Colin Jones writes: So in the first case arising under the Hague Convention since Japan ratified it, a child taken to England by its mother (while proceedings were underway in Japan!) was ordered returned to Japan at the request of the father. This month the Japanese family court issued a decree that the could take the child with her to England to live) the mothers assignment in London was supposedly only for a year so the mother and her counsel were apparently shocked - shocked - that the Convention even applied because, well, legal texts are so hard to read or something). On a macro level this is sort of how the convention is supposed to work. The Hague court does not decide where the child lives, but rather where the decision should be made. The court in the country of origin may well decide that relocating with the child is okay, as happened in this case. I cant finding aspects of the Japan-side process problematic. The mother took the child out of the country over the fathers objections while court-led mediation was in process. Less than a month after the return order they are able to issue a decree that its okay. (Note the Japanese says that the result was a mediation being concluded by decree which is sort of... not a mediated result..). So on a certain level it sort of looks like Japanese courts again ratifying abductions...
Posted on: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 03:46:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015