When a child is taken to the U.S. by one parent without the other parent’s permission, there is a rule that says the child should be returned to their home country. However, there are some situations where the court can decide to let the child stay in the U.S. These exceptions include cases where the left-behind parent didn’t have custody rights, the child has been in the U.S. for a long time, the child doesn’t want to go back, or if returning the child would be harmful. The parent who wants the child to stay in the U.S. has to provide strong evidence to support their case. It’s important to follow the rules of the international treaty and not give too much power to the courts to decide. Even if a country is not a member of the treaty, they can still ask for a child to be returned from the U.S. The parent who took the child without permission can also argue that the other parent had agreed to it or didn’t object. Sometimes, even if a parent had legal custody rights, their actions can still show that they agreed to the child being taken. For example, if they quickly tried to get custody through the courts in their home country after the child was taken. When it comes to child abduction cases involving the U.S., simply talking about moving there or allowing the children to attend school there is not enough to prove consent. Sending money or gifts also doesn’t count as agreeing to the relocation. After one year, the “well-settled” defense can be used, but it’s not a time limit and the child can still be ordered to return if it’s shown that they are not settled in their new home. The international laws about children being taken by one parent to another country can be complicated. Sometimes, if the parent who took the child hides where they are, or if there are other reasons that make it hard for the other parent to find the child, the time limit for asking for the child to be returned might not apply. This is because it wouldn’t be fair for the hiding parent to benefit from their bad behavior. The goal of the laws is to help children be returned to their home country quickly, even if they have started to settle into their new country. The courts will also consider the child’s age and whether they have made important connections in their new place, like being involved in school or having friends. The laws don’t apply anymore when a child turns 16, and if a child is old enough and doesn’t want to go back, the court might not make them. In a case involving a 13-year-old girl named Katarina, she didn’t want to go back to Australia because she had friends and stability in the U.S. The court decided that even though she was mature enough for her opinion to matter, she still had to go back to Australia because she wasn’t mature enough to make that decision. In another case, a 10-year-old’s objection didn’t matter because the court thought the parent influenced the child. If a child could be in danger if they were sent back to their home country, the court might not require them to return. This exception is very narrow and only applies in extreme situations, like war or serious abuse. It’s important to show that the risk to the child is severe, not just serious. The court won’t consider factors like limited money or educational opportunities. They will only focus on abuse that puts the child at risk. In the case of In re Walsh, the court ordered the children to be returned to their father in Ireland, even though the mother had evidence of verbal and physical abuse. The court said that the abuse didn’t pose an immediate, serious threat to the children’s safety. This decision was based on the Hague Convention, which aims to protect children from being wrongfully kept in another country. In Hague Convention cases, the main focus is on returning abducted children to their home country, not on deciding custody. Claims of harm should be addressed in the children’s home country. Psychological evidence is not usually considered in these cases. The fact that a child may have become used to their new surroundings after being abducted is not a reason to keep them there. Criminal charges against the abducting parent are not a defense for keeping the child in the new country. The child can be returned to their home country even if the abducting parent doesn’t go back. The U.S. court evaluates options and protections for a child in their home country, even if abuse is found. If the court decides to return the child, measures can be put in place to ensure their safety. Returning a child is a victory in preventing international abduction, and U.S. courts are thorough in addressing these cases and upholding the aims of the Convention. This passage refers to the Hague Convention, an international treaty about child abduction. It also mentions specific legal cases related to child custody disputes. It explains some of the provisions and exceptions of the Convention, as well as the process for applying for help from the U.S. Central Authority. It also discusses the difficulty of proving certain exceptions in custody disputes. These references provide examples of court cases and legal principles related to international child abduction. They discuss issues such as consent, the definition of wrongful retention, the time it takes for a child to become settled in a new country, and the importance of considering a child’s testimony in abuse cases. The article discusses different court cases where the “grave risk” exception to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was considered. This exception allows a court to refuse to return a child to their country of habitual residence if there is a grave risk of harm to the child. The cases mentioned include instances where allegations of sexual abuse or post traumatic stress syndrome were considered, as well as situations where children witnessed violence against a parent. Ultimately, the courts consider the evidence and the specific circumstances of each case before deciding whether to apply this exception. These references are from court cases discussing the risk of harm to a child in international child abduction cases. It includes examples where courts did not find a serious risk of harm, as well as cases where the risk of harm was considered significant. It also mentions instances where a parentâs actions, such as being a fugitive or engaging in abuse, affected their ability to seek the return of their child.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/international-parental-child-abduction-part-ii-the-respondents-case/
Leave a Reply