Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Ruling from first level federal judge  (Read 21454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mom25

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1290
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2010, 09:57:49 AM »
I am so sorry for all the problems you (LBPs) are going through... how unfair and terribly sad that you can't trust governments to get their job done...
There are 2 sides to be considered, all the time... to be with your children at a huge price (moving to a different country) and develop that relationship, or fight for 3, 5 or longer years to have them back... if you could manage to strike a balance, perhaps that's the way to go. However, money is an issue to so many, that makes it impossible to find a fair balance...

We need to continue to push for resolutions from our reps, no question...
Mom25 (She of Many Names)
A união faz a força

Offline Sashia

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2010, 10:30:48 AM »
Good point Devon, and don't forget the alienation aspect of child abduction. Just moving there won't necessarily prevent the other parent from continuing to undermind the relationship between child and parent.

Offline BringJusticeHome

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 77
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #47 on: June 21, 2010, 11:58:44 AM »
now i am not saying i am actually going to move there. all i am saying is i am considering all of my options. I need to weigh the pro's and con's of each. Its probably highly doubtful that i move there but i wont disregard it. If it's possible and i see it as a better option then the hague then i would be all for it, but i just dont know if it is..

Offline dmdaven2

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #48 on: June 21, 2010, 12:48:43 PM »
now i am not saying i am actually going to move there. all i am saying is i am considering all of my options. I need to weigh the pro's and con's of each. Its probably highly doubtful that i move there but i wont disregard it. If it's possible and i see it as a better option then the hague then i would be all for it, but i just dont know if it is..

I think the Hague works...you just have to know what you're doing. It's a big puzzle and the first thing you gotta do is find ALL the pieces...

I'll attempt to prove this theory...just need a little more time  :p


ON another note...you have 4 options. Accept things for what they are (yea right)/Use the legal system (Hague)/Go down to the foreign country and fight for rights (HAHAHA)/Go down and re-abduct

The only sensible things to do...are the legal system...and the re-abduction

The only potentially long-term successful scenario involves the legal system.

The Hague is the only way to go
Devon Davenport - Father of Nadia Lynn ;)

Offline SageDad

  • Father of Sage
  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • HagueAbductions.com
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2010, 01:46:53 PM »
Using the legal system is not equal to using the Hague Convention.  The Hague Convention is a legal framework but it isn't the only one nor has it proven particularly effective in Civil Law countries (or even some Common Law ones.)  European countries use Brussels II between each other, some Latin American countries use the Inter-American Treaty on the International Removal of Children and then there are criminal remedies.  Even if you're daughter comes home tomorrow the Hague Convention has still failed.  Returning your daughter after one and a half years is not something I would call success it is only a lesser degree of FAIL.
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

Offline dmdaven2

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2010, 02:16:29 PM »
Using the legal system is not equal to using the Hague Convention.  The Hague Convention is a legal framework but it isn't the only one nor has it proven particularly effective in Civil Law countries (or even some Common Law ones.)  European countries use Brussels II between each other, some Latin American countries use the Inter-American Treaty on the International Removal of Children and then there are criminal remedies.  Even if you're daughter comes home tomorrow the Hague Convention has still failed.  Returning your daughter after one and a half years is not something I would call success it is only a lesser degree of FAIL.

Right but 1) There are still but 4 options, those being exactly the 4 I mentioned above (legal including any and everything under that umbrella) no more, no less...the point is that I think that the Hague works (I think it's the best legal option as it comes at no real cost to the LBP: For Brazil at least)...how long it takes to work, isn't defining the engine as operational or defective...rather highlighting an efficiency issue. Getting my daughter back at all is a success...How long it took/takes to get her back is a fail based on the language enumerated in the Convention. Had the Hague said nothing about a 6 week turn around for a decision...the expectation for a quick ruling would be decreased...however, concerning the "expeditious" nature necessary to avoid the child abuse created due to the parental kidnapping...not returning a child within a reasonable time frame is essentially a Fail, making the entire process and treaty a Fail...to some...but to a LBP...to have their child returned after ANY length of time (ie. David G) is a success.
Devon Davenport - Father of Nadia Lynn ;)

Offline SageDad

  • Father of Sage
  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • HagueAbductions.com
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #51 on: June 21, 2010, 02:47:02 PM »

Right but 1) There are still but 4 options, those being exactly the 4 I mentioned above (legal including any and everything under that umbrella) no more, no less...the point is that I think that the Hague works (I think it's the best legal option as it comes at no real cost to the LBP: For Brazil at least)...how long it takes to work, isn't defining the engine as operational or defective...rather highlighting an efficiency issue. Getting my daughter back at all is a success...How long it took/takes to get her back is a fail based on the language enumerated in the Convention. Had the Hague said nothing about a 6 week turn around for a decision...the expectation for a quick ruling would be decreased...however, concerning the "expeditious" nature necessary to avoid the child abuse created due to the parental kidnapping...not returning a child within a reasonable time frame is essentially a Fail, making the entire process and treaty a Fail...to some...but to a LBP...to have their child returned after ANY length of time (ie. David G) is a success.

Generalizing from Brazil is a pretty poor way of making assertions on the efficacy or cost of the Hague Convention.  Maybe one percent of abducted children are taken there.  The US and Mexico are the worlds most popular destinations for abducted children and neither of them is free.  I also don't agree that a return after ANY length of time is a success.  Although I roundly reject it as a legal defense to return because it is a slippery slope that serves to incentivise even greater delays, at some point abducted children are adapted to their new environment and returning them carries with it all the psychological and emotional trauma of an abduction itself.  After an extended abduction all that remains are degrees of failure, some clearly worse than others.  It's easier to ignore that when the country in question is a third world country with a substantially lower quality of life than the country the child was originally abducted from, but it doesn't change the intrinsic nature of the situation.  The expectation of expeditious proceedings does not only arise from the Hague Convention text.  It is a common sense acknowledgement of the fact that drawn out proceedings have a profoundly detrimental impact on the children and their families -- financially (except in limited circumstances) and emotionally.  If my son comes home tomorrow he will not be the baby boy that was illegally taken -- nor will I be the father he was taken from.  My son has grown, almost immeasurably, since he was abducted, and God only knows what two years of this nightmare has done to me.  This is not a zero sum game.  In my case, like many others, everyone will lose -- some more than others, and the child most of all.  The only real winners are the lawyers who get paid either way.  Using civil litigation to address a criminal problem is a kludge at best and more often than not further victimizes the victims.
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

Offline dmdaven2

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Ruling from first level federal judge
« Reply #52 on: June 21, 2010, 03:13:35 PM »

Right but 1) There are still but 4 options, those being exactly the 4 I mentioned above (legal including any and everything under that umbrella) no more, no less...the point is that I think that the Hague works (I think it's the best legal option as it comes at no real cost to the LBP: For Brazil at least)...how long it takes to work, isn't defining the engine as operational or defective...rather highlighting an efficiency issue. Getting my daughter back at all is a success...How long it took/takes to get her back is a fail based on the language enumerated in the Convention. Had the Hague said nothing about a 6 week turn around for a decision...the expectation for a quick ruling would be decreased...however, concerning the "expeditious" nature necessary to avoid the child abuse created due to the parental kidnapping...not returning a child within a reasonable time frame is essentially a Fail, making the entire process and treaty a Fail...to some...but to a LBP...to have their child returned after ANY length of time (ie. David G) is a success.

Generalizing from Brazil is a pretty poor way of making assertions on the efficacy or cost of the Hague Convention.  Maybe one percent of abducted children are taken there.  The US and Mexico are the worlds most popular destinations for abducted children and neither of them is free.  I also don't agree that a return after ANY length of time is a success.  Although I roundly reject it as a legal defense to return because it is a slippery slope that serves to incentivise even greater delays, at some point abducted children are adapted to their new environment and returning them carries with it all the psychological and emotional trauma of an abduction itself.  After an extended abduction all that remains are degrees of failure, some clearly worse than others.  It's easier to ignore that when the country in question is a third world country with a substantially lower quality of life than the country the child was originally abducted from, but it doesn't change the intrinsic nature of the situation.  The expectation of expeditious proceedings does not only arise from the Hague Convention text.  It is a common sense acknowledgement of the fact that drawn out proceedings have a profoundly detrimental impact on the children and their families -- financially (except in limited circumstances) and emotionally.  If my son comes home tomorrow he will not be the baby boy that was illegally taken -- nor will I be the father he was taken from.  My son has grown, almost immeasurably, since he was abducted, and God only knows what two years of this nightmare has done to me.  This is not a zero sum game.  In my case, like many others, everyone will lose -- some more than others, and the child most of all.  The only real winners are the lawyers who get paid either way.  Using civil litigation to address a criminal problem is a kludge at best and more often than not further victimizes the victims.

Generalizing from Brazil may be poor..but considering >75% of LBP on this site have children in Brazil, it's the best country to use as a basis for people here. Any length of time taken to return a child IS a success, depending on the LBP who has been fighting...to say it isn't would lend thought to the idea that one day if you haven't gotten Sage back, you will toss it up as a "loss" and let things be...but I'm pretty sure you'll never give up the fight. Unfortunately, we ARE playing a game, although we wished not to participate in it, nonetheless, it is a game we have to play (if we want our children back), and a game we have to win. Therefore, there is a winner. You win a Hague Case, or you Lose it...you get the return order, or you don't. We are fighting to win...winning means getting your child back no matter what condition they are in...in essence, we as LBP will be so engulfed in the process of attempting to get our children back that only AFTER resolution will we reflect on the amount of time it took to "win" as a failure. The joy of reuniting with our children will supersede the idea that the Hague convention is a complete failure overall.
Devon Davenport - Father of Nadia Lynn ;)