Politics U.S.-Taiwan MOU to protect against cross-border abduction: official

Politics U.S.-Taiwan MOU to protect against cross-border abduction: official

Suzanne Lawrence, the U.S. Department of State special adviser for children’s issues. Image from focustaiwan.tw

Taipei, May 31 (CNA) A recently signed U.S.-Taiwan agreement on international parental child abduction is a great first step toward further cooperation between the two democracies to better protect children involved in cross-border abduction, a visiting U.S. official said Friday.

Suzanne Lawrence, the U.S. Department of State special adviser for children’s issues, told CNA that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed last month helps the authorities on both sides to establish direct lines of contact to jointly address the issue.

“One of the great benefits of signing this kind of agreement is that you’re basically committing to having lines of communication, and you know where to go when a problem comes up,” she said, adding that this is “a great first step. Continue reading →

Court Clarifies Quasi-Settlement Defence To Removed Child’s Return (L-S (a child)

Original news

In L-S (a child) [2017] EWCA Civ 2177 the Court of Appeal allowed a mother’s appeal against a court order to return her son from England to the US under the Hague Convention on the Civil International Aspects of Child Abduction 1980 (Hague Convention 1980).

The Court of Appeal held that while the judge at first instance had been entitled to conclude that the child had not been habitually resident in England and his return to the US would not place him in an intolerable situation, the father was to be taken to have acquiesced in the child’s wrongful removal to England because he had unequivocally accepted that the child would remain with the mother in England and it would be unjust to permit him to resile.

What was the background to the case?

The mother is a British national and the father an American citizen. They met online and shortly thereafter married in the US. While there, they lived in a number of different states and at times led a peripatetic lifestyle. While pregnant, the mother returned to England to obtain antenatal care. She remained here and gave birth to the child. A month after his birth, the mother travelled with him to the US. The father had rented new accommodation for the family. The mother found the environment unacceptable and after two months she returned to England with her son without the father’s knowledge and consent.

The father sought the child’s summary return to the US. He made his application to the English court approximately 11 months after the mother and child’s return.

The mother argued that the child was not habitually resident in the US at the time that she removed him to England. Further, she contended that, if he was habitually resident in the US, the father had by his actions acquiesced, within the meaning of Art 13(a) of the Hague Convention 1980, in his removal to England. Finally, she argued that a return to the US would expose the child to a grave risk of harm or place him in an intolerable position, within the meaning of Art 13(b), on account of the fact that he was settled in England, where he had spent the majority of his life.

Parker J found that the child had acquired habitual residence in the US during the two months he had spent there with his mother and father. She went on to find that the father had not acquiesced in the wrongful removal and that a return would neither expose the child to a grave risk of harm nor place him in an intolerable position. Accordingly, she made an order pursuant to Art 12 of the Hague Convention 1980 requiring the child to return to the US forthwith.

The mother appealed.  Article continues …

Japan to finally be compliant with Hague Convention on child abduction in April 2014 – The Japan Daily Press

Family Law Week: DL v EL (Hague Abduction Convention – Effect of Reversal of Return Order on Appeal) [2012] EWHC 49 (Fam)


Related Articles  →


About towardchange

Your ‘Family Rights’ believing in the best interest of children. The issues which are important to me are, children and their families, the injustices to parents, which may occur, because of inadequate information, mistakes or corruption. This is happening every day. every minute and every second.
This entry was posted in Care Proceedings, Family Law, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, Secret family courts and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.