X hits on this document

179 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

45 / 71

proceedings in the other State. These parents felt that the system

had been manipulated unreasonable “opponent”

against parents

them

by

and

their

determined

and

lawyers.

It is

recognised that litigation which

allegations of this type are often made in has not gone the way that the litigant would

have wished. However, in definition, often at different

abduction issues the parties are, by ends of the world and without funds

at a time of profound emotional turmoil, when able to cope with the demands of inter-country there is no doubt that systemic manipulation circumstances such as these.

they are least litigation, and is possible in

Left-behind parents complained that, on the return of the child(ren), the Courts in the home State worked too slowly in

determining fathers now

the

substantive

child

issues.

Some

left-behind

question whether, rather than insisting on the return

of the

child(ren) from

better

to have gone to

the abducted-to State, it would have been live in that place to be near the child(ren)

and to have had good proceedings have caused and such severe financial

contact with him/her. The return such tensions for all those involved, consequences, including loss of work

and the inability some cases, that possible and this in all cases.

to pay for the maintenance of the child(ren) in good relations between the parties are not now has caused extreme pressures for the child(ren)

Others complained that there was no legal aid in the home State

substantive child issues 44 and that, of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction for them to pursue the because of this, article 1345

Convention has to be expanded so as to be more applicable to the real needs of those involved. The lack of legal aid and the inability to finance continual litigation featured time and again as an issue causing some of the worst problems for many parents who might be forced to accept situations which they did not believe to be in the child(ren)’s best interests through lack of

44 45 See supra. This provides for very limited and strictly defined defences against a return to the State of habitual residence. Now see Revised Brussels II Regulation which further limits defences against return.

41

Document info
Document views179
Page views179
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 19:16:22 UTC 2016
Pages71
Paragraphs1119
Words25010

Comments