Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (6695)	5/30/2000 10:47:00 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 9127

Michael, I'll bet there's a new story every day, each more heartbreaking than the last. I've happened on a half dozen or so recently in the newspapers I frequent. I just did a Google search on "international custody dispute" and quickly found a couple of examples of mainstream media coverage. abcnews.go.com msnbc.com This is why it's so important that we not evaluate Elian's situation in a vacuum. In my search, I came across the following info on the rules governing international custody disputes courtesy of the state of Illinois. 6) Are there laws regulating international child custody disputes? Child snatching to gain jurisdictional advantage has become widespread, with parents taking children from their "country of habitual residence" to another nation, opening or re-opening litigation, and being awarded custody to the exclusion of the "left-behind parent." The dreadful harm resulting to children is recognized, and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has been adopted by the United States and many other countries. Congress implemented the Convention with the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). The Convention has two stated objectives: "to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained in any Contracting state; and to ensure that the rights of custody and access under the laws of one Contracting state are effectively respected in the other Contracting states." Its goal is the prompt return of the abducted child to the country of his or her "habitual residence" for custody adjudication. Under the Convention, the court of the country of habitual residence is the only court with jurisdiction to decide the merits of a custody case; the country to which a child has been taken is specifically precluded from doing so. The Hague Child Abduction Convention has adopted many of the principles of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), and parallels it in many respects. The idea is that the "home state" (country of habitual residence) should have continuing jurisdiction over child custody, and a parent should not be permitted to abduct a child to gain a custody advantage. Federal law mandates that state courts recognize the judgments of courts of all countries which have adopted the Convention as to child custody and access. 7) What is international child abduction? The Convention defines "abduction," not as the criminal act of kidnaping, but as the wrongful removal or retention of a child from his or her country of habitual residence. The remedies of the Convention do not include criminal prosecution or punishment. They are purely civil in nature: speedy return of the wrongfully removed or retained child, and reimbursement of fees and expenses to the petitioner, if successful. 8) If the country to which the child has been taken has not adopted the Hague Convention, what can be done? The Hague Convention only works when both countries involved have adopted it. Where the country to which a child has been removed is not a Hague signatory, the left-behind parent must rely on the alien country law, often to no avail. 9) What is the best approach to international child abduction? The best approach to international child abduction is prevention. Couples contemplating international marriages should take legal advice prior to the marriage to arrange for pre-nuptial agreements in the event that the marriage does not succeed. Where an international couple contemplates divorce, early legal consultation should be obtained on the international child custody and support issues. 10) Can an American parent prevent removal of a child from the country? Many countries require written permission of both parents before a child can be removed abroad. In the United States, where there is a threat of abduction, the passport office should be notified, and steps should be taken to protect the child's passport. Not uncommonly, a child of an international marriage will have dual citizenship and may have two passports, which is a greater complication. Because of the prevalence of international abduction, it is becoming more difficult for one parent to remove a child abroad from Illinois. Needless to say, it is not impossible. Karen P.S. The other day I was reading a message board at the Washington Post on Elian. Couldn't help but think of you. They were throwing around the word "kidnapping," but in a different context. They were fussing that the INS was "kidnapping" Elian because they were keeping him from returning to Cuba. <g>

To: greenspirit who wrote (6695)	5/30/2000 11:02:00 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Respond to of 9127

"Why hasn't the mainstream press ran stories on those parents? " Michael, Unfortunately, the press has become an extension of Hollywood. And when it's not catering to ratings it caters to an agenda.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6695)	5/30/2000 6:15:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

What has Clinton done for SEVEN YEARS! From the article cited: Bowing to U.S. pressure on an emotional issue, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has decided to institute new measures to help American parents embroiled in custody disputes to visit their children living in Germany. Whatever we think of the current administration, it has apparently at least applied pressure on the issue, which is more than has been done in the past. This issue has existed for a long time, not only where Germans are concerned, and most US administrations and the State Dept. have generally ignored it, seeing it as an irritant in their quest for "more important" diplomatic goals. There has always been sporadic coverage even in the mainstream media, but no sustained outcry.