Mothering Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I don't know if y'all saw the SCOTUS ruling today on the Hague treaty and what it means for international custody.<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Justices: Child should have stayed in Chile<br>
By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 12 hours ago<br>
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Texas mother illegally moved her son from Chile to the United States during a custody dispute with the boy's British father in the first test of the boundaries of an international child custody treaty.<br>
The high court ruled that the Hague Convention on child abduction — aimed at preventing a parent from taking children to other countries without the other parent's permission — demands that the child goes back to the South American country.<br>
However, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the 6-3 decision, said Jacquelyn Abbott can argue in lower courts in the United States for an exception to the international treaty that could allow her son to stay in the U.S.<br>
The child, born in Hawaii, is a U.S. citizen.<br>
Timothy Abbott accused his estranged wife of violating a court order in Chile by taking their 10-year-old son to Texas without the father's consent.<br>
Timothy Abbott asked an American court to order the child returned to Chile, based on the treaty. The Chilean courts had given him visitation rights and the authority to consent before the other parent takes the child to another country, known as "ne exeat rights".<br>
The mother argued that she has exclusive custody of the boy, and that U.S. courts are powerless under the treaty to order his return.<br>
A federal judge acknowledged that taking the son to the United States violated the Chilean court order but sided with the mother, and the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.<br>
The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision.<br>
"To interpret the Convention to permit an abducting parent to avoid a return remedy, even when the other parent holds a ne exeat right, would run counter to the Convention's purpose of deterring child abductions by parents who attempt to find a friendlier forum for deciding custodial disputes," Kennedy said.<br>
The United States is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty, and the Obama administration had sided with Timothy Abbott.<br>
He "has the ability to decide whether or not the child may be taken outside of the country of habitual residence, and thus the right to share in the decision as to where the child will reside," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote in court briefs.<br>
Kagan now has been nominated by President Barack Obama for the Supreme Court.<br>
Justices John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented from the court's opinion.<br>
Stevens said the boy's father never had custody rights, only visitation rights. That means that the father cannot determine where the boy lives, he said.<br>
"A parent without 'rights of custody,' therefore, does not have the power granted by (the treaty) to compel the child's return to his or her country of habitual residence," Stevens said.<br>
Kennedy said that an exception to the Hague Convention deals with the safety of the parent.<br>
"If, for example, Ms. Abbott could demonstrate that returning to Chile would put her own safety at risk, the court could consider whether this is sufficient to show that the child too would suffer 'psychological harm' or be placed in an intolerable situation," Kennedy said.<br>
Lower courts can also take into account the child's wishes if he is mature enough to express them, Kennedy said.<br>
The case is Abbott v. Abbott, 08-645.</td>
</tr></table></div>
<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iz4YaS0S0z2cwIhuW8A4c1MXFWzgD9FOMIF00" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...XFWzgD9FOMIF00</a><br><br>
It's an interesting test for how the Hague treaty will be used in the US in the future, and I know issues related to this area of international law have affected MDC mamas in the past.<br><br>
what do y'all think of the ruling?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
B-R-A-V-O.<br><br>
The US should not facilitate a CP trying to circumvent the access rights of the NCP, by physically removing the child to a different court's jurisdiction. We should not condone it domestically and we should not let ourselves be a safe haven for it, internationally. (Unless, of course, the child is in legitimate danger - say, at risk of an honor killing in her home country. But that's not what this case dealt with.)<br><br>
I have such anger toward mothers who treat their children's fathers as disposable commodities.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,916 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Jeannine</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/15423390"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">B-R-A-V-O.<br><br>
The US should not facilitate a CP trying to circumvent the access rights of the NCP, by physically removing the child to a different court's jurisdiction. We should not condone it domestically and we should not let ourselves be a safe haven for it, internationally. (Unless, of course, the child is in legitimate danger - say, at risk of an honor killing in her home country. But that's not what this case dealt with.)<br><br>
I have such anger toward mothers who treat their children's fathers as disposable commodities.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I agree with the first part. A NCP who is active and fulfilling a healthy role in a childs life should not be prevented access by changing jurisdiction.<br><br>
Just be sure to be angry at the fathers of children who treat them as disposable commodities also. You can't be angry at one with out being angry at the other. Unfortunately it's not a one sided thing of who treats who as disposable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Theia</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/15426092"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Just be sure to be angry at the fathers of children who treat them as disposable commodities also. You can't be angry at one with out being angry at the other.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<span style="text-decoration:underline;">Of course</span>. But from what I see/hear/read, <i>everyone</i> feels critical of walkaway dads. No one hesitates to criticize them. No one defends them. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Don't judge him! Maybe not showing up for visitation or not paying support is right <i><span style="text-decoration:underline;">for him</span></i>,"??<br><br>
Then logically, we - as a society - must be staunch supporters of dads who <i>aren't willing</i> to walk away. Right? But we're not. At best, we support them inconsistently.<br><br>
When a divorced mom takes "her" kids and moves away from her ex (far enough to lessen his visitation), so she can take a higher-paying job, or follow a love interest, or otherwise chase her dreams and "find herself", plenty of people will applaud her independence, her sense of adventure, her feminism, her "need" to "do the right thing for herself"... <i>Some</i> will say she's selfish for moving the kids away from their Dad - <span style="text-decoration:underline;">but that sentiment will not be unanimous</span>.<br><br>
When a divorced mom requests protective orders or supervised visitation or otherwise interferes with her ex's ability to see the kids and be involved at their school and activities and creates the clear sense that she's the "good" parent and he's the "bad" one... - how many people reserve judgment and acknowledge, "Without witnessing anything, or reading their court pleadings and transcripts, <span style="text-decoration:underline;">I don't really know</span> whether he has victimized his ex-wife and kids and deserves to be kept away from them, or whether <i>she</i> is victimizing <i>him</i> with these accusations, to gain control over the kids,"? Instead, there is a <b>much</b> stronger tendency for people to actively side with the mother and feel righteous anger toward the father.<br><br>
Even you - reading about a father who <i>fought back</i> when the mother tried to block his access to their child - responded by diverting attention to <b>other</b> fathers, who <b>don't</b> care about seeing their kids.<br><br>
I think keeping kids away from their dads is offensive enough to criticize - and to let that criticism stand on its own. Hence, my happiness at this ruling.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,916 Posts
Jeannine - I am happy with this ruling as well. I just happen to think that certain cases are sensationalized and others are give much less media coverage. Like there is a recent case of a father from Tenn. who's native Japanese wife took the children back to her country of origin. I don't think it is right at all. I just happen to have had experiences in my life to show me that it's not a simple one sided issue. I believe that mothers or fathers can be actively involved in preventing a healthy bonded relationship between children and NCP's. So that was the whole point of my previous post. Not to say that there is more or less of either situation or to point out that one situation is more prominent. Just that there are mothers who prevent otherwise healthy relationships between children and fathers just as there are fathers who prevent otherwise healthy relationships between mother and child.<br><br>
My experience isn't the same as yours I guess. I have seen plenty of criticism of mothers who have prevented fathers from bonding with children. Yes, deadbeat fathers are the easy target, and I believe are unfortunately common. But I also think deadbeat mothers are common, they are probably just less sensationalized in the media. I don't have any numbers to back me on this... it's just speculation. But it's not even important to the particular ruling in discussion.<br><br>
My DD's father threatened to kidnap her and take her overseas to be raised by his family. But since he left over a year ago, he also has not made a sincere or even weak attempt to see her. Our relationship was abusive and it included him making threats to hurt her as well. Since his return overseas though, I have been the 24/7/365 parent and he has not done anything.<br><br>
It may sound like I am bitter. But that is not the case at all. I am actually grateful. In my situation, this is the best I could hope for. He has remarried and I wish him a new family to take his mind off of those he left behind. I don't look forward to explaining the intricacies of this to DD (who is only a toddler now), but I have to trust that she will believe me.<br><br>
My whole point was, I don't care what gender you happen to be. If you are trying to be a healthy active participant in your childs life and the CP is preventing that from happening, then I think that is crappy. I can't be only mad at CP's who are mothers because I myself fall into that category and someone who doesn't know the specifics of our particular situation might see it as otherwise. I think any parent of either gender should be equally criticized for preventing a healthy parent/child relationship when there is a case that proves that one parent is preventing without cause and the other parent is not simply being neglectful.<br><br>
I am not interested in debating and nearly didn't post a second response because I believe my first response stands alone. I decided to give in to the opportunity to provide some clarity and to hopefully show that in reality we most likely agree, we are just expressing it in different ways.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top