New York Family Law Blog
When child custody issues involve a parent who is not native to the United States, the court is forced to deal with additional issues that are not common among domestic cases. Many countries do not respect divorce proceeding rulings from outside of their borders. A New York Custody Lawyer said that means that it is unfortunately fairly common for one parent to abscond with a child to a different country. It becomes very difficult for the other parent to regain visitation with that child when they have been taken overseas. In order to prevent this type of parental abduction, courts work to create reciprocal agreements with other countries. However, not all countries are willing to comply.
Patriarchal countries are often non- compliant when faced with the concept that the mother of a child has a right to the child against the will of the father. In cases of that nature, it can become almost impossible for the mother to obtain the child. For this reason, some mothers will actively take steps to prevent a father from a patriarchal country from removing the child from the United States. In one case of this type, the mother refused repeatedly to obtain a passport for her minor child to accompany her father outside of the United States. A New York Family Lawyer said the father made an application to the court to have the mother obtain a passport for the child and to enable him to take the child back to his homeland to meet his family overseas. There is no other implication that the father might be a threat to abscond with the child.
However, it is important to ask why the mother was resistant to the notion of the father taking the child overseas. The mother is more familiar with the ability of the father to abscond with the child than the court is. A Nassau County Family Lawyer said he must assume that she presented more evidence about her concern for allowing the father to take the child overseas than is recorded in the documents of the case. However, one must also assume that the court heard both sides of the argument and was able to review the risk involved that the father will not return to the jurisdiction with the child.
There is the possibility that the father was able to ease the concerns of the mother and the court by showing that he had strong ties to the community here in the United States and that it would not be likely that he would not return to New York with the child. However, if the father was able to show that he is less likely to not return by showing that he has substantial property or business interests in New York that would create a hardship if he was to remain out of the country, it would be logical that he would probably return with the child.
Other factors that might impress upon the court that the parent who wished to remove the child from the country is likely to return with the child at the appointed time, may also be considered. A Queens Family Lawyer said some considerations that are likely to impact the decision of the court are whether the person has citizenship in the country that they are travelling to, or a residence in that country. A person is at higher risk to abscond if they have citizenship and a residence in that country. Further, a person is less likely to abscond if they have citizenship in the United States, a residence here, a prospering business, or extended relatives that reside in the United States. It becomes the responsibility of the court, to weigh the rights of each parent with the risk that is involved in allowing a child to travel outside of the country with one of the parents.