Tutlance Blog

National and International Legal Underpinnings and Ramifications in the International Child Custody In Australia, Canada, and Lebanon.

Research proposal

THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL AIMS TO ADDRESS THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL UNDERPINNINGS AND RAMIFICATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CHILD CUSTODY IN THREE COUNTRIES NAMELY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND LEBANON.

Law

(Student’s name)

Need help with essays, dissertations, homework, and assignments? Stop wasting time and post your project on tutlance and get a real professional to do your work at CHEAP prices. Watch while Tutlance experts outbid each other.

SAVE MY TIME!

(Professor)

(Institution)

(Date)

Table of Contents

Research proposal 1

Law 1

1.0 Thesis statement 4

1.1 Introduction 4

1.2 Background for the Study 5

1.2.1 A gap in the study 6

1.2.3 Study Rationale 7

1.3 Research Questions 9

1.3.2 Guiding questions 9

1.4 Aims of the study 9

1.5 Mission for the study 9

1.6 Research Objectives 10

1.6 Limitations to the study 10

2.0 Literature review 11

2.1 Literature review foreword 11

2.2 Case Study Background 13

2.2.0 Introduction 13

2.2.1 Components of the case 14

2.2.2 Abduction 14

2.2.3 Retrieval 15

2.2.4 Implications 15

2.2.5 International implications 16

2.3 Theoretical Framework 17

2.3.1 Custodial theories 17

2.3.2 Legal and physical custody 17

2.3.3 Legal presumptions 18

2.3.4 Custody feasibility theories 19

2.4 Lebanon 19

2.4.1 Legal background 19

2.4.2 Structure of judiciary 20

2.4.3 Court definition of marriages 20

2.4.4 Lebanese laws and custody implications 21

2.4.5 Lebanese family law 21

2.4.6 Abduction in Lebanon 22

2.5 Australia 22

2.5.1 Legal background 22

2.5.2 Australia family law 22

2.5.3 Australian judicial systems 23

2.5.4 Custody and Abduction 23

2.5.5 Court presumptions on custody and abduction 24

2.6 Canada 24

2.6.1 Legal background 24

2.6.2 Canadian family law 25

2.6.3 Courts jurisdiction 25

2.6.4 Custody and Abduction 25

2.7 The Hague Convention 26

2.7.1 The Basics 26

2.7.2 Hague convention – Child custody and abduction 27

2.7.3 Procedure 28

3.0 Methodology 28

3.1 Design Overview 28

3.2 Data Sources 29

3.3 Methods for testing hypotheses 29

4.0 Data analysis methods 29

5.0 Consent and ethical issues 29

5.1 Ethical issues 29

5.2 Confidentiality 29

5.3 Consent 30

6.0 Avoidance of duplication of other works 30

7.0 Conclusion 30

8.0 References 31

1.0 Thesis statement

The research proposal aims to address the national and international legal underpinnings and ramifications in the international child custody in three countries namely Australia, Canada, and Lebanon.

1.1 Introduction

This research proposal aims at several things within the study on national and international legal underpinnings and ramifications in the international child custody. The researcher seeks to utilize the opportunity presented in a gap between these studies. The research will compare the legal underpinnings in three countries namely Australia, Canada, and Lebanon. Within the broader perspective, the researcher aims at discussing the legal framework in the three countries regarding international child custody and abduction. The researcher also aims at presenting the Hague convention framework in such custody cases. After discussing or carrying out an empirical study of the above, the researcher will use the case study methodology. The case study methodology will be the primary method for research. The case to be considered will be that of Melissa Hawach[1]. Finally, the researcher will develop outlines that will show how this case affected or changed laws that govern international custody disputes in the three countries with a particular interest to Australia. The research paper will rely heavily on the case study methodology. The main case investigated is the Melisa Hawach case. Melisa Hawach is a Canadian citizen woman[2]. She gained international attention when she was faced with a complicated custody dispute with her former husband. Melisa and Joseph had two children. The children had three citizenship rights in Australia, Lebanon, and Canada. The father of the children took them to Lebanon against the Canadian family laws stipulations[3]. Their mother subsequently retrieved them with the help of Brian Corrigan, an Australian mercenary. The two defied Lebanon laws. The Hague Convention came into place to assist in such situations to avoid complications[4].

1.2 Background for the Study

The primary motivation of the laws under international custody is international travel. In the recent years, international travel has reached optimum levels[5]. As a result, individuals from different countries, cultures, and religions form a friendship and later engage in intimate relations. It has been deduced that 42% of these relationships lead to marriages. Consequently, when people get married, they create a family. Nonetheless, the modern world is facing enormous diversities. Therefore, it has become difficult to maintain these marriages[6]. Most of these marriages end up in breakups. Consequently, the issues of shared custody have been on the rampant[7]. The question of shared custody comes with many challenges[8]. For instance, parents living in different countries have often had difficulties in joint custody[9]. The problems of joint custody become even more problematic when parents do not have a common agreement on where to raise their children[10]. Such cases have been the common causes of international children abductions. International child abduction is not a new phenomenon[11]. It existed from the latter twentieth century. However, several developments have led to easing handling of these cases. The factors include continued ease of international travel and an increase of bi-cultural marriages and divorces[12].

The researcher will seek to define the meaning of international child abduction. The definition will be deduced from the standard definition of child abduction[13]. Per se, child abduction means the unilateral removal or retention of children by parents or guardians or close family members. Recent research indicates that abduction by non-parents or family members constitutes the larger of these cases[14]. Abduction can be studied in different angles. For instance, a parent may abduct a child because he or she thinks that the new environment is the best for the child’s growth and development[15]. And in most cases, research stipulates that these decisions are influenced by two factors, religion, and cultural beliefs among others. The international community became concerned on international child abduction for various speculations. The greatest reason is the effect created by abduction to the child[16]. Such effects include losing contact not only with one parent, but also culture, environment and the familiar people around the life of the child. Most legislatures consider the fact that every country may have a different setup from the other[17]. Configurations include different languages, cultures, social customs and legal frameworks. The structure factors will be hostile to the child making the child’s development lag. Strained relationships between the separated parents are considered when making decisions about the child’s custody[18].

1.2.1 A gap in the study

The researcher has seen a gap where little attention was paid to the subject of international child abduction. As such, the importance of the paper will be comparing what measures are taken on the issue[19]. Comparison of three jurisdictions does the study. When it was apparent that little attention was paid to the issue, several countries came up with a strategy to tackle the problem. The procedure resulted in the creation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980. The convention profoundly touched on issues to do with child abductions[20]. The Hague convention sought and still aims to engage in active protection of children[21]. The principal objective is the protection of children from harmful effects of cross-border abductions. The agreement provides a procedure that is designed to ensure children remain in their states of habitual residence[22]. The Convention was revised in 1996 when the international protection of children was put in place[23].

Nonetheless, the Hague statute does not guarantee the complete safety of children against abduction. There are still complications arising from various unturned issues[24]. The question of whether or not to extend comity to the court orders and judgments of foreign courts is still a problem. This persists even more where the country is not a signatory to The Hague conventions[25]. In today’s application of the law, there is no uniformity in approaches used on these issues internationally or locally[26].

1.2.3 Study Rationale

The study aims at empirically looking at three countries mentioned earlier. In Australia, the family law is essential to child abduction. The primary attributes of this law came into effect in 2006 July 1, 2006, when Australia’s family law-amendment namely shared parental responsibility act came into place[27]. The law is very direct in that it places a lot of weight on the rights of children[28]. For instance, children have the right for them to have meaningful relationships[29]. They also have the right to be protected from any harm according to the Australian family laws. The law has critically discussed the responsibilities of both parents[30]. It gives critical importance on the union working together to raise their children before and after separation[31]. Consequently, the law is built on strong assumptions that it only acts in the best interest of the children[32]. It also supports each of the children’s parents to get or have an equal shared parental responsibility[33].

According to the Lebanon child, custody laws are entrusted in the family law act as well. The law falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of religious courts[34]. The impact of these laws is that each sect has its set rules regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody[35]. For instance, the Shiites believe that it is the responsibility of the father to gain full custody of boys aged two years and above in the case of a separation[36]. Mothers are allowed to keep their daughters till they attain the age of seven. In a critical scrutiny, women are underpinned when it comes to custody of children[37]. A recent demonstration affirms that women are less regarded when it comes to custody after divorce. They are given less time to spend with their children, unlike the men[38]. Nonetheless, women in Lebanon are afraid to speak of what happens when such instances face them. Women taking children under their custody is referred to as shame. The majority of the men are not ready to endure this shame[39].

In Canada, the law stipulates that both parents have the right to raise their children[40]. In most cases, both parents are mandated to make decisions on how to raise their children rightfully[41]. Parents are mandated to be conscious of separations and what entails separation in legal terms[42]. Consequently, in cases of a divorce, both parents should engage in constructive planning on how and where the children will be raised[43]. In cases where the parents cannot agree, they are allowed to apply to the court for an order for custody or access[44]. However, the law stipulates that either parent should apply for custody in the place where the children live[45].

1.3 Research Questions

1.3.1 The principal question:

1. How do the national and international legal underpinnings and ramifications in the international child custody addressed?

1.3.2 Guiding questions

1. How does the legal framework of Lebanon, Australia, and Canada stipulate regarding international child custody and abduction?

2. How does The Hague Convention structure help in case of international child custody and abduction?

3. What are the challenges of The Hague Convention framework in addressing the national and international child custody and abduction?

4. What are the components of the Melisa Hawach case?

5. How is the fact important and what are its attributes when it comes to laws that govern international custody disputes in the three countries mentioned in the question above?

1.4 Aims of the study

1. To address the national and international legal underpinnings and ramifications in the international child custody.

2. To discuss the legal framework in the three countries mentioned regarding international child custody and abduction.

3. To discuss the Hague Convention legal framework in such custody cases

4. To determine how the Melisa Hawach case affected or changed laws governing international custody disputes in the three countries and in particular Australia.

1.5 Mission for the study

The mission of the research is to ensure that the researcher explores empirically the thesis statement mentioned above. Per se, the legal frameworks of the three countries mentioned above seem different. It is within the mission of this study to ensure that they are reconciled and explored in depth[46]. Nonetheless, it is also the purpose of the study to discuss the stipulations of the Melisa Howach case in depth. The discussion is aimed at ensuring their contributions to international custody laws are clearly described. The Hague Convention contributes a lot when it comes to children protection and especially when it comes to abduction and custody issues[47].

1.6 Research Objectives

1. Determining how the legal framework of Lebanon, Australia, and Canada stipulate regarding international child custody and abduction.

2. Examining how The Hague Convention structure helps in case of international child custody and kidnapping.

3. Evaluating the challenges of The Hague Convention framework in addressing the national and international child custody and abduction.

4. Evaluating the components of the Melisa Hawash case?

5. Determining how the case is important and what are its attributes when it comes to laws that govern international custody disputes in the three countries mentioned in the question above?

1.6 Limitations to the study

1. Data biases may be a factor to consider when working out the methodology for the study. The sampling method used may be the cause of data biases. Also, the data collection process, survey, may also be the cause of biases.

2. The fact that the study results will be obtained through a preliminary data collection, there may be biases with the kind of data collected. The primary method used in the study is the case study method. Nonetheless, the case study adopted in the study is just one among many other instances that affect the legal status when it comes to custody and abduction[48]. This means that it is only but a representation of the actual effects of the laws. Hence, it does not give an absolute representation.

3. The other methods used will be secondary methods. These methods will involve using other research papers, journals, and other written materials. Above all, the paper will rely on different written manuscripts on the laws of the three countries. The possibility of unfair representation may be a limiting factor for this study when it comes to using these sources[49].

4. The data collected will not be a complete opinion of all the relevant data sources but a representation. The conclusion made will still be open to future reviews as it only concludes the study on a selected sample representation[50].

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Literature review foreword

There is plenty of literature that exists when it comes to family laws and how they are applied in different countries. Nonetheless, the researcher sees the need to reconcile the case study discussed in the paper with the international custody and abduction laws of the three countries under study[51]. To complete a meaningful discussion on the existing literature, the researcher takes the initiative to discuss the basics under the stipulated thesis topic[52]. The first item will be defining what custody stands for in the coming study. The legal understanding of the term stipulates assumption of the legal rights and responsibility to a child’s life[53]. This means that the right and responsibility warrants decision making when it comes to choosing the child’s school, religion, and making medical decisions.

The parent granted custody will be named the custodial parent, and the child will live with him or her[54]. Another important term is access. Access stands to mean that if one parent is granted custody, the other is granted “access”. Hence, access is the ability of the other parent to see the child, according to the laid down strategy[55]. The courts admit to the fact that a child needs both parents to develop better. And in most cases, the courts grant access meaning that the other parent is allowed to visit the child[56]. Access allows the other parent to know about the child’s health developments, well-being, and education[57].

It is also important to discuss the types of custody that are likely discussed on the three countries’ international laws on detention[58]. The first type is sole custody. Sole custody stipulates that one parent has a higher hand in making major decisions regarding the child. Nonetheless, the other parent is given the right to know about the decisions made on the child but is denied the opportunity to question or tell what decisions to be made[59]. Joint custody means that both parents have the rights to make action on the child[60]. The important factor about joint custody is the fact that the parents are required to cohere and work as a team[61]. Nonetheless, joint custody does not mean that the child will spend equal times in both parent’s places. One of the parents is always served with interim custody or temporary custody[62].

There are different types of access. Any access deemed fit under different situations is facilitated by the court. Reasonable access stipulates that the tribunal custody for one parent and reasonable access for the other parent[63]. This access is made to allow the two parents to discuss the way forward for their child and come up with a solid agreement[64]. Fixed or limited access stipulates that when two parents are not getting along well, any of the parents can file an order in the court. The law will set access terms. The terms will include when, how long and how often the access will visit[65]. In cases where the relationship was abusive, specific dates and specified times are set. Graduated access means that the court limits the access time at first then gradually adjusts[66]. This is done in cases where the child is not known to the parent. Supervised access means that the access will be closely monitored during access[67]. This instance happens when the relationship between the parent and the child is abusive. The parent cannot be alone with the child at any particular moment[68].

Where the child lives is determined by who has the sole custody. Nonetheless, it is not absolute that sole custody will guarantee where the child lives[69]. The primary residence of the child is the place where most time is spent[70]. And the parent in that particular home is the primary caregiver. For the court to give custody, it considers several aspects[71]. For instance, it investigates whether the child has been exposed to any violence. The court may also examine the kind of relationship the child has with each of the parents[72]. The emotional ties are also considered as an essential factor to consider. It is also important to determine the period that the child has lived in a stable environment and the kind of plans each parent has for the child[73]. The central issue that the researcher wants to investigate is the parent’s decision to move with the child[74]. If the custodial parent wishes to move from one country to the other, what are the legal frameworks? The three countries have their stipulations on how to carry on such processes[75].

2.2 Case Study Background

2.2.0 Introduction

Melissa Hawach (nee Engdahl) was married to Joseph Hawach[76]. The two gained international attention after entering into a complicated custody situation. The two got two children in the period they remained married[77]. The children held citizenship in Canada, Australia, and Lebanon. The child was taken to Lebanon by their father in July 2006[78]. This was in complete violation of Canadian custody orders. Subsequently, the child was retrieved by her mother in December 2006. This was also in total disregard of the Lebanese custody laws[79]. Out of the situation, the case attracted international attention due to its international implication on custody and abduction[80]. Hawach was born in Canada, moved to Australia and while working there she met a Lebanese-Australian national, Joseph. They later moved to Canada where they separated later on, and Melissa gained custody of their daughter[81]. The abduction occurred when the father took them to a three week’s visit in Australia. The mother had agreed to the appointment but later received a call that the kids would not be returning to Canada but rather stay with their Australian relatives[82].

2.2.1 Components of the case

Born in Canada, Melissa Hawach moved to Australia where she got a job in a hotel. The hotel owner, Mr. Joseph Hawach[83], the owner of the hotel later on got acquainted with Melissa, and they got married. Joseph was a Lebanese-Australian. Then they moved to Canada where Joe started a new business with Melissa’s big brother Doug[84]. Within their stay in Canada, they got separated, and Melissa gained custody of their two daughters[85].

2.2.2 Abduction

The two girls lived with their mother Calgary, Canada. July 1, 2006, their Lebanese-Australian father took them for a visit that was to last three weeks to Australia. The mother had agreed to this arrangement after long arguments and a common understanding later. The trip was meant to allow the father to have a good relationship with the daughters[86].

The mother of the girls reported that she received a call from the father’s lawyer stating that the kids will stay in Australia with their relatives. The lawyer was Joseph’s younger brother, Pierre. Later on she was informed that the father of the children had taken them to Lebanon[87]. Joseph stated that the children would only return the kids if Melissa returned to Australia. When in Australia, she was supposed to give Joseph full custody of the children from a Lebanese court[88]. Lebanon laws automatically award custody to the father unless he would have been proven unfit. Nonetheless, Melissa filed for divorce in Canada and was awarded full custody of the kids[89].

2.2.3 Retrieval

She engaged the Australian courts in tracing the whereabouts of the children and their father. She also made contact with several former members of the Australian Special Forces and New Zealand Special Forces[90]. They joined her in the search for her kids. They all traveled to Lebanon after getting email tips that revealed the location of the father and his larger family members. After great use of the Lebanon courts, she failed to retrieve her children[91]. Melissa and the soldiers escorting her decided to take the children by force from the hotel they stayed. She hid with the kids in Lebanon for some time then later on smuggled them into Syria and Jordan[92].

2.2.4 Implications

Two of the soldiers involved were arrested. The two were Brian Corrigan, whose origin was Australia. The other was David Pemberton whose origin was New Zealand[93]. The two were detained in Beirut in their pursuit to escape. They were charged with operations as paid mercenaries. They denied the charges. The charges carry a minimum of three years imprisonment and with hard labor[94].

Several months later after they were arrested, a Lebanese court recognized Melissa and offered custody to her[95]. David and Pemberton were charged with misbehaviors, and they were released on bail. In February 2007, Australian courts and the Canadian courts recognized Melissa as the custodial[96].

Nonetheless, the Lebanese courts refused to remove a warrant of arrest for the mother on claims of kidnapping her children[97]. The Lebanese judges have recommended three years imprisonment. However, Joseph is willing to drop the charges against the soldiers and the children’s mother if the children are returned to him. The attorneys representing Melissa have termed this offer as unreasonable[98].

On the other hand, Joseph is faced with charges too. Interpol has delivered a warrant for him to be extradited to Canada to face abduction charges. He is allegedly facing a civil suit in Canada over unpaid business debts. He is currently believed to be hiding in Lebanon[99]. In March 2007, Melissa’s attorney informed the supreme court of the New South Wales that the two separated spouses had reached a confidential agreement. In May 2008, Melissa released a book called “Flight of The Dragonfly” that touched on the ordeals of the case[100]. On a lighter note, the daughters have been allowed to contact their father through letters, web cams and photos. Joseph was ordered to apologize for the abduction and follow the stipulated guidelines to maintain contact with his daughters[101].

2.2.5 International implications

The two girls had triple citizenship rights. These rights have continued to be a challenge on the proper venue for custody determination. Australia recognizes Canada’s authority as the primary residence of the children[102]. The main factors were considered in the guidelines set out in the international treaty on children abduction. Lebanon has not accepted to follow the treaty and its stipulations. Consequently, it asserts jurisdictional authority to itself[103]. The case has been cited in the Canadian parliament. The case reveals the need to develop strong treaties that will facilitate custody and abduction between Canada and other countries[104]. Harwich has also gone a step up by becoming a spokeswoman for missing children Society of Canada in pressing for stricter immigration policies. The policies will help in the prevention of children being taken into nations that do not recognize the treaty[105].

2.3 Theoretical Framework

Under the theoretical framework, the researcher aims at using theories that will assist in further understanding of the study.

2.3.1 Custodial theories

For instance, the custodial methods have several stipulations. One of the stipulations states that the most mitigating factor on custody is the current arrangements. Custody decisions are building on the grounds of current arrangements between the parents. The theory delineates custody decisions from parental rights and responsibilities following divorce. It supports that legal custody is the primary support affirmation for a parent[106]. Such a parent has legal abilities to make decisions that pertain the child. And as much as the judges have the final say when it comes to custody, issues of the country to country jurisdictions are delicate to handle. Judges endorse the parents’ proposed agreements. Nonetheless, when parents disagree on the desired care arrangements, judges will come in handy to make decisions that are favorable to the child[107]. Ten percent of divorces end up in litigation over custody arrangements. The theory finds out that 90% custody is awarded to women. Nonetheless, there is not enough research on how courts go about care for parents living in different countries. In the recent days, custody awarded to fathers has increased. The number of joint custody awards has also gone up significantly[108].

2.3.2 Legal and physical custody

Most countries have implemented statutes on joint custody. The theoretical framework on joint custody is complicated by the confusion between legal and physical custody. According to custody theory, joint legal custody refers to an equal allocation of decision-making responsibilities on a child. The two parents can decide together the fate of the child when it comes to issues of health, education and general well-being. Physical custody refers to the equitable division of children’s custodial and affection care. However, there are also unclear lines when it comes to sole legal custody and joint custody for international custodial cases[109]. The courts have found it hard to make decisions due to several limiting factors. Such limiting factors include time spent with the children, involvement in major decisions, the quality of child-parent relationships and participation in daily care. These factors will vary depending on the boundaries crossed. Thus, the theory stipulates and maintains that national and international custody remains a legal concept. Therefore, it should not be used as a synonym for social/psychological indicators of parental involvement.

2.3.3 Legal presumptions

Legal presumptions influence custody decisions. They are also influenced by preferences found in statutes and case laws, and judges and parents’ attitude[110]. There is a relative importance placed in these factors. Consequently, their significance is placed about final custody outcomes. Nonetheless, the consequences will always vary. Observations to the current statutes indicate no pattern for preference to mothers. On the other hand, judicial precedence has created a presumption of sole maternal custody. Precedence has become more common in use than in the past[111]. The recent traits indicate that mothers are considered for sole custody of young children. However, the doctrine of custody awarding stipulates that the custody of a child should be placed in the sole interest of that child[112].

As of the present, the child international custody is determined by the child’s wish, parents’ wishes and the parents-children relationships. Many countries use different statutes to solve international custody issues. These guidelines vary in definition and content and can be interpreted differently or in different ways. As such, they leave great room for judicial discretion. Most lawyers have insisted that judges should rank criteria used when making international child custody decisions[113]. Those who have done so indicated that judges assess parents as mature, responsible adults that are capable of providing a stable home. Not at any instance did a judge state that they give preferential treatment to one particular parent over the other. When it comes[114] joint custody, judges do not indulge much in awarding joint custody. They scrutinize a case thoroughly to ensure that joint custody is the best ruling. Most judges think that joint custody is best awarded to those parents who display high levels of integrity. They are also judged on the cooperative levels they hold on their relationship. Joint custody provides more benefits than detrimental consequences[115].

2.3.4 Custody feasibility theories

The possibility of custody arrangement theory states that examination of various factors can evaluate the success of various international custody arrangements. These factors include the study of parent-child relationships and children’s well-being post divorce and child-related litigation rate. Current research indicates that fathers with joint or sole international custody do as well as mothers do. This is in regards to emotional well-being or parenting quality and satisfaction used as the indicators for scrutiny. According to this theory, boys are seen to fare well in father or joint custody. This is opposed to the maternal custody arrangement[116]. Research indicates that parents choosing joint custody are faced with better advantages in raising their kids as compared to single custody. Joint international custody has exhibited better growth and stability in most of the children under divorce. Nonetheless, wider arrays of research also indicate that joint international custody is a very complicated and near impossible situation. Pervasive ideas in the theory suggest that joint international custody only works better when the former spouses maintain an amiable and cooperative relationship[117].

When a parent is awarded sole custody, the other parent is legally eligible for visitation rights. Visitation will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain contact with his or her child. Visitation will also give the parent an opportunity to further the parental relationship with the child[118].

2.4 Lebanon

How does the legal framework of Lebanon stipulate regarding international child custody and abduction?

2.4.1 Legal background

Islamic religion primarily influences the Lebanese population. Consequently, Islamic principles and Ottoman as well as the civil law influence substantially the legal systems of the country. However, the Constitution does not establish the Sharia[119] as a source of law nor does religion recognized as a state factor. As much as the larger communities comprise of Muslim faithful, there are eighteen communities composed of different Christian originals. But, personal status matters are regulated by religious setups within a community. The Ottoman family laws and Article 242 of the 1962 law on rights of the family are among the valued statutes that govern the family. The Shia Muslims and the Druze have a separate code to the ones mentioned above[120]. The Christian denominations also practice their set of laws including a large Jewish status quo. The Lebanese laws allow for the practice of foreign orders. Nevertheless, these laws are subject to not interfering with the country’s order. They are enforceable for as long as they are not subject to litigation and do not violate public order[121].

2.4.2 Structure of judiciary

Courts are structured in subdivisions into civil and criminal courts. They are then arranged into the hierarchy of three levels. The three levels include court of first instance leading from the bottom[122]. These courts allowed the presiding of cases by three judges. Only in minor matters was one judge authorized to sit. Appeals from, these tribunals were directly sent to the courts of appeal. The courts of appeal are six distributed across the six Lebanese provinces. The highest level is the court of cassation. These courts are allowed to listen to matters pertaining international custody and abduction cases[123].

2.4.3 Court definition of marriages

The Lebanese courts define Sunni filiations as of children born of a wedding. The marriage should have been contracted at least for six months. They are also expected to last at least two years then dissolution can take place or in cases of death of husband or wife[124]. If the child born does not fall into the defined factors above, the father is mandated with acceptance of paternity. The Druze family laws have their stipulations when it comes to the legitimacy of the child. A child is legitimate if born after eighty days after the conclusion of a marriage. The child must also be born in more than a hundred days after separation of parents. When a child is born outside the factors mentioned, the father is charged with legitimizing the child. He is supposed to claim paternity for the child to be recognized[125].

2.4.4 Lebanese laws and custody implications

The traditional Hanafi laws are used as guidelines to guide the Sunni Muslims when it comes to the care of a child. The custody declarations are known to last until a boy attains the age of seven, and the girl reaches the age of nine. After that period, the custody will be dictated by the Druze code. In Shia Jaafari law when a male attains the age of two, and a female child reaches the age of seven that is when the custody ends. According to Sunnis and Druze, the mother is given the highest preference of custody. Nonetheless, there are conditions set for them to fulfill. These conditions stipulate that the mother must, first of all, be an adult. The second condition specifies that she must be of excellent character. The third states that she must have the ability to raise and care for the child[126]. The fourth stipulates that she must not be an apostate and must not remarry outside the prohibited degree of relationship to the child. In cases where the mother fails to meet either of the conditions above, the maternal custodial duties are passed on to the grandmother or any other blood relative lady to the child. The Christian or Jewish laws stipulate the time of custody will end when the child attains the age where he or she can discern in matters of religion. The Muslim community feels that a non-Muslim parent cannot have custody of a Muslim child[127].

2.4.5 Lebanese family law

According to Lebanese laws on family, custody, and abduction, the father is entrusted as the legal guardian of a child. The father is legally the custodian until the child reaches an age of majority that is eighteen years. The Sunnis do not maintain any particular laws when it comes to access. Nevertheless, when there is a divorce hearing, the courts may discuss the issue of access as deemed right by the prevailing situation[128]. The mother and father are not entitled to rights to remove a child during the period of the mother’s custody. As much as the mother is permitted to travel with the child, international custody and abduction is treated seriously. However, the mother is allowed to move with the child to any place including the place of birth or the place she contracted the marriage. The Druze family law forbids the custodial parent from leaving the country of the father’s residence without his permission[129]. In cases where the father is deceased, the courts assume the responsibilities of the father. This is not inclusive. They only grant permission to leave the country with the child. The father is forbidden from removing the child during periods when the mother is allowed custody. There is only one condition that can be recognized and that is when the mother is remarried[130].

2.4.6 Abduction in Lebanon

According to other doctrines in the country, a child is legitimate if born within a marriage. The father is always mandated with guardianship rights of a child until the child is at the age of majority. The father will lose this right in any case he is deemed unfit. In the event of divorce, the father is the legitimate custodial unless the baby is a gal and is less than nine years of age. The male child is also supposed to be past the age of seven years. In case the father is unable to fulfill the custodial rights, they are shifted to the mother[131].

When it comes to nationality, the father is given automatic rights to transmit his citizenship to the children. A Lebanese mother is given the right to pass citizenship if the husband or father is naturalized as a Lebanese citizen. A minor must al all times has the permission of both parents to have a passport. The child can travel as he or she wishes after obtaining the passport[132]. However, the father is granted authority over the mother and child with immigration. The above has become a complete administrative procedure that does not require court orders[133].

2.5 Australia

How does the legal framework of Australia stipulate regarding international child custody and abduction?

2.5.1 Legal background

The Australia government maintains family laws that cater for both local and international custody and abduction cases. The legal systems stipulate that the courts authorize the formation of a legal aid commission or family dispute resolution service. The two may be able to help when two spouses are faced with marriage disagreements. However, the courts are more involved in solving the disputes[134].

2.5.2 Australia family law

The family law of Australia stipulates for a shared parental responsibility. The act has tremendously changed the shape of Australian custody law. There are four principal stipulations of the law. It places an increased focus on the child[135]. When determining a meaningful relationship with both parents, the basic factors are the rights of the child. The courts initiate this factor in ensuring that no harm begets the child. The second factor states that the parents are to share responsibilities equally when it comes to their children after separation. The third factor stipulates that it is in the best interest of the child that the parents should act within healthy boundaries and share equal responsibilities pertaining the child[136]. The international family law is used in the determination of custody when the parents under separation consider settling in different countries. However, Australia does not have a specialized law service. Consequently, it is not able to provide holistic support to the parties. Research indicates that there is a need for Australia to develop such services. They will help where the child has been abducted to Australia, and there is a need to support the left-behind parent[137].

2.5.3 Australian judicial systems

The most important factor in the Australian legal system is the child’s protection from any harm. The courts stipulate that any abducted child will suffer from physical and psychological harm. The children will be dealing with the reality of a parental breakup then they get removed from all or much that is familiar with them. The courts stipulate that it does not matter the amount of resilience a child develops[138]. The child will always be exposed to harm, confusion, frightening and in the long term damaging experiences. Recent cases indicate a rise in abduction cases in Australia. Most researchers state that these loopholes are created by the change in the international child custody law. The 2006 amendment to Australian family law was instigated to ensure the sole care of a child. Per se, the child should have the benefits of both their parents by having a meaningful involvement[139]. International child relocation has become difficult since the inception of the new law. The courts are so stringent such that there are very few considerations to international relocation. If the husband objects the relocation on the ground of visitation or access, the mother may be denied the rights to relocate[140].

2.5.4 Custody and Abduction

In a modernized world that we live today, such actions are regarded as colonial. Australia always acts as a prison when a parent wants to relocate, and the courts deem it harmful to the child. The Australian courts are very strict in observing the Hague convention. In case a parent abducts a minor, he or she will be eventually forced to return the child to Australia after the courts intervene. Abducting is a somber crime that a person is branded a child kidnapper[141]. In a case where a parenting order is made, it triggers the application of a presumption that is solely in the best interests of the child[142]. The presumption is henceforth applied unless there are reasonable grounds otherwise. As such, if the parent living with the child has engaged in child abuse activities or family violence, the custody may be thought differently. When the courts determine that the presumption is good to go, its application is about both final and interim orders. This is only otherwise in cases where a temporary order is made[143]. Under the circumstance, the court will consider inappropriate to apply the presumption. The presumption may be overthrown in cases where the court believes beyond reasonable doubt that equal shared parental responsibility will conflict with the best interests of the child[144].

2.5.5 Court presumptions on custody and abduction

The first item the courts consider after presumptions are made is making an order. The order is only made if the conjectures are consistent with the best interests of the child. The child should have a practical formula to spend with the two parents. When the options of equal time are not in the best interests of the child, the courts go on to consider making an order. The main determining factor is the consistency with the best interests of the child. The order should be reasonably practicable for the child to spent time with both the parents[145].

2.6 Canada

How does the legal framework of Canada stipulate regarding international child custody and abduction?

2.6.1 Legal background

International parental child abduction is not a new phenomenon in Canada. It has aroused the anxiety and of most national governments Canada being one of them[146]. The Canadian judicial precedents see that the causal factors of divorce are detrimental to the child. They cause an extreme breakdown in relationships between parents and leave children devastated. Research indicates that every year hundred of Canadian children abducted from Canada[147]. Abduction means that they are wrongfully taken across the borders. The Canadian family law defines a case of kidnapping as the occurrence where a parent, guardian or another person with lawful care removes a child from Canada or retains the child from Canada. This must be without either legal authority or permission of the other parent with full or joint custody[148].

2.6.2 Canadian family law

The Canadian international family rules stipulate that two people under a relationship of the marriage kind should enter into a prenuptial agreement. However, they are given the mandate to decide whether they need the prenuptial agreement[149]. Canada has enacted a divorce act. The act handles the initiation of divorce cases. A proper divorce case in Canada will contain provisions for child custody to b determined within the case. Divorce laws have the effect all over Canada[150]. The Canadian courts are motivated by one factor that is ensuring the well-being and safety of a child after the parents separate[151].

2.6.3 Courts jurisdiction

When it comes to court, courts are mandated to exercise jurisdictions and make an order or access to the child. In this factor, the child is regarded a resident of Canada at the commencement of application of the order[152]. And even if the child is not habitually a resident of Canada it is satisfied for several aspects. The first aspect is that the child is physically present in Canada and the commencement of the application of the order. The court is also satisfied that substantial evidence is available to indicate the best interest of the child in Canada. The court will also be pleased that no application for custody or access to the child is pending. This is in regards to any other provincial or national tribunal in another place where the child is a habitual resident. The child should be legally and physically tied to Canada[153].

2.6.4 Custody and Abduction

The habitual residence for the child includes the place he or she resides. The residency can be with both parents. It can also be where the parents are living separate and apart. One parent must be under a separation agreement or with the consent[154]. The consent can be implied or acquiescence of the other or a court order. Abduction will be considered when a parent removes or withholds a child from Canada without the consent of the other parent. However, the removal or withholding does not alter the habitual residence of the child[155]. The only time it does is when there has been acquiescence or undue delay in commencing the due process by the deprived parent[156].

2.7 The Hague Convention

2.7.1 The Basics

The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty. The agreement was developed by the Hague Conference on private international law (HCCH)[157]. The agreement provides an expeditious method for dealing with global custody and abduction. The first convention was put up in 1980 and entered into force in 1983 after all the signatories appended it. The primary motivation for crafting the agreement was to solve the issues of international abductions after divorces and separations involving citizens of different nations[158]. The motivation was triggered by a situation where a wrongful removal or retention occurred deterring one parent from crossing borders to access or visit the child. The cross national boundaries did not offer reconciled laws with other states to deal with these issues[159].

By the year 2015, 93states are party to the Hague Convention. The convention does not go against any substantive rights[160]. The stipulations of the Hague Convention require any court listening to a case under the convention not to consider the merits of underlying child custody disputes. The court is required to determine only that country in which those issues should be heard. The return of the child is specified to the member state rather than the left-behind parent[161].

In any case where a breach of custody or access rights is violated, the convention stipulates that the child should be returned to his or her primary or habitual country[162]. All the contracting states are mandated with responsibilities of acting expeditiously in all proceedings seeking the return of a child. The institutions shall use final expeditious procedures available to the end. Consequently, the final decision is made within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings[163].

2.7.2 Hague convention – Child custody and abduction

The Hague conventions stipulate that child abduction can be the moving of a child from one country to another (removal)[164]. It can also be keeping a child in another country and not returning them to their habitual country (wrongful retention). For a removal or retention to constitute child abduction under the Hague convention, there are several items considered[165].

The first item stipulates that the child has to be a habitual resident of the country from where the event takes place. This means that returning from a holiday does not constitute abduction. Removal has to be accomplished in a way that implies that there is a breach of rights of security to someone else. The convention also stipulates that the rights to custody must be exercised at the time of removal[166].

When a child is found to have been moved, the court can order a return. The Hague Convention stipulates that any court listening to abduction cases within its jurisdiction must order a return. There are instances when a return may not be ordered[167]. For example, if more than a year has passed since the child was abducted[168]. And that the child has settled in the new environment. In cases where the parents have agreed for the removal to hold, then the court neither may nor order a return. The court may also not order a return in cases where the return will be a source of risk or harm to the child[169]. The risk is supposed to arise out of the proposed return of the other country. In any cases where the child willingly objects the return, courts are not eligible to ordering it[170].

2.7.3 Procedure

The parent left behind in cases of abduction is advised to act fast. The first step is to get in touch with the country’s authorities and file a complaint. The Hague Convention stipulates that a person should fill a form, and it suggest that the paper should fill in the national language of that country[171]. The central authority is mandated with checking the details and ensuring they conform. The country’s policies will determine the next item under the procedure. Eventually, the matter should be taken to a court for ruling[172].

In Australia, child abduction is typically handled by the family division of the high court only. This means that the smaller number of judges have been able to build up expertise in child abduction areas. The parent accused of kidnapping does not get legal aid automatically[173]. The judges will have to test the means and merits to grant legal assistance to the abducting parent. There are other countries that allow the public prosecutors to deal with child abduction cases. This is a disadvantage to many instances due to the lack of experience from the prosecutors to handle the cases[174].

3.0 Methodology

The method adopted in the paper will be used to validate the thesis statement. The study will focus on secondary sources and case study methods of researching.

3.1 Design Overview

The design overview instigates proper measurements and scrutiny of the case studies and the secondary sources. The data obtained will be used to formulate the testing methods for the hypotheses of the paper. The design has adopted a systematic plan that will start with finding data on the three countries and their legal frameworks on custody and abduction then the case study analysis and relevant cases. The formulation of results will be the completion of the empirical study.

3.2 Data Sources

One of the data sources will be documented evidenced papers. Per se, this will involve a review of literature important in the study to acquire an understanding of what has already been covered. The literature review will be subject to case laws studies, catalogues, and relevant journal in law especially for the three countries under study. The researcher will also employ the use of bibliographies, textbooks and electronic resources. The main search engine that will be used in the study is Google Scholar. Nonetheless, databases such as law citation index, academic search premier, JSTOR, Sage Journals and other relevant sources will be used. The information for the study will be dated back to 1980 when the Hague convention was constructed.

3.3 Methods for testing hypotheses

The first employed method will be the pi value measurement method. It is done by testing the probability of any information retrieved from any of the sources mentioned. The second method is the confidence interval method. It examines statistical variables of the data obtained outside the confidence interval. The null hypotheses (HO) and the alternate hypotheses (Ha) will be defined as the researcher commences the study. But, the null hypothesis acts on the assumptions that the changes in research processes bring differences among the observations this means that the median, averages or other variations are statistically the same. Even so, the common goal is to prove that they are not statistically the same in a given level of confidence. The tests will always be either one-sided or two-sided depending on the manner the hypothesis is stated.

4.0 Data analysis methods

The content will be transcribed, and the focus group developed and recorded. The data will be coded manually, and themes will be extracted based on the topic guidelines that will be used and arranged to identify and interpret issues about the research questions.

5.0 Consent and ethical issues

5.1 Ethical issues

Permission from the relevant authorities will be sought to engage in a constructive research. The researcher will contact the professor for acceptance of the proposal and proper guiding. Per se, the teacher will lay the foundation for the researcher to seek proper documentation in conducting the research. The researcher will as much as possible keep off from using identifiable individuals as sources of information.

5.2 Confidentiality

The researcher has fully incorporated measures to ensure that confidentiality is assured to all participants. All transcripts, questionnaires and notes will be stored in a lockable cabinet at the researcher’s home. The institution’s name will be disguised as will the name of the participants.

5.3 Consent

All the participants identified by the researcher for contribution to the study will receive written agreements to authorize the research. Each participant will receive a letter. The letter will outline the research and a consent form for their records. They will also receive a copy of the researchers consent form.

6.0 Avoidance of duplication of other works

The researcher will exercise concise care to ensure the proposed study is not a duplicate of any existing research. Literature searches will be conducted on any materials used in the research to avoid any duplication. This study is developed on research gaps that have not been exploited hence; the probability of repetition is very minimal. Nonetheless, the researcher considers major duplication issue and will do everything to ensure it is avoided.

7.0 Conclusion

Therefore, the researcher has developed this research proposal to sensitize on the issues pertaining international custody and abduction. If the proposal is accepted, the study will identify how custody and abduction id treated and especially after the Melissa Hawach case. The three countries under study will be Lebanon, Australia, and Canada. Besides, the researcher will use other case studies to identify and critically discuss the issues stipulated in the research question area.

8.0 References

Arshad, Richards. Islamic family law. London: Sweet & Maxwell. (2010).

Amato, P. “The consequences of divorce for adults and children,” Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 62. (2000).

Bala, Nepal. The Best Interests of the Child in the Postmodern Era: A Central but Paradoxical

Concept. Paper presentation at the Law Society of Canada, Special Lectures 2000, Osgoode Hall, Toronto. (2000).

Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic

Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences

Convention, Art. 13. Note also that the Convention ceases to apply when the child attains the age of 16

years. Convention, Art. 4.

‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family

Court Journal

Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis,

Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986)

Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1068 (6th Cir. 1996) (ruling the exception is not license to speculate

on where the child would be happiest).

Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249

(2nd Cir. 1999).

Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284,

290 (D.P.R. 2003).

Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. 10494,

10510 (1986)

Jeffrey L. Edleson. Children’s Witnessing of Adult Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence. 14. 839-870 (1999).

Jeffrey L. Edleson. The Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Woman Battering. Violence

Agaisnt Women. Vol. 5. 134-54 (1999).

J.R. Johnston, I. Sagutun-Edwards, M. E. Bloomquist, and L.K. Girdner, Prevention of Family Abduction

Through Early Identification of Risk Factors. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (2000).

Kirkland, Karl, ‘Parenting Coordination (PC) Laws, Rules, And Regulations: A Jurisdictional Comparison’

(2008) 5 Journal of Child Custody

Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access

decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000).

Pollastro v. Pollastro, [1999] D.L.R. 848 (Ontario, Canada 1999) (an Ontario appellate court held that

the child’s interests are inextricably tied to the mother’s psychological and physical security; moreover, the court cited a series of risks resulting from the child’s exposure to domestic violence).

Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY

RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review

Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,”

By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody

Sudha Shetty & Jeffrey L. Edleson. Adult Domestic Violence in Cases of International Parental Child

Abduction. Violence Against Women, Vol. 11 No.1, 115-138, 126 (2005)

Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk

And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody

‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The

American Journal of International Law

Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The

UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal

Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 421 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

  1. Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences ↑
  2. Bala, Nepal. The Best Interests of the Child in the Postmodern Era: A Central but Paradoxical

    Concept. Paper presentation at the Law Society of Canada, Special Lectures 2000, Osgoode Hall, Toronto. (2000). ↑

  3. Ibid. ↑
  4. Ibid. ↑
  5. J.R. Johnston, I. Sagutun-Edwards, M. E. Bloomquist, and L.K. Girdner, Prevention of Family Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk Factors. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (2000). ↑
  6. ibid ↑
  7. Pollastro v. Pollastro, [1999] D.L.R. 848 (Ontario, Canada 1999) (an Ontario appellate court held that the child’s interests are inextricably tied to the mother’s psychological and physical security; moreover, the court cited a series of risks resulting from the child’s exposure to domestic violence). ↑
  8. Ibid ↑
  9. Sudha Shetty & Jeffrey L. Edleson. Adult Domestic Violence in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction. Violence Against Women, Vol. 11 No.1, 115-138, 126 (2005) ↑
  10. Amato, P. “The consequences of divorce for adults and children,” Journal of Marriage and the

    Family, 62. (2000). ↑

  11. Ibid ↑
  12. Ibid ↑
  13. Bala, Nepal. The Best Interests of the Child in the Postmodern Era: A Central but Paradoxical

    Concept. Paper presentation at the Law Society of Canada, Special Lectures 2000, Osgoode Hall, Toronto. (2000). ↑

  14. Convention, Art. 13. Note also that the Convention ceases to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Convention, Art. 4. ↑
  15. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  16. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  17. Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1068 (6th Cir. 1996) (ruling the exception is not license to speculate on where the child would be happiest). ↑
  18. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  19. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  20. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  21. Ibid ↑
  22. Ibid ↑
  23. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  24. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  25. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  26. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  27. Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 421 (E.D. Mich. 1997). ↑
  28. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  29. Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 421 (E.D. Mich. 1997). ↑
  30. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  31. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  32. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  33. Ibid ↑
  34. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  35. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  36. Ibid ↑
  37. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  38. ibid ↑
  39. Ibid ↑
  40. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  41. Ibid ↑
  42. Ibid ↑
  43. ibid ↑
  44. Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249 (2nd Cir. 1999). ↑
  45. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  46. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  47. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  48. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  49. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  50. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  51. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  52. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  53. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  54. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  55. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  56. Pollastro v. Pollastro, [1999] D.L.R. 848 (Ontario, Canada 1999) (an Ontario appellate court held that the child’s interests are inextricably tied to the mother’s psychological and physical security; moreover, the court cited a series of risks resulting from the child’s exposure to domestic violence). ↑
  57. ibid ↑
  58. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  59. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  60. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  61. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  62. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  63. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  64. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  65. Kirkland, Karl, ‘Parenting Coordination (PC) Laws, Rules, And Regulations: A Jurisdictional Comparison’ (2008) 5 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  66. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  67. Ibid ↑
  68. Kirkland, Karl, ‘Parenting Coordination (PC) Laws, Rules, And Regulations: A Jurisdictional Comparison’ (2008) 5 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  69. Jeffrey L. Edleson. Children’s Witnessing of Adult Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 14. 839-870 (1999). ↑
  70. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  71. Kirkland, Karl, ‘Parenting Coordination (PC) Laws, Rules, And Regulations: A Jurisdictional Comparison’ (2008) 5 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  72. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  73. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  74. Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences ↑
  75. Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences ↑
  76. Bala, Nepal. The Best Interests of the Child in the Postmodern Era: A Central but Paradoxical

    Concept. Paper presentation at the Law Society of Canada, Special Lectures 2000, Osgoode Hall, Toronto. (2000). ↑

  77. ibid ↑
  78. ibid ↑
  79. Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F.3d 1060, 1068 (6th Cir. 1996) (ruling the exception is not license to speculate on where the child would be happiest). ↑
  80. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  81. J.R. Johnston, I. Sagutun-Edwards, M. E. Bloomquist, and L.K. Girdner, Prevention of Family Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk Factors. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (2000). ↑
  82. ibid ↑
  83. ibid ↑
  84. ibid ↑
  85. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  86. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  87. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  88. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  89. Ibid ↑
  90. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  91. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  92. Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences ↑
  93. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  94. Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249 (2nd Cir. 1999). ↑
  95. Ibid ↑
  96. Ibid ↑
  97. ibid ↑
  98. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  99. Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249 (2nd Cir. 1999). ↑
  100. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  101. Convention, Art. 13. Note also that the Convention ceases to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Convention, Art. 4. ↑
  102. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  103. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  104. Concept. Paper presentation at the Law Society of Canada, Special Lectures 2000, Osgoode Hall, Toronto. (2000). ↑
  105. Ibid ↑
  106. Ibid ↑
  107. Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences ↑
  108. Brown, Katherine M. and Robert D. Keppel, ‘Child Abduction Murder: The Impact Of Forensic Evidence On Solvability’ (2011) 57 Journal of Forensic Sciences ↑
  109. Convention, Art. 13. Note also that the Convention ceases to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Convention, Art. 4. ↑
  110. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  111. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  112. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  113. Sudha Shetty & Jeffrey L. Edleson. Adult Domestic Violence in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction. Violence Against Women, Vol. 11 No.1, 115-138, 126 (2005) ↑
  114. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  115. Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 421 (E.D. Mich. 1997). ↑
  116. Sudha Shetty & Jeffrey L. Edleson. Adult Domestic Violence in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction. Violence Against Women, Vol. 11 No.1, 115-138, 126 (2005) ↑
  117. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  118. Arshad, Richards. Islamic family law. London: Sweet & Maxwell. (2010). ↑
  119. Ibid ↑
  120. ibid ↑
  121. ibid ↑
  122. ibid ↑
  123. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  124. Sudha Shetty & Jeffrey L. Edleson. Adult Domestic Violence in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction. Violence Against Women, Vol. 11 No.1, 115-138, 126 (2005) ↑
  125. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  126. Kirkland, Karl, ‘Parenting Coordination (PC) Laws, Rules, And Regulations: A Jurisdictional Comparison’ (2008) 5 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  127. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  128. Arshad, Richards. Islamic family law. London: Sweet & Maxwell. (2010). ↑
  129. Ibid ↑
  130. Ibid ↑
  131. Arshad, Richards. Islamic family law. London: Sweet & Maxwell. (2010). ↑
  132. ibid ↑
  133. Ibid ↑
  134. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  135. Ibid ↑
  136. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  137. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  138. Rigdon, Patricia, ‘Review Of “Mediating International Child Abduction Cases-The Hague Convention,” By Sarah Vigers’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  139. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  140. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  141. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  142. ibid ↑
  143. Ibid ↑
  144. Sudha Shetty & Jeffrey L. Edleson. Adult Domestic Violence in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction. Violence Against Women, Vol. 11 No.1, 115-138, 126 (2005) ↑
  145. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  146. Hazbun Escaf v. Rodriquez, 200 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D.Va.2002); Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284, 290 (D.P.R. 2003). ↑
  147. Ibid ↑
  148. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  149. ‘U.S. Interpretation Of “Rights Of Custody” Under Hague Child-Abduction Convention’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law ↑
  150. Reynolds, Sara E., ‘INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION’ (2006) 44 Family Court Review ↑
  151. Wojcik v. Wojcik, 959 F.Supp. 413, 421 (E.D. Mich. 1997). ↑
  152. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  153. ibid ↑
  154. Kelly, J. and Lamb, M. “Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children,” Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38 (3), 297-311. (2000). ↑
  155. Ibid ↑
  156. J.R. Johnston, I. Sagutun-Edwards, M. E. Bloomquist, and L.K. Girdner, Prevention of Family Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk Factors. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (2000). ↑
  157. Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. 10494, 10510 (1986) ↑
  158. Ibid ↑
  159. Ibid ↑
  160. Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249 (2nd Cir. 1999). ↑
  161. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  162. Ibid ↑
  163. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  164. Convention, Art. 13. Note also that the Convention ceases to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Convention, Art. 4. ↑
  165. Amato, P. “The consequences of divorce for adults and children,” Journal of Marriage and the

    Family, 62. (2000). ↑

  166. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  167. Wellington, Janice Brice, ‘Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And Hague Child Abduction Convention Foreword’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  168. Shear, Leslie Ellen and Julia C. Shear Kushner, ‘Taking And Keeping The Children: Family Abduction Risk And Remedies In U.S. Family Courts’ (2013) 10 Journal of Child Custody ↑
  169. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  170. Ibid ↑
  171. ‘Chapter 10: International Child Custody And Abduction Cases’ (1997) 48 Juvenile and Family Court Journal ↑
  172. Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Text and Legal Analysis, 51 Fed.Reg. 10494, 10510 (1986) ↑
  173. Department of State, Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal Analysis, Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed.Reg. 10,494, 10,510 (1986) ↑
  174. Convention, Art. 13. Note also that the Convention ceases to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years. Convention, Art. 4. ↑

Posted

in

by

tutlance

Tags: