In 2022, in the case Al Namani v. Watson, Hartford, Connecticut, May 31, 2022 (unreported) a Christian mother takes the children to USA, specifically to Connecticut, to escape from the UAE’s ruling that custody of the parties’ two children be awarded exclusively to the father, only because the father was Muslim, therefore the children were Muslim. The father attempted to enforce the UAE decision under Connecticut law, however Superior Court, an American judge ruled that a child custody order from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) could not be enforced in Connecticut.
The UAE Decision: Personal Status Law (Sharia Law)
The UAE court based its decision exclusively on Sharia Law (Islamic law) Personal Status Law, which states that the custodial parent’s religion must match the child(ren) religion. The father was Muslim, and the children were Muslim, but the mother was Christian. Therefore, the UAE judge issued a ruling granting sole legal and physical custody to the father and terminated any obligation of child support to be paid by father to the mother.
The USA Public Policy and Law
Following the custody decision in the UE, the mother flew the children to the USA (specifically Connecticut), without the father consent, which is required under Personal Status Law. As a result of this wrongful abduction, the father petitioned the Connecticut court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), arguing that the children were habitual residents of the UAE, because in the six months prior they had lived in the UAE, so the UAE was their “home state,” and an initial order of custody had been issued in the UAE, thus the UAE had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over custody. The mother filed an opposition raising the human rights violations of the UAE decision and citing to a provision in Connecticut law that permits judges not to enforce a foreign custody decision (like the one issued by the UAE in her case) if the ruling (1) violates human rights or (2) is repugnant to Connecticut’s public policy.
The Connecticut Court’s Decision
The Connecticut’s Superior Court decided that the UAE court’s decision was indeed repugnant to Connecticut’s public policy. The Court explained that Connecticut’s child custody laws follow the best interests of the child standards, and no on religious differences like the decision in the UAE, which granted custody to the father only because the mother was not a Muslim but a Christian, violated this the best interest of the child.
Human Rights and Public Policy in the USA
Connecticut’s adoption of the UCCJEA permits judges not to enforce a custody order of a foreign county, which is found to be against public policy and/or to violate fundamental human rights. The judge in Al Namani v. Watson determined that the UAE’s decision violated the Connecticut’s policy of that custody decisions be based on the best interest of the child(ren) rather than the parents’ religion.
In the decision, the judge emphasized that the law shall bate stamps foreign custody decisions when they are harmful to child(ren) and/or violate basic principles of fairness and rights. The Judge also cited to other USA cases in which courts did not enforce foreign custody orders when they found them not to be in best interests of the child(ren).
Conclusion
Al Namani v. Watson highlights that a USA court can refuse to enforce a foreign custody order if it contradicts the fundamental values of the forum state. In this case, Connecticut’s commitment to protecting the best interests of the child over religious differences led to the UAE custody order being dismissed. The ruling is a clear example on hos USA judges peculiarly balance international legal obligations with the best interest of the child(ren) under state local laws.