## Facts

- Hala Maklad (wife) and Salah Maklad (husband) married in Egypt and moved to Connecticut in 1984, where they established domicile and the husband obtained steady employment.
- Four children were born during the marriage.
- The youngest child, Abdellah, suffered an injury that required intensive medical treatment in Connecticut.
- In 2000, the husband took Abdellah and the two middle children to Egypt without the wife’s knowledge or permission.
- The husband sent a note to one child’s school stating he had to leave due to unusual circumstances and that the child would return within six months.
- Twelve days after arriving in Egypt, the husband obtained an Egyptian divorce decree.
- About two weeks later, the wife filed for divorce in the Connecticut Superior Court and sought (and obtained) ex parte temporary custody orders concerning the children.
- The husband moved to dismiss the Connecticut action, arguing that the Egyptian divorce decree had already dissolved the marriage.

## Issues

1. Should the Connecticut court recognize the Egyptian divorce decree as a matter of comity, requiring dismissal of the wife’s Connecticut divorce action?
2. Was the wife barred from challenging the foreign divorce because she allegedly treated it as valid (often framed as “practical recognition” or equitable estoppel)?

## Decision

- The court denied the husband’s motion to dismiss.
- The court declined to recognize the Egyptian divorce decree for purposes of ending the Connecticut case.
- The court rejected the claim that the wife’s conduct amounted to acceptance of, or reliance on, the foreign decree that would bar her challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Recognition of a foreign divorce decree in Connecticut is discretionary and depends on comity, not full faith and credit.
- Comity generally requires (1) an adequate jurisdictional basis for the foreign tribunal to dissolve the marriage—commonly domicile in the foreign forum at the time of the divorce—and (2) procedures consistent with fundamental fairness, including notice and a real opportunity to be heard.
- A foreign divorce obtained through unilateral action, on a rushed timeline, and without meaningful notice to the other spouse may be denied recognition where it would offend basic fairness.
- A party may be equitably barred from attacking a foreign divorce only when that party’s conduct clearly shows acceptance of the decree (for example, seeking benefits under it or materially relying on it); promptly contesting the decree and seeking relief in Connecticut weighs against any such bar.

## Conclusion

Maklad v. Maklad held that the husband’s Egyptian divorce decree did not require dismissal of the wife’s Connecticut divorce action because the decree was not entitled to recognition as a matter of comity under the circumstances presented, and the wife’s prompt Connecticut filing and lack of reliance on the foreign decree did not prevent her from challenging its effect in Connecticut.


Maklad v. Maklad, 2001 WL 51662 (2001)