C A W O F F I C E S

Maxwell Barke51 Monroe Place • Suite 806 • Rockville MD 20850

May 25, 2012

Hon. Susan JacobsSpecial Advisor on International Children' s Issues United States Department of State2201 C Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20520

Re: Effect of Delay by U.S. in Implementing Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in the Case of Trinidad and TobagoAssistance with International Enforcement of U.S. Judge' s Contempt Order Directing Return from Trinidad of Abducted Hunkovic Children

Dear Ambassador Jacobs:

More than two years ago, Stan Hunkovic, Jr. , a veteran Baltimore paramedic firefighter, suddenly and unexpectedly lost his two very young children, Gabriel and Anastasia, when their mother ignored Baltimore County Judge Kathleen Cox' s order enjoining her from taking them to Trinidad, where the children have remained since February of 2010.

In September of 2011, after a lengthy court proceeding, Stan was ultimately awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of the children by Baltimore County Judge Sherrie Bailey, and on May 9, 2012, Baltimore County Judge Michael Finifter signed an order holding the mother, Leah Hunkovic, in contempt of court, directing her to immediately return the children to Stan in Maryland, and fining her $1, 000 for every day beginning on June 1, 2012 that the children continue to be withheld from their father. At the time they were abducted by their Trinbagonian national mother, the children were U.S. citizens, having been born and raised in

C A W Baltimore .

Telephone • 301 .309.8300 • Telecopier • 301 ,309.8303 • www.maxlaw.usO FF i CES

Maxwell BarReŽ

Hon . Susan Jacobs -2- May 25, 2012

As you are already well aware, the Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty that provides an expeditious method to return children internationally abducted from their habitual residence in a member nation to another contracting country.

Were the Hague Abduction Convention presently in bilateral operation between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago, the Hunkovic children would have been summarily returned to Maryland by officials in Trinidad and Tobago.

As we understand the current situation, however, while the U.S. ratified the Hague Abduction Convention in 1988, more than two decades ago, and Trinidad and Tobago became a party twelve years later, in 2000, and while more than forty countries have already accepted accession of the Convention by Trinidad and Tobago, the United States has yet to do so.

Our inquiries to the Department of State, Office of Children's Issues, have been answered by suggestions that the delay is being caused by inaction on the part of Trinidad and Tobago, rather than the- United States. Respectfully, Madam Ambassador, we must disagree.

Indeed, it is puzzling that so many other nations—Canada, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Greece, Poland, Venezuela, Australia, Ireland, Norway, Argentina, the People' s Republic of China, Mexico, Switzerland,Belgium, and Sweden, to name just a few— should be satisfied that the government of Trinidad and Tobago has adequately established its ability to implement the treaty, while the United States is not, and its children therefore continue to

C A W be unlawfully abducted to and/or retained in Trinidad and Tobago without recourse to the Hague Abduction Convention, as have those children in these other countries which have already officially accepted accession by Trinidad and Tobago .OFFICES

Maxwell BarRecHon. Susan Jacobs -3- May 25, 2012

Simply put, the consequence of this delay on the part of the United States has been that, year after year, children from the United States, often U.S. citizens born and raised here as were the two Hunkovic children, are being abducted from the U.S. and unlawfully transported to Trinidad and Tobago, where the government, including the local courts there, have remained free to reject summarily returning the children home, as the Hague Abduction Convention would require in applicable cases .

In the case of the two Hunkovic children, after the passage of more than two years since their abduction, a

Judge of the Family Court in Trinidad, Justice Larnbert— Peterson, citing that the Hague Abduction Convention is not as yet in bilateral operation between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago, so far has declined to grant "comity" to the Maryland custody orders, and instead has made the children continuing wards of the court in Trinidad, despite their status as- U.S. citizens, and their having been born and raised in Baltimore before their abduction.

As indicated above, earlier this month, on May 9, 2012, Baltimore County Judge Michael Finifter signed an order holding the mother, Leah Hunkovic, in contempt of court, directing her to immediately return the children to Stan in Maryland, and fining her $1, 000 for every day, beginning on June 1, 2012, the children continue to be withheld from their father. A copy of the court' s order is attached.

Just two months ago, Madam Ambassador, you personally met with Attorney General Anand Ram logan, head of the Civil Child Abduction Authority of Trinidad and Tobago, in an effort to discuss —we are told— the two countries' common interest in reducing child abduction, and increasing awareness of the legal avenues to return children home after an abduction has taken place. Since then, however, no announcements of official action have been made, indicating

C A W that the Hague Abduction Convention is now in bilateral operation between the United States and Trinidad and Tobago, and- the two Hunkovic children remain in limbo, as wards of the court in a foreign country.

O FFI C ES

Maxwell BarkecHon. Susan Jacobs -4- May 25, 2012

Meanwhile, about three weeks ago, on May 2, 2012, the High Court of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago rendered its decision in the case of Goran Qvarfordt and Amanda Qvarfordt, No. F HOC) 588/2012, summarily returning the couple' s eight—year—old daughter to her home in Sweden, in accordance with the Hague Abduction Convention. Had the United States officially accepted accession of the Hague Abduction Convention by Trinidad and Tobago, as Sweden did five years ago in 2007, the two Hunkovic children would have celebrated their past two birthdays at home in Baltimore, Maryland, rather than in Diego Martin, Trinidad.

Given that the case of the two Hunkovic children has been profiled a number of times in the media, the clear-cut nature of the abduction, i.e. , in direct violation of valid U.S. court orders, and that Mr. Hunkovic has been in ongoing communication with the Department' s Office of Children' s Issues, we would respectfully now ask:

what efforts if any were made specifically on behalf of these two children, during your recent trip to Trinidad and Tobago, to attempt to bring about their return home to the United States; and

( 2 ) can Mr. Hunkovic expect any real assistance by the Department of State in bringing his two children home to the U.S. , where they belong, in accordance with Judge Finifter' s May 9, 2012 contempt order?

We look forward to hearing from you, if at all possible, before Judge Finifter' s June 1, 2012 deadline.

cc: Stanley Hunkovic,

C A W

Jr.

LEAH HUNKOVIC ,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim2D

efendantt vs.

STANLEY HUNROVIC , JR

Defendant/Counterclaim—Plaintiff.

* IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

* OF

* MARYLAND

* FOR

* BALTIMORE COUNTY

* Case No. 03-c-10-000989 DLRULE 15-207 (d) (2) ORDERHOLDING COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT

LEAH HUNROVIC IN CIVIL CONTEMPT ,IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND SETTING PURGE CONDITIONS

Before the Court are counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley

Hunkovic' s r Petition for Contempt and Enforcement of

Custody Order, and the Court' s Show Cause Order, both

filed herein on March 26, 2012 (Document No. 48) , and the

Coúrt being satisfied that counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic was on

April 12, 2012 duly and timely served by

hand with the said Show Cause Order, Petition, and other

accompanying papers as reflected in the Proof of Service, filed on

April 25, 2012 (Document No. 49), and the Court on May 9], 2012

having conducted a hearing in the matter on the record, it is,

therefore, this day of May, 2012, by the Circuit Court of Maryland

for Baltimore. County,

-1-ORDERED; that the said Petition for Contempt and

Enforcement, filed on March 26, 2012 (Document No. 48)

by counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic, be, and it

hereby is, GRANTED, and the Court fur thef

DETERMINES, ORDERS and FINDS, for the reasons set

forth .below and on the record during the hearing held on May 9,

2012, -that counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic has

intentionally and persistently violated the custodÿ and visi tat

ion provisions contained in the parties' Judgment

of Absolute Divorce, entered on

September 1, 2011

(Document No. 43), which grants

counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley

Hunkovic "sole legal and primary

physical custody [of J . the parties'

minor children", -by refusing and/or

otherwise preventing counterclaim—

plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic from

Serving as the children's sole legal

and primary physical custodian as

provided iri the subj ect order, as

more specifically set forth below,

and, with regard to the foregoing,

the Court further

TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN

FINDINGS, previously made by the

Court in Judge Sherrie Bailey' s

"Opinion of Court" , filed on

September 1, 2011 . (Document No.

42) , as follows (Nos. 1—12, below

being direct quotations from

Judge Bailey's decision) :

-2-The Plaintiff, Leah Christy Hunkovicr a

native ofTrinidad and Tobago, and the Defendant, Stanley J. Hunkovic, Jr. a United States citizen and resident of Baltimore, were married in a religious ceremony on or about June 16, 2007. Two children were born to the parties: Gabriel Julius—Karl Hunkovic, born April 16, 2008 and Anastasia Sierra—Marie Hunkovic, born August 31 r 2009. Both children were born in Maryland where the parents resided at 5406 Fair Oaks Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21214 .

On January 26, 2010 Plaintiff filed a complaint in Baltimore County Circuit Court seeking a

limited divorce. As part of this complaint, Plaintiff sought sole physical and legal custody of the children pendente lite and permanently.

On or about February 26, 2010 Defendant filed a counter—complaint for limi ted divorce as well as a Motion for an Emergency Custody Order. The Honorable Judge Kathleen G. Cox of the Baltimore County Circuit Court presided over the hearing regarding the Motion for Emergency Custody in chambers the same. day. The Plaintiff' s attorney participated in this hearing and indicated that he had spoken with the Plaintiff. He also indicated that she was visiting New York, that she was not leaving the country, and that she would be available for a hearing in Maryland when necessary. He further indicated that She would agree with an order that she's not leaving the country with the children. Judge Cox indicated that she would not let either party leave the country before custody merits were determined . Her Honor Judge Cox issued an order enj oining both parties from leaving the United States with their chi Idren and further ordered that the children' s passports were to be held by Defendant' s attorney pending further full hearings on the merits of this case. Both parties were enjoined from seeking to obtain duplicate passports for the children.

On February 26, 2010, after the order was issued by Judge Cox, . Plaintiff boarded a flight -with both children bouñd for 1' finidad and Tobago where she has remained with them ever since. Plaintiff instituted divorce and custody proceedings in Trinidad and Tobago on March 19, 2010 in case numbér PH—00529, which has been ongoing .

On or about May 10, 2010 Plaintiff filed a petition to withdraw her -complaint for limi ted divorce, which the Circuit Court for Baltimore County DENIED on July 22, 2010'.

Plaintiff acted without regard for the pending litigation when relocating to Trinidad.Plaintiff' s move to Trinidad with her children' in tow evidenced a cómplete lack of care that the children have regular and consistent access to their father.

Also -of note is Plaintiff's disregard of the impact that losing -their father' will have. on the children.

Plaintiff now resides in Trinidad: the environment she provides for the children as well as any support network -she may have is unknown . Plaintiff did not cooperate with the child access evaluation ordered by this Court through its Family Services Division investigators .

Defendant has a support network, • which includes his father and four sisters, all of whom have previously helped in the caring of the children. Plaintiff's support network in Trinidad is unknown. Furthermore, Plaintiff's action in relocating with the children and Defendant s subsequent sharply limited time with them demonstrates Plaintiff's disinterest in their children maintaining a relationship with their father. The willingness and/or ability of the Plãi•ntiff to maintain and/or support a normal family relationship between the father and the children seems inadequate .

10 . As a result of the Plaintiff's actions, the

children's ability to see and interact with their father has been severely restricted.- Plaintiff's actions have evidenced a blatant disregard for maintaining natural family relations as between the children and their father as wê11 as a blatant disregard for •the proceedings, which she initiated.

11 . Plaintiff's move and subsequent initiation of divorce proceedings in Trinidad and Tobago has rendered visitation very difficult. As a result of those proceedings the Children were made wards of the High Court of Justice, Family Coürt Division, of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago on June 14, 2010. Defendant has had only very limited access to them as a result of this.

12. For all these reasons, and with great respect for the Honorable Court of Trinidad and Tobago, and with understanding that said Honorable Court has designated these children as Wards of the Court, the Circuit Court of Baltimore County will award sole legal and primary •physical custody to Defendant, Stanley J. Hunkovi•c, Jr. with reasonable visitation to Ms. Leah Christy Hunkovic based upon the evidence presented in this court 's merits hearing of which Plaintiff was notified. The court. will order at least four consecutive weeks visitation to Ms Leah Hunkovic as agreed upon by the parties during school summer vacation and one week each during school winter break and school spring break during the school year, and as further detailed in the accompanying order.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS AND CONCLUDES, based upon the

law as applied to the testimony and other evidence adduced

at thê .hearing held on May 9, 2012:

13 . Despite the passage of more than two years since February of 2010, when the children were taken by counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic to Trinidad in violation of Judge Cox's order of ne exeat, . the children have continued to remain in Trinidad, wi th counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic affirmatively pursuing "custody" proceedings there despite the entry- here in Maryland of this Court's award of sole custody to counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic.

14 . Family. Law Article S9—302. expressly provides that this Court has jurisdiction over custody and

visitation of children who are removed from Maryland by a parent, whère, as here, the parents are separated and/or divorced, Maryland was the marital domicile _ of the parents, at least one of the

parents was a Maryland resident when the children were removed from Maryland and that parent has remained in Maryland, and the Court obtained personal jurisdiction over the •parent who removed the children .

15 . In the present case, it was counterclaim— defendant Leah Hunkovic who first initiated this Maryland case by causing the filing of her complaint for limited divorce, and this Court has already ruled •that counterclaim= defendant Leah Hunkovic could not withdraw from the case in an attempt to deprive the Court of jurisdiction. See Court's July 27,2010 ruling denying counterclaim—defendant Leah

Hunkovic's request to withdraw her complaint for limi ted divorce (Document NO.

16. Here, the parents are separated and divorced, Maryland was -their marital domicile, counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic was and is now a Maryland resident, as were the children and counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic on February 26, 2010, when counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic unilaterally took the children to Trinidad.

—6—

17 . Accordingly, under the circumstances obtaini-ñg here, Family Law. Article clearly provided this Court with jurisdiction to render the custody and visitation deciSions contained in the parties' 1, 2011 Divorce Jüdgment (Document No. 4.3) , now being disregarded by counterclaim— defendant Leah Hunkovic•. The foregoing Maryland j udgment, therefore, was entered with valid and proper _ subj ect matter and' personal jurisdiction aver counterclaim— defendant Leah Hunkovic and the children, in light of Family Law Article S9—30Z.

18 . Family Law Article §9-305 (b) and 9-307 (d) provide

that a relative, such as counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic, may not detain children in a foreign

country such as Trinidad, for more . than 48 hours

after the lawful custodian, such as counterclaim— plaiñti•ff Stanley Hunkovic here, has demanded the children's return.

19 . Given that this Court, after a plenary custody merits hearing, validly granted Father •sole custody. of. the children onSeptember 1, 2011, and counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic

has subsequently intentionally disregarded that order _by remaining in Trinidad with the two children, counterclaim— defendant Leah Hunkovic has thus engaged in a pat terri and course of conduct intentionally contemptuous of this Court's 1, 2011 order and also may have violated Family Law Article §9-305 (b) and S9- 307 (d) .

20 . Rule 15—206 (a) of the Maryland Rules provides that a proceeding for constructive civil contempt shall be included in the action in which the alleged contempt occurred, which is the instant case now before this Court. And, Rule 15—206 (b) of the Maryland Rules provides that any party to an action in which an alleged contempt occurred may initiate a proceediñg for constructive civil contempt by filing• a petition with the court against which the contempt was allegedly committed.

21 . It appears to the Court that there is no valid -or othef legally justifiable reason why counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic should be further required to passively wait indefinitely for counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic to comply with this Court's September 1, 2011 custody and visitation order.

22 . The Show Cause Order issued in this case on March 26, . 2012, and personally served upon counterclaim,-defendant Leah Hunkovic on April 12, 2012, expressly directed that "counterclaim—defendant LEAH HUNKOVIC shall appear personally in this Court, with the parties' two minor children, Gabr.i-el and. Anastasia,. for a CONTEMPT HEÄRIÑGÈ to be held before a JUDGE of this Court, May 9, 2012, at 9:30 a.m . , and then to show cause, if any, why counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic should not be granted the relief requested in • his petition".

23. Given that she, herself, without any explanation by.

letter or formal filing, has failed to personal-Iy appear before this Court at the hearing on May 9, 2012, or cause the parties' two children to appear, the Court finds that counterclaim—defendant Leah Hunkovic has not only intentionally acted in contempt of the custody and visitation provisions contained in the parties' Judgment of Absolute Divorce, entered on Septem-ber 1, 2011 (Document No. 43) , but is also in contempt of the Court's March 26, 2012 Show Cause Order.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE COURT

FURTHER ORDERS, that counterclaim—defendant Leah

Hunkovic shall forthwith and without any

further delay, herself deliver, or cause to be

delivered,' the parties' two minor

children, Gabriel Julius—Karl Hunkovic, born

April 16, 2008, and Anastasia Sierra—Marie

Hunkovic, born August 31, 2009, to

counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley Hunkovic, in

Baltimore County, Maryland, on or before May

31, 2012, failing law enforcement officers

having appropriate jurisdiction shall use

reasonable and necessary force to transfer the

children, wherever they may be found, into the

custody of counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley

Hunkovic, and the Court further

ORDERS, that counterclaim—defendant Leah

Hunkovic may purge herself of the within

contempt citation by causing the delivery of the

children, to counterclaim—plaintiff Stanley •

Hunkovic, in Baltimore County, Maryland, and the

Court further

ORDERS, that as an inducement to

counterclaim— defendant Leah Hunkovic to

comply with the custody and visitation provisions contained in the

parties' Judgment of Absolute Divorce, entered on September 1, 2011