March 28, 2011

• Steven Topazio wrote this April 27, 2014 at 11:55 am

The defendant, a resident of Red Wing, Minnesota, was served with a copy of the restraining order on March 2, 2011, after his girlfriend left the state with their infant child and came to Massachusetts, hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Attorney Topazio continued the return date on the temporary restraining order because his client had filed a paternity action in Minnesota, requesting, among other things, custody of his minor child. Attorney Topazio was aware that Minnesota was the proper jurisdiction within the contemplation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to enter an order regarding the custody, care, and control of the parties’ minor child. The continuance allowed Minnesota to enter an order adjudicating the defendant the father of the minor child and granted him temporary sole legal and sole physical custody. Attorney Topazio next filed an emergency order in the Probate Court requesting the court to enforce the foreign judgment and advanced the hearing on the temporary restraining order. Today, after a full hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced the court not to extend the Restraining Order against his client and caused the Massachusetts Probate court to enforce the foreign judgment, arguing that the Full faith and credit clause, Article 4, s. 1, of the United States Constitution provides, in part, that “[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Attorney Topazio pointed out that the Full faith and credit requires that Massachusetts give to the judgment of the Minnesota court the same finality that it would receive in Minnesota, and the Massachusetts court agreed. As a result, the Probate court further ordered that the mother return the child to the father who was allowed to leave Massachusetts and to return to Minnesota with his child