# pet — Etlin v. Etlin

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_1042%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** pet
- **Published:** January 1, 1989
- **Citation:** 490 U.S. 1090

## Text

Michelle M. Etlin, Petitioner,
Vv.

Vladimir N. Etlin, Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Michelle M. Etlin, pro se
3009 Military Rd. NW
Washington, D.C. 20015

March 14, 1989

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No.
Michelle M. Etlin, Petitioner,
Vv.

Vladimir N. Etlin, Respondent.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

The Petitioner, Michelle M. Etlin,
pro se, respectfully prays that a writ of
certiorari issue to the review the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of
the Commonwealth of Virginia entered in

this proceeding on December 14, 1988.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Can a state satisfy the jurisdiction-

al requirement of “significant connec-

tions” and "substantial evidence” as

those terms are used in the Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction Act, if the child

-l-

has not lived in that state for more than
six years? Can 28 U.S.C. 1738A confer
subject-matter jurisdiction on the courts
of a state which lacks a statutory basis

for such jurisdiction in its own law?

2. Can a state refuse to review a convic-
tion for criminal contempt because of its
insistence on a procedural rule which
serves no legitimate state interest and
is applied in a discriminatory manner?
Can a Court use contempt powers to create
a new class of laws, infractions against
which are punished without resort to Con-

stitutional protection for the accused?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Appellant: Michelle Etlin, pro se
3009 Military Road NW
Washington DC 20015
(hereinafter called ”Mother”)

Appellee: Vladimir Etlin
7403 Lisle Avenue
Falls Church, VA 2043
(hereinafter called ”Father”)

-2-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...-..ccccccceeee 1
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING .......+.+.- 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS .cccccccecsece (141i)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..cseceesee (1ii— xi)
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 21.1(d) . 3
JURISDICTION ..ccccccccccccccccccsees 3

CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...... 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....eceececcs 6 See
FEDERAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BELOW.. 18
REASONS TO GRANT THE PETITION ..... 19

I. IN DEROGATION OF
THE UNIFORM ACT AND
THE FEDERAL ACT,
VIRGINIA HAS EXERCISED
JURISDICTION WITHOUT A
STATUTORY BASIS FOR

DOING SO cccccccceccceccce 19
A. Background of Statu-
tory Scheme Confer-
ring Jurisdiction ... 19
B. "Jurisdiction
FOTEVGr® wccccccccces 24
C. "Significant
COMMOCELONS” 2. ncecee 27
D. The Federal issue

eg | s ae

II. THE VIRGINIA COURT
HAS ABUSED ITS CONTEMPT
POWER IN ORDER TO
DEPRIVE THE MOTHER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS .... 40

A. The Mother was
Denied Procedural
Due PFOCO@SS .ccccecces 40

B. The Virginia Court
Did--or Did Not?--
Have Jurisdiction
Over Civil Contempt... 42

Cc. The Mother Was
Denied Substantive
i ey 45

D. The Mother Was
Denied Equal

Protection of Law ... 47
COMOEMESOM .. . cin kb ida co ccacccaraceses 52
Oo as 57

wtte

7 7 y= beeen | FO ell tee 7
7 :
me
*
-
-_A
bs
-
i
.
=
~~ .
; .
y =
‘ . ha
\
‘ : {
. 3 4
‘
‘
; ‘ *

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
THE ITED STATES NST ON

Article III, Section [3]
of the U.S. Constitution ... 6,

Article IV, Section 2.[1]
of the U.S. Constitution ... 6,

The Eighth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution ... 6,

The Fourteenth Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution,
BORREGO SF 6a5 sa 645006865464 6,

FEDERAL STATUTES

a ae St 3
ae es ae), 3
28 U.S.C. 1738A (the

“Parental Kidnapping
Prevention Act” or

ee at ee ?
*3, a;
2s, 26,
37, 53,

FEDERAL RULES

MULLS Shc lS) wccsesvccer 3

VIRGINIA STATUTES

VA Code Section
ADe OP Gee cb KERCKe So cecccecs Fy, 4

VA Code Sections

47

57

52

51

19,
2s.
as,
55,

-iii-

20,
24,
34,
56,

— aE eee

20-125 et seq.,

the "Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction

Act” or *“UCCJA”

VA CODE Section
VA Code Section
VA Code Section
VA Code Section

VA CODE Section

20-126

20-128

20-130

20-132

420-135

Alexander v. Ferguson,

648 F. Supp. 282 (D. Md.

16

1986) ..

Applegate v. Gant, 460 So.2d
1293 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984) ..

Arbogast v. Arbogast,

SE2d 675 (W.V.

1984)

Bahr v. Bahr, 442 NYS2d 687,

108 Misc.2d 920, aff’d
91 AD2d
1010 (1981) @eeeee*ee*e*eestveseseseseresrseseese+#esee#ege?#@#

458 NYS2d 247,

Belosky v. Belosky,

471, 97 NM 365 (1982)

Bergh v. Bergh,

Berry v. Berry,

138 (Ala. Civ. App.

387 NW2d
213 (Minn App 1986)

466 So.2da
1985)

640 P.2d
ccccccce 36

- 36

. 37

35

eee0ees2e3e#8e#s#seee#ee#e# 39

eeeee#e#ee#s? 38

16,
a3,
26,
44,

Vv; , 1982, 654
P.2d 406, 232 Kan. 237 wecccccceee 29

Vv , 653 SW2d
732 (Tenn App 1983) .cccccccccccee 37

Clark v. Kendrick, 670 P2d
32 (Colo. App. 1983) e*e*eeee#ee#eee#e#e#e#ee## 38

Clarke v. Clarke, 1985, 496
eee ees Oo, FED ccs acccccce 34

Debra S. v. Roger S., NYS
2d 723, 116 Misc.2d 264 (1982) ... 36

Dennis v. Dennis, 366 NW2d
ee Sod edu dedesvecssces 37

Department of Human Services

v. Avinger, 721 P.2d 781
(NM App 1985) e*eeesese#ese#seee#s#eesese#s#khe#efe#srfees#ss¢ 36

In re Custody of Dunn, 701
P2d 158 (Colo. App. 1985) ........ 38

Dykes v. Dykes, Fla. App.
= eee Bea, See BG.26 188 ...cce 31

Elder v. Park, App. 1986,
717 P.2d 1132, 104 N.Mex. 163 .... 28

Enslein v. Enslein, N.Y.A.D.
2d Dept. 1985, 492 NYS2d 785 ..... 35

Evans v. Evans, 668 F.Supp.
Sew Getates Beet BOGT7T) cccccccccccce 36

Fielder v. Thorn, 525 A.2d

576 (De. Fam Ct. 1987) .......20-. 38-39

Flannery v. Stephenson, 416 So.2d
pees ees C20. BOO. 1962) .cccceces 36

-V—-

In re Fox, App 2 Dist. 1986,
225 Cal. Reptr. 823, 180 C.A.

3d 862, rev den eeeeeeee#eese#se#s#fee#e#e#ee#e#ee#e#se#*# 36

Funk v. Macauley, Ind. App.
2 Dist. 1983, 457 N.E.2d 223 ...e. 42

Garrett v. Garrett, 732 SW2d
127 (Ark. 1987) *eeees#eees+5§ree#*ee#*ee#ee#ee#sesee#e#e#@*# 36

Gomez _ v. Gomez, 1982, 446 NYS2d
127, 86 A.D.2d 594, aff'd.

452 NYS2d 13, 56 NY2d 746,

437 NE2d 272, stay denied

453 NYS2d 684, 56 NY2d 1028,

43D WEZG BSD cascvevcecevecvcsccvecces 30

Green v. Tucker, 375 F.Supp.
892 (E.D. VO. 1974) wccccccscccsese 45

Hart v. Hart, 1985, 695 P.2d
1285, 236 Kan. 856 ..ccccccvcvccces 33

Heartfield v. Heartfieid, C.A.Tex
39GS, FED Fem BESO vere soesecsvecs |

Herrero v. Matas, 447 So.2d 335,
rev dismissed 453 So.2d 44
(FER Bee DF BEBE 1964) cccccssvecees 38

Hofer v. Agner, Fla.App.Dist.
1979, 373 SO.2G 48 wecccccccccccese xB

Houtchens v. Houtchens, R.I. 1985,
488 A.2d po) at er. are e*eee#ees 31

Ingram v. Ingram, 463 So.2d 932
(Ie BD. 2G CAP. 1968) ccccccccoce 35

Jefferson v. Downs, 436 NYS2d
169, i107 BMisc.36 O52 (1981) ..ccee. 36

Joseph EH v. Jane EH, 1980, 423
A.2d 739, 283 Pa. Super. 109 ...... 32

Kioukis v. Kioukis, 440 A2d 894,

185 Conn. 249 (1981) .cccccccccccee 39
Kirylik v. Kirylik, 357 S.E.2d

BOD CBsGs BEST) escccecvccesecccccs 42
umar v n a ount

Superior Court, Cal. App. 1981,

177 Cal. Reptr. 763 eeeeee3s#sse#ee#esePer#eese#e 35

Leisge v. Leisge, 224 Va. 303,
eee 51

Leslie F. v.Constance F., 441
NYS2d 911, 110 Misc.2d 86

(1981) ceeereeeveeeee eee eee eee eee eeee 36-37

In re Marriage of Leyda, 398
Ee TEOR, LGBT) ccc cccccccces 37

LF _v. GWF, 1982, 443 A2da 751,
See me Geer. 195 ........ al a :
ee uate bite
a ie
i - = ;
ant otte =

x 2 = 7 7
"br Pe _ ‘

This Court should grant certiorari
because the Supreme Court of Virginia has
upheld a state court abuse of process
which has denied the Mother her Consti-
tutional rights, while ignoring a fede-
ral act and a uniform law instituted to
prevent such abuses.

Respectfully submitted,
Wuchllh Fhe
Michelle Etlin, pro se
3009 Military Rd. NW
Washington, DC 20015

Dated:
March 14, 1989

-58-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_1042%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.