Family Law in the World Community
Professor Ann Laquer Estin
University of Iowa College of Law
Fall 2005

Sample Exam

Family Law in the World Community
Final Examination
Friday, June 20, 2003

This is an open book exam, and you may consult the photocopied course materials and class handouts as well as your class notes and outlines. For purposes of this exam, please assume, unless you are specifically instructed otherwise, that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is in effect in all relevant jurisdictions. For any state in the United States, assume that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is in effect.

Where there is more than one reasonably arguable solution to a problem raised by the facts, be certain to discuss the alternatives. If you find it necessary to assume any additional facts, please make your assumption explicit. Do not assume additional facts that are not essential to the solution of the problem, and do not assume facts that change the nature of the problem.

Pay careful attention to the time. There are two essay questions on this exam, and each question will be weighted according to the time allotted. There are also page limits for each question. Think about the question carefully, and outline your answer before you start to write. Please write on only one side of the page, and do not skip lines as you write.

Be sure to write your exam number on the bluebook you submit. When you are finished with the exam, turn in your bluebook along with your copy of the exam and any scratch paper you have used. Congratulations on finishing the course, and enjoy the rest of your summer!

Question 1
(30 minutes)
(3-page limit)

Your new client is a woman named Naima, whose husband Ahmed has recently filed an action seeking a declaration that their marriage is not valid. Naima and Ahmed were both college students living in the United States when family members introduced them. After a number of meetings over a period of several months, they agreed to be married. The process began with a ceremony in the U.S. during which they signed a traditional religious marital agreement, including a promise by Ahmed to pay Naima a postponed dowry or "mahr" of $15,000 in the event that the marriage was ended by Ahmed's death or a divorce. The couple did not get a marriage license or comply with other state laws regarding solemnization of marriages. According to their tradition, as agreed to by the marriage agreement, the marriage was solemnized by their representatives in a religious ceremony held several days later in England.

A month after signing the marriage agreement, Naima and Ahmed went to Pakistan for a formal wedding reception held by Naima's family that lasted three days. After the celebration, they returned to the U.S. where they have lived together as husband and wife for the past three years. Naima has apparently been very unhappy for some time, but she tells you that she does not want to be divorced. Apparently, Ahmed has asked her on several occasions to sign another agreement relinquishing her right to the mahr payment. She has refused. Ahmed's position now is that they are not legally married, and that the mahr agreement is not a binding legal contract. Please give your analysis of Naima's legal situation, including any advice you would give her. If this case were to go to court, what arguments would you make to the judge?

Question 2
(80 minutes)
(8 page limit)

Our new client, Paul, is a citizen of France. Amy, his wife, is a U.S. citizen who grew up in Iowa. Amy met Paul when she was working in France in 1994, and they were married there in 1995. They have two children: Philippe, born in September 1996, and Monique, born in July 1998. Philippe and Monique have dual citizenship in the U.S. and France.

Paul, Amy, and the children lived together in France until April 12, 2002, when Amy filed for a divorce. The next day, after receiving permission from the French family court judge (Juge aux Affaires Familiales), Amy left the marital home with the children and moved to a friend's house. A week later, without seeking permission from the court, Amy left France with the children and returned to her family home in Iowa. After she arrived in the United States, Amy sent Paul an e-mail telling him where she was and stating that she would come back to France with the children before the divorce hearing scheduled for July 2002.

Amy never returned to France with the children, and when she did not appear for the divorce hearing, her case was dismissed. Still hoping that the marriage could still be preserved, Paul made trips to the U.S. to visit the children in September and December 2002. During his visit in December, he was served with a domestic abuse "no contact" order that Amy obtained from the Iowa District Court. When Paul came to the U.S. again in April 2003 to see the children, he was arrested for violating the no contact order and spent three days in jail. At the same time, Amy filed a petition seeking divorce and custody in the Iowa court. Before Paul was released from jail, he was served with the papers for the Iowa divorce proceeding.

Philippe, who is 6 years old, has just finished kindergarten. Monique, who is almost 5, attends a preschool program. The children are active in church and other activities, and seem healthy and well adjusted. Over the past year, their French has deteriorated significantly, and since Paul does not speak much English it has gotten more difficult for him to communicate with them.

Since April, Paul has concluded that a divorce is inevitable. His lawyer in France has asked that we handle the custody and divorce proceedings in the American courts. We also discussed filing a petition under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. According to the French lawyer, the order that Amy received in April 2002 granted her permission to move from the marital home with the children but did not grant her custody or permission to take them out of France. Paul would like to have Amy and the children return to France, and would like to have full joint custody. If this is not possible, he would like as much time with the children as possible, preferably in France.

Please prepare a memo for me analyzing the issues you see in this case. What advice should we give Paul?