Maimouna Coulibaly v. Eric Stevance
85 N.E.3d 911
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother (Coulibaly) and Father (Stevance) are dual citizens of Mali and France; two children are also dual citizens. Divorce and custody proceedings occurred in Mali in 2008.
- The Malian court granted Father custody after finding Mother at fault for the marriage breakdown; Mother moved children to France before the custody decree entered and later to Indiana.
- Mother sought relief in Mali and France unsuccessfully, then asked Indiana courts to refuse enforcement under the UCCJEA’s "escape clause," arguing Mali’s custody laws and legal system violate fundamental human rights (gender bias, widespread FGM, corruption, and weak protections for women/children).
- The Indiana trial court held a five-day evidentiary hearing, found no evidence the Malian proceedings were corrupt or that the custody order subjected the children to FGM or other human-rights violations, and concluded the Malian order was based on children’s best interests.
- Trial court ruled Indiana lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and ordered return of the children to Father; enforcement was stayed pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana must recognize and enforce a Malian custody decree under the UCCJEA despite alleged human-rights violations | Mother: Mali’s child custody laws and cultural/legal practices (gender-based duties, fault-based divorce, prevalence of FGM, corruption) violate "fundamental principles of human rights," so Indiana may refuse recognition under Ind. Code § 31-21-1-3(c). | Father: Mali was the children’s home state; proceedings afforded notice and opportunity to be heard; Malian custody law as written and as applied did not violate fundamental human rights so UCCJEA recognition is required. | Court affirmed: Mali met UCCJEA jurisdictional standards; Mother failed to show Malian custody law or its application in this case violated fundamental human rights, so Indiana must recognize/enforce the decree. |
| Scope of review under UCCJEA escape clause: law on the books vs. application | Mother: Court should be limited to assessing the foreign custody law as written (not its application), and Mali’s written laws are gender-biased. | Father: Court may consider how the foreign law was applied in the specific custody order; here the Malian court applied a best-interests analysis. | Court: Permitted to consider law as applied; looks to whether law or its application is "utterly shocking" or violates fundamental rights — neither shown here. |
| Relevance of other country practices (e.g., FGM) to UCCJEA analysis | Mother: Mali’s widespread FGM and lack of a specific prohibition shows systemic human-rights violations that render any Malian custody order unenforceable. | Father: UCCJEA confines review to child custody law; collateral laws/practices (FGM) are generally outside scope. | Court: Declined to treat absence of FGM statute or broader cultural practices as sufficient; limited scrutiny to custody law and its application. |
| Whether a parental/custodial preference (de facto paternal preference) violates fundamental rights | Mother: Any presumption favoring the spouse who obtained divorce effectively discriminates against mothers. | Father: Custodial preferences (non-conclusive) are not per se violations; many jurisdictions historically had such preferences and Malian law allows best-interests review. | Court: A non-conclusive presumption or factor is not per se a human-rights violation; Malian law allocates burden but permits best-interests determinations, so not "utterly shocking." |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruppen v. Ruppen, 614 N.E.2d 577 (Ind. Ct. App.) (discussing UCCJA/UCCJL history and interstate custody jurisdiction principles)
- Tamasy v. Kovacs, 929 N.E.2d 820 (Ind. Ct. App.) (stating UCCJEA purpose to prevent forum-shopping and affirming recognition duties)
- Malik v. Malik, 638 A.2d 1184 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (foreign custody decree with paternal preference may be entitled to comity where best-interests standard applied)
- Hosain v. Malik, 671 A.2d 988 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) (upholding enforcement despite religiously informed custodial doctrines when they were one factor among many under best-interests analysis)
- Matter of Yaman, 105 A.3d 600 (N.H. 2014) (interpreting Hague Convention human-rights exception as requiring truly egregious violations that "utterly shock the conscience")