, since she had been in Switzerland for two years, living and working in school in Germany. I felt she needed some time to catch up, and my intention was to work on a free-lance basis and to spend time with her as her personal tutor, which I have done. I have all the books, textbooks; I have the work she's done in the six or seven weeks she has spent with me. I have the timetable that we agreed between us to work to, and I had several discussions with schools and teachers in England before I left to make sure that when we went back, she would be at the required standard when she went back into school. I am happy to lay before the Court all the work she has done in the previous seven or eight weeks. On the same page, No. 7, "habitually a resident of Switzerland," I am not sure of a definition, under the Convention "habitually a resident," but she spent far more of her life in England than she has in Switzerland. Under No. 8 on the same page, "Respondent has traveled extensively throughout the world in his attempt to elude the authorities." I went to Israel, where I spent five weeks living in an apartment in secure surroundings doing some work where Jessica had a base in which we could do some work, a study room in which she could work independently. I then left Israel, purely, to get a Transatlantic flight. It's much cheaper to do that from Egypt than from Israel. I traveled to Cairo, were I spent three days booking a flight on Transatlantic on route to Mexico to do some more work, where we had an apartment planned, where we had some work to do, exactly the same circumstances. The reason for coming into the United States is again, because it's much cheaper to fly in the United States. I would also -- my partner's sister lives here in Naples, and we came to visit, to give her an opportunity to see her children on route to Mexico. So, I think the tone, the impression, that that gives, that I was somehow Jetting from place to place to avoid people contacting me is not correct. I think those are the main points I would pick out in terms of purely inaccuracy in the Petition that is before you. The major points I think I want to make are that the Hague Convention certainly says that signatory countries should try to insure custody, but it also has a duty to try and insure access. I feel that my access rights have been severely curtailed, and I should add that I feel very strongly, on the basis of the time I've spent with my daughter, that she would feel much more comfortable living in England. She would prefer to do that. She loves her mother very much. She doesn't want not to see her mother. But, she would feel happier, more content, living in England, living with me. I would be very happy to go with extremely liberal access rights, including the right to phone anytime, et cetera, the rights I would like to have had. In that respect, I don't believe Your Honor is in the position to make that order today, but I think it worth noting, and I thank that's the case. The other point, of course, is I don't believe any custody order was ever made, and therefore, I cannot be accused of having absconded with my daughter. I feel I have every right to take her with me. There is a lot of history, I think, that I could go back over that might throw light on the case, but I think, at this point, unless Your Honor would like to hear more about what I consider to be the problems involved, then I will stop. One, perhaps, two very brief points I would like to make. One is that the papers that I referred to, for instance, the letter I was given in the middle of last year stating new access rights would be imposed on me and that if I didn't agree -- perhaps I could actually tell you exactly what it did say. If I didn't agree to the access arrangements being proposed, that no future international phone calls would be allowed, and Jessica would not be allowed to come to England, and I would lose any rights to come and visit her. That's if I didn't accept the new conditions. The major points of contention was phone calls, where the original agreement was once a week; it was being reduced to once a month. I feel that was extremely unreasonable for a eight-year old child. That's a very long time. That would mean I would lose contact with her, when I feel I have had an extremely strong relationship with her. I would urge, Your Honor, if it's possible to do that, to talk to people from social services and to talk to my daughter, herself, to get some impression. She is an articulate, intelligent child. She would be very happy to talk to you and to tell you what she feels, and I would urge you to do that before you make any decision. The other point I would raise is that she has extensive family in Britain, not just myself. During her formative years, she was extremely close to my brother's family and her cousins and her paternal grandmother. All of whom live in Wales. But, each time she comes to England, almost, we take her to visit, because she is very close to them. Any denial of access rights which make her visits to England less frequent makes it more difficult for them to keep in contact with her. And, I think that would be, from her point of view, a great disappointment, and I think it would be to her detriment if that were to happen. I think that's all I want to say at this time. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LOJEWSKI: Your Honor, I have no need to cross-examine him. THE COURT: All right. Do you have any rebuttal testimony? MR. LOJEWSKI: No rebuttal testimony, Your Honor. We are ready to close. THE COURT: Any closing arguments? MR. LOJEWSKI: Yes, Your Honor. I am going to read from the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 58, Wednesday, March 26, 1986, at Page 10,505. It says, "Predecree Removals or Retentions: Children who are wrongfully removed, retained, prior to the entry of a custody order are protected by the Convention. There need not be a custody order in effect in order to invoke the Convention from (sic) [Editor's note: this should read: . . .the Convention's return . . .] return provisions. Accordingly, under the Convention, a child would be ordered returned to the person with whom he or she was habitually resident in predecree abduction cases, as well as in cases involving violations of existing custody orders." The Convention, because of the fact that in some countries, there might be what we call a custodial parent without the necessity of court order, the Convention directly addresses that that is what happened in this particular case. The child went to Switzerland with approval of both parents. Switzerland became the habitual resident place of the child, and these are Hague Convention terms, a custody order has, Your Honor, been subsequently entered, but the testimony both by the mother and by the father indicates that the child has resided in Switzerland, and in the case further, that the child was, just for a short period of time, to be in England for the holidays. The father of the child, Mr. Warren, has used the Convention terms of access rights. He, apparently, has read the Hague Convention, because this is the terminology utilized under that Convention. It does protect his access rights, too, but this forum is not the right forum to do it in. The forum to do it in would be the place where the child habitually resides, which is Switzerland. So, his referral to the use of the Convention for that purpose should be over there. The courts in this country are limited, basically, to determine that there was wrongful taking, and a wrongful taking as also defined as one in which the child has not returned after visitation. That's in the Federal Register on the next page. In this particular case, the evidence is quite replete by both parties that the child went to visit, that the child did live in Switzerland, and the child was not returned. As such, all of the terms of the Convention are met, and the remedies are to return the child to the person with whom the child habitually resided, which, in fact, is the mother of the child. We are, additionally, asking, since this is an international case, return of the passport, which we believe in possession of the father. THE COURT: Do you care to make a final argument, sir. MR. WARREN: Yes, I would. Thank you Your Honor. I think when I allowed my daughter to go Switzerland, I did that in good faith, expecting the agreement we had made would be complied with. It was only when they were not complied with, which, in my opinion, made them no longer valid, that I decided to take some action. I would stress very strongly that my former wife has made very clear that if Jessica is released into her custody, she will return to Switzerland. My major problem, in over a year-and-a-half, is trying to do something about my access arrangements, because it is not possible to do that in Switzerland, where the rights of the father are not recognized. The order, as I understand it here, the one you have before you from the Court in England is actually, apart from anything else, the two aspects of the order are, in fact, in direct contradiction of one another, which I feel strongly should make the order invalid, or should at least make Your Honor question strongly which of the aspects of the order should be taken. The order before you from the High Court in London says, "It is ordered that the Defendant, Derek Warren, do return or cause to be returned, Jessica Warren, to the jurisdiction of England and Wales forthwith, and return the said minor to the care and control of the Plaintiff." If you release her to the care of her mother, she will go to Switzerland not to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. I would be very happy to go back to England or Wales and to raise my case in the courts there. I have never had the opportunity to do that, I will not have the opportunity to do that if you release her to her mother, because she will go to Switzerland, and I will not have access to her. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. LOJEWSKI: Anything further has already been stated previously, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Well, the Court today has been called upon to make a legal decision whether or not the Hague Convention does apply to this particular case. The Court feels that it does. The Court is bound by the rules of this international treaty. I have heard the facts today, and based upon that, I feel that there has been an illegal abduction of the child, and that the child should be returned to the mother who may take the child to England or to Switzerland or wherever she may reside. This is not to say, sir, that you do not have legal rights. Your legal rights are not in this country. They're in the courts of Europe, not in the courts of the State of Florida. In what you have told me here today, it can certainly be litigated in that country. The Convention was designed to prevent things like this from happening. Instead of going through the court system to have an orderly resolution of this matter, you seemed to take matters into your own hand without having a prior approval to do so, so the Court is going to order the child returned and refer the matter to the courts for their resolution. MR. LOJEWSKI: Your Honor, I have a proposed order that reflects that the passports be returned to the mother, and provides similar to what you have said. What you did not cover in your order is where it specifically says that he shall pay all costs of travel and other incidence. It is mandatory, under the implementing legislation, which is in H.R.3971, it says, "Any Court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under Section 4 shall order the Respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by of on behalf of the Petitioner, including Court costs, legal fees, foster home, or other care during the course of the proceedings in the action and transportation costs related to the return of the child." THE COURT: All right. I have read this order, and I feel it is an appropriate order, and the Court has executed the same. MR. LOJEWSKI: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. LOJEWSKI: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Stand in recess. (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing concluded.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF: KATHARINA HAEFELI Petitioner CASE NO. 89-0459-CA-01-CTC and DEREK WARREN Respondent ____________________________/ ORDER ON PETITION FOR RETURN OF CHILD THIS CAUSE having come before me on this 21st day of February, 1989, and the Court having heard testimony of the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. That Petitioner, KATHARINA HAEFELI has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. 2. This Court determines, upon testimony, that the Respondent, DEREK WARREN, has wrongfully removed and retained the minor child, JESSICA WARREN, from the care and control of the Petitioner, KATHARINA HAEFELI. 3. This Court finds that the habitual state of residence of the minor child, JESSICA WARREN, is the country of Switzerland. 4. This Court orders that the child, JESSICA WARREN, be returned to the care and control of her mother for the return to Switzerland. The Respondent, DEREK WARREN, shall immediately return the passport of the child to the attorney for the Petitioner. 5. This Court, pursuant to PL 100-300, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, expressly finds that Respondent shall pay all costs of travel, incidental costs, and legal fees incurred by the Petitioner, KATHARINA HAEFELI, in this action. The Petitioner to this action shall file her affidavit with respect to all costs and fees incurred for a further Order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Naples, Collier County, Florida, this 21 day of February 1989. /s/ Charles T. Carlton _____________________________ CHARLES T. CARLTON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. [Editor's note: In a subsequent order of 01 May 1989, the Court order DEREK WARREN to pay the sum of $9318.46 for fees and costs.] ================================================================= Counsel: Applicant Respondent Eugene A. Lojewski, P.A. Derek Warren Attorney At Law In propria persona 5101 E. Tamiami Trail, No. 204 Naples, Florida 33962 (813) 793-1010