Source: https://iraniandivorceinusa.com/recogntition-of-abu-dhabi-custody-order-in-new-york/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:55:24+00:00

Document:
Case Study: S.B. v. W.A.
In 2012, I was asked to write an opinion to the Supreme Court of Westchester County in New York on behalf of S.B. who obtained a divorce decree from Abu Dhabi, UAE. The divorce decree granted the wife custody of the children and ordered the husband to pay his wife, a mahr of $250,000.00 and legal fees. (S.B. v. W.
Both S.B. and W.A. were married on May, 1998 in a civil ceremony in the City, County, and State of New York. Following that, the parties married in an Islamic ceremony in compliance with Islamic law, also in the State of New York. They both signed a marriage contract, in which the husband promised to pay his future wife an advance mahr of $5,000.00 and, in the event of divorce, or death of the husband, a deferred mahr of $250,000.00. Two children were born of the marriage, a girl, born on July 12, 2001, and a boy, born on August 3, 2004. Both children were born in the United States.
In 2006, the defendant (husband) received an employment in the emirate of Abu Dhabi (UAE), and decided to move there. The plaintiff (wife) and children remained in the U.S. until August 2007, when they joined the plaintiff in Abu Dhabi.
While in Abu Dhabi, the plaintiff initiated criminal proceedings against the defendant following an incident of domestic violence that occurred on January 28, 2009. After that, the marital relation soured and the wife obtained a divorce judgment from the Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi, along with an order awarding her custody of the children and other financial relief. The divorce and custody order was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation, which is the highest court in Abu Dhabi.
In support of her motion, plaintiff submitted certified copies of the Abu Dhabi orders, judgments, and decrees, which were translated from Arabic to English by a legal translator duly licensed by the Ministry of Justice in the UAE, who attested to the correctness of the translation.
She also submitted an affidavit from this author, as expert consultant on Islamic divorce in the United States and Middle East laws, including the legal structure of the courts of the UAE.
In my affidavit, I explained the structure of the judiciary in the UAE, the legal proceedings between the parties, and the judgments and decrees rendered by the Abu Dhabi courts.
Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit from an attorney admitted to practice law in Abu Dhabi, who represented the plaintiff in connection with post-matrimonial issues. In his affidavit, he explains the legal proceedings in Abu Dhabi.
On July 1, 2009, the plaintiff filed a petition for divorce in the Court of First Instance under Article 117 of the Personal Status Law of the UAE. Hearings on the divorce were held on October 13, November 8, and December 14, 2009. Both parties participated in the proceedings, and both were represented by counsel.
On December 27, 2009, in the presence of both parties, the Court of First Instance issued a judgment on the merits, granting the plaintiff a divorce from the defendant; directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the deferred mahr of $250,000.00; directing the defendant to pay alimony for the children, including food, clothing and transportation allowances; directing the defendant to pay monthly alimony to the plaintiff. The Abu Dhabi Court also awarded the plaintiff custody of the children, and directed the defendant to pay all relevant fees and expenses.
The decision of the Court of First Instance was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which rendered a decision on April 4, 2010, and the Court of Cassation, which rendered decision on November 8, 2010. Both courts affirmed the judgment with minor modification related to the iddah Alimony.
The defendant claimed that the parties are deemed married under the laws of New York, as the Abu Dhabi courts entered a divorce judgment based on the religious marriage, applying the laws of the Islamic Sharia, and no divorce action has been filed based upon the civil marriage. He claimed that the Abu Dhabi divorce was a religious judgment of divorce, not a civil judgment of divorce, and therefore, the New York courts should not afford it comity.
“Both parties were residing in Abu Dhabi when the plaintiff instituted the divorce proceedings. The divorce decree was obtained after a trial and tow appeals, including an appeal to the highest court in Abu Dhabi, the Court of Cassation, that rendered a final and binding judgment of divorce. Both parties were represented by counsel, participated in the divorce proceedings and had a full opportunity to contest jurisdiction and all other issues. There is no question that the foreign court had jurisdiction over the parties at the time the divorce judgment was issued and that it was a final binding order, thereby precluding the defendant from now collaterally attacking its validity or relitigating any of its provisions (See Borenstein v. Borenstein, 151 Misc. 160, 270 N.Y.S. 688 [Sup. Vt. N.Y. Co, 1934]; Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d at 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694).
“A court has the inherent power pursuant to the principles of comity to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment of divorce “unless there is some defect of jurisdiction shown to be against the public policy of the domestic state” (48A N.Y. Jur. 2d, Domestic Relations at 2809). “[A] party who has properly appeared in a foreign action is ordinarily precluded from attacking the resulting judgment by bringing a collateral New York proceeding …. Only where there has been a showing that the foreign judgment was fraudulently obtained … or that recognition of the judgment would conflict seriously with a compelling public policy … cab a collateral attack be entertained” (Robinson v. Robinson, 120 A.D.2d 45, 415-16, 501 N.Y.S.2d 874 [1st Dept, 1986]). “Absent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment … or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to some strong public policy of this State … a party who properly appeared in the action is precluded from attacking the validity of the foreign country judgment in a collateral proceeding brought in the courts of this State) (Greschler v. Greshcler, 51 N.Y.2d at 376, 434 N.Y.S.2d 694).
“The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) applies nationally and internationally and is designed to promote uniformity throughout the world in custody determinations (See Sobie, Practice Commentaries, [McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 14]). The UCCJEA is mandatory and provides that “a child custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this article must be recognized and enforced,” except where “the child custody law of a foreign country as written or as applied violates fundamental principles of human rights” (Domestic Relations Law 75-d and ).
The Court held that the UCCJEA “is not a reciprocal act”. There is no requirement that “the foreign country enact a UCCJEA equivalent” (See Sobie, Practice Commentaries [McKinney’s Const. Laws of N.Y., Book 14].) The statute “is designed to eliminate jurisdictional competition between courts in matters of child custody, with jurisdictional priority conferred to a child’s home state.” (Hector G. v. Josefina P., 2 Misc. 3d 801, 809, 771 N.Y.S.2d 316 [Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2003]).
Author of the book titled “The Qur’an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur’an”.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.