|
Who's Online |
|
We have 5 guests online |
|
|
HUKO Advertisers |
 |
The following is a list of those non compliant Hague Signatories and explanations of why they are listed as such.
The list is gathered by the Hague Convention themselves and is
available public information, along with the list is also produced with
co-operation of the UN.
This is why it is imperative you keep informed and updated as to the
status of these countries if in the event your child is abducted to
these countries.
The following information is NOT provided to you from the Australian
Government, hence why HUKO International is the place to go for
relevant information, and assistance in these matters.
AUSTRIA:
Austria was identified as noncompliant in the Department’s previous
Compliance Report to Congress because of delays in case processing
which the Department believed reflected a lack of understanding by the
Austrian judiciary of the Convention and indifference to the importance
of expeditiously handling cases. This suggested the need for the
Austrian Central Authority to better meet its Convention obligation
under Article 7 to provide information about the Convention to the
judiciary. In addition, Hague court orders were neither enforced
adequately, nor were sanctions applied against an abducting parent who
defied court orders. The Department’s concerns about Austrian
compliance continue, despite assurances that Austria’s Central
Authority has undertaken measures to educate the judiciary.
HONDURAS:
Honduras was cited as noncompliant in the previous Compliance Report to
Congress. Since that time, there has been no change and the Honduran
government has taken no actions with regard to applications for
assistance pursuant to the Convention. Honduras acceded to the
Convention on March 1, 1994. On July 1, 1996, the Honduran government
notified The Hague that it had designated its Junta Nacional de
Bienestar Social, now known as the Instituto Hondureno de La Ninez y la
Familia, as the Central Authority for the Convention in Honduras. The
Honduran executive branch, however, has never submitted the Convention
to the Honduran legislature for ratification. Hague Convention records
state that the Convention entered into force bilaterally between the
U.S. and Honduras on June 1, 1994.
MAURITIUS:
Mauritius was cited in the previous Compliance Report to Congress
because it had not taken the necessary steps to properly implement the
Convention. Although Mauritius passed implementing legislation in July
2000, local law still requires the President''s signature and
publication in the official gazette before it enters into force. In
addition, this legislation does not include a provision making it
applicable retroactively.
PANAMA:
The Panamanian Government has not adopted implementing legislation
clarifying the role of the Central Authority vis-a-vis the judicial
system. Without such legislation, the Panamanian code of family justice
takes precedence over the Convention. There is also an apparent lack of
understanding among the Panamanian judiciary about the Convention,
suggesting the need for judicial education. In January 2000, a
Panamanian superior court overturned a lower court ruling of
"international restitution" on the basis of appellant''s arguments that
included an incorrect claim the Convention was not in force.
A LIST OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE NOT FULLY COMPLIANT:
GERMANY:
There has been a lack of understanding among the German judiciary about
the Convention, and a reluctance in the German Central Authority to
provide the judiciary with explanatory materials about effective
implementation of the Convention. In a number of cases in Germany there
has been an unconscionably broad use of the Convention''s exceptions to
return. Parents seeking return of their abducted children are sometimes
asked to prove that return would not harm the child, even though the
Convention places the burden of proof on the abducting parent. German
courts have often used a traditional "best interests of the child"
analysis to justify refusing to return children, thereby wrongly
addressing those issues as if they were custody issues, while asserting
that non-return is on the basis of Article 13b (grave risk of
psychological or physical harm). The central point of the Convention is
that it is the country of habitual residence, not the country to which
the child has been abducted, that is the appropriate venue to make a
judgment about the child''s best interests and custody. The wishes of
children as young as five years old have been given excessive
consideration in German courts, despite the Convention''s requirement
that the child must have "attained an age and degree of maturity at
which it is appropriate to take account of its views." In other cases,
courts have denied the return of abducted children because of evidence
provided by individuals with an interest in the case. Left-behind
parents also often have difficulty obtaining effective legal counsel to
represent them in German courts.
MEXICO: ( The absolute worst offender of all )
Mexico was listed in the previous Compliance Report to Congress as
noncompliant with its responsibilities under the Convention. While
systemic problems continue and a large number of cases remain
unresolved. Mexico has no implementing legislation integrating the
Convention into the Mexican legal system. This lack of a legal
structure facilitating the Convention’s operation is a major obstacle
to the Convention’s effective implementation in Mexico.Most cases go a
year or more without resolution. The Central Authority does not have
law enforcement powers and must rely on federal and state police to
locate children. Mexican law enforcement agencies do not consistently
undertake serious efforts to locate parentally abducted children. In
addition, the amparo has been abused by taking parents to block Hague
proceedings indefinitely.
SWEDEN:
Sweden was cited in the previous Compliance Report as noncompliant.
Progress has been made in resolving cases and returning children and
the Central Authority has been increasingly cooperative. However, the
Department of State remains concerned about the commitment of Swedish
authorities to act promptly to locate children and enforce return and
access orders issued under the Convention. The lack of effective
measures in the Swedish judicial system to grant and enforce access
rights compounds the negative consequences for the left-behind parent
of a judicial decision not to return a child under the Convention.
COUNTRIES OF DEEP CONCERN:
COLOMBIA:
Colombian courts frequently request a home study of the left-behind
parent before ordering a child''s return.. Such inquiries go to the
merits of custody and are inappropriate for consideration in the
context of a Hague proceeding, and are properly left to the courts of
the country of habitual residence, as per Convention Article 16. A
Hague Convention case is not a child custody case but a mechanism to
return a child to his or her country of habitual residence so that the
courts there may decide contested custody issues.
POLAND:
Authorities have informed the Polish Central Authority of
concerns that the Polish judiciary is not fulfilling its obligations
under the Convention. Hague cases are sometimes not handled
expeditiously. Unless there is a voluntary return, children normally
remain in Poland during the entire appeals process, which usually takes
a minimum of two years. In addition, in almost every Hague case, Polish
courts require the left-behind parent to undergo psychological testing,
and in many cases have also requested home studies of left-behind
parents. Such inquiries go to the merits of custody and are thus
inappropriate for consideration in the context of a Hague proceeding,
and are properly left to the courts of the country of habitual
residence, as per Convention Article 16. Enforcement of Hague decisions
is also problematic, as there is no entity charged with enforcement of
Hague rulings. Because these are civil matters, police will not
intervene to enforce Hague orders.
SWITZERLAND:
Switzerland is a federal country with powerful cantons. Authorities at
the federal level, including the Swiss Central Authority, are
cooperative and responsive, but there are problems with cantonal-level
governments, courts and child welfare agencies, which have favored the
Swiss parent in some international parental abduction cases. While
federal authorities understand and take the Hague Convention seriously,
there is a reluctance to intervene to enforce court orders that are in
opposition to Swiss (federal or cantonal) court decisions.
CANADA:
In one case, local Tribal police refused to enforce a Provincial court order for return of a child.
GERMANY:
Orders for parental access are sometimes not enforced due to a lack of effective sanctions for failure to comply with orders.
ISRAEL:
Orders for return have not been enforced due to difficulty in locating
the child and taking parent. In several cases, orders for return have
been overturned on appeal or not executed because of provisions in the
orders requiring guarantees regarding the taking parent''s immigration
and employment status upon return with the child.
SPAIN:
In several cases, orders for return have not been enforced because
local law enforcement officials have not been aggressive in locating
the children.
SWITZERLAND:
Federal court orders for return and access must be enforced by local
officials. In one significant case, local officials have failed to
enforce an order for return issued by the federal courts.
NOTE: Judge for yourself if these countries who sign the international treaty are up holding the convention. |
|
|
|
Donate Now.!!! |
|
Feel free to donate now via PayPal.
Donations over $2 are tax deductible - thanks for your support.
|
|
