Skip to main content

Child Abductions

Child abduction seems like a strange blog topic. But, it is very relevant in the immigration world. The general rule is, for one parent to remove a child from one country to another (whether temporarily or permanently), he/she needs the consent of the child's other parent, or a Court Order giving the parent sole custody.

I came across an Article today about the abduction of American children by their Japanese parent, back to Japan. The article struck me because not so long ago, I had a file where child custody and removing a child from a country without the other parent's authorization was at issue. Thankfully, my case was resolved positively.

International child abductions are governed by international law. The law in question is the Hague Convention, which deals with this particular issue, among a host of others. However, in order to rely on this law, both countries must be signatories to the Convention. If so, there are mechanisms for the "home" court to compel the return of the children from a foreign country, and usually such an order will be enforced by the foreign courts.

Canada, much like the US, is a signatory. As are a number of other countries. However, Japan is not. As a result Japanese parents are able to unilaterally remove children from the U.S. without the consent of the other parent. As a parent, I cannot imagine the grief and distress this must cause to the parent left behind, who has very few options open to them to ever see their child again!

Comments

  1. Thanks for providing good information. Hope such kind of information creates awareness among people.
    Personal Injury Claim Whiplash
    Personal Injury Claim
    no win no fee personal injury claims

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is one of the most common problems that happen to a divorced couple. If one parent has the sole custody for the child, the other parent will do everything to get the child and abduction happens. This needs action and it essential for the parent who has a sole custody to file a complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's better if the court will decide to give the custody to both parents so that abductions and other unacceptable acts will be prevented. However, any parent would love to have a sole custody and it always happens. las vegas divorce lawyers

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Age of Dependent Child - now 'under 22'

Today is the day! The age of dependent children is to revert back to 'under 22'. You can read the original release here. The previous changes had lowered the age of dependent children to under 19 and removed the exception for those enrolled in post-secondary education. Going forward, a "dependent child" is any biological or adopted child of the parent, who is in one of the following situations of dependency: Is under 22 and not a spouse or common-law partner;is 22 or older but has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition  Those who have pending permanent residence applications can now add their under 22 children to their application, if they were formerly prevented from doing so when the age limit was under 19. Those whose permanent residence applications have been finalized may be in a position to sponsor their under 22 child

Refugee (Asylum) Claims - Understanding the Process

There has been a lot of news coverage about the influx of refugees (asylum seekers) into Canada via the United States, particularly into Quebec. This post is meant to explore who is entitled to make such a claim in Canada and what claimants can expect.

Eligibility to make the claimCanada and the US have entered into what's called a "safe third country agreement". Essentially, both countries consider the other to be relatively equal in terms of refugee protection and the refugee process. As such, there is an expectation for claimants to make their refugee claim in the first of these two countries. 
The practical consequence of this agreement is that it prevents individuals crossing from the US into Canada at a land border from making a claim in Canada. 
There are exceptions to this agreement: If the claimant has family in CanadaIf the claim is made at an in-land officeIf the claim is made at an airportThere are other eligibility factors as well, but this is the main issue aff…

HUGE decision by SCC - Conditional Sentences & Serious Criminality for Permanent Residents

The Supreme Court of Canada just released its decision in the Tran case. At issue in the case was the interpretation to be given to section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which reads:
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
Any permanent residents found to be inadmissible for "serious criminality" lost their right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) pursuant to section 64 of IRPA:
64 (1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of securi…