The emotions are high and the legal issues are complicated, but now, more than ever, the practical issues are front and center. Since the advent of a global pandemic in 2020, parents have been faced with border closures, canceled flights, health risks, and court delays, all of which have impacted the legal processes to secure the prompt return of their children. In Barron v. Kendall, the parties were litigating in the state court, at which point the state court judge raised the Hague Abduction Convention issue and ultimately scheduled an evidentiary hearing to address it. The underlying issue revolved around the fact that the state court judge raised the Hague Abduction Convention issue sua sponte and scheduled an evidentiary hearing without any formal filing by the left-behind parent. Despite this practical impediment to the left-behind parent proceeding in a timely manner, the federal court dismissed the case, noting that the left-behind parent had not objected to the Hague Abduction Convention claim proceeding in the state court when the state court judge raised the issue and scheduled a hearing.
The objective of the present Article is to analyze whether there is a tension between the legal framework on the right of the child to be heard and the arguments judges employ in their judgments against the hearing of the child in (non)return proceedings. Thus, the reasoning of judges is critically assessed against what is expected from them based on the applicable legal framework. The legal framework will be set out in Part I. Part II will give a brief overview of the research and the main results with regard to the hearing of the child. In Part III, the reasoning judges use to argue why not to hear the child in an international child abduction case will be discussed and assessed against the States’ legal obligations.
This Article considers the impact of changing family structures on aging in contemporary America. It looks at two critical and interrelated aspects of aging — economic security and caretaking — and offers policy suggestions on how to improve the financial stability of and caretaking possibilities for elders. The core thesis is that our current social, legal, and economic structure for growing old is organized around the nuclear family with respect to both caretaking and financial security. As family structures change in terms of partnering (and re-partnering and non-partnering) and number of children, and with the increase in economic inequality, support for old age needs to change as well. Nonetheless, notwithstanding changing family forms and roles and economic disparities, we have not made the requisite changes to prepare for the forthcoming silver tsunami.
In this paper, we compare strategies employed in Australia and the U.S. to attempt to increase child support compliance. We compare the tendency in the U.S. to look to various punitive measures and compare that approach with the more holistic approach that has sometimes been used in Australia. We note that, at least based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, child support compliance has not significantly changed during the period from 1993-2015. We speculate upon why this may have occurred, and highlight promising initiatives in the U.S. that reflect a move away from a punitive compliance strategy.
This article, printed with permission in Family Law Quarterly, is based on "Growing Up NYC: A Policy Framework,"http://smedia.nyc.gov/agencies/childrenscabinet/NYCDOH_GrowingUP_ Policy_Brochure_For_WEB.pdf,a publication that grew out of collaboration among the offices of the New York City mayor and deputy mayor and the twenty-four agencies and mayoral offices forming the NYC Children's Cabinet. The Cabinet is a multi-agency initiative created by Mayor Bill de Blasio to bolster communication and coordination among city agencies to improve child safety and well-being. "Growing Up NYC: A Policy Framework" was produced under the direction of Children's Cabinet Executive Director Benita Miller
At the beginning of this project, I distributed 5000 questionnaires to family lawyers around the country. I asked the lawyers to respond by estimating the spousal support award, if any, that would result for six hypothetical divorcing couples in their jurisdiction. While the response rate was not great, the responses received suggest that there are three different types of spousal support systems in the U. S. today. In some states, spousal support is rarely awarded, and then only to prevent severe hardship. In others, spousal support is frequently awarded when the spouses’ incomes are substantially different at divorce. In most states, however, it appears that there is no clear spousal support policy, and the award, if any, in any given case is the result of which judge is assigned to hear the matter. In these states, spousal support determinations appear to be arbitrary. I have included as an appendix to my article a summary of the responses. Some states have responded to this lack of clarity regarding spousal support standards by adopting guidelines. These guidelines attempt to provide more uniformity in terms of award amounts and award duration. To date, they have not attempted to provide guidance regarding when a spousal support award is warranted. In this article, I discuss how spousal support standards could be clarified in those states where there appears to be no clearly accepted policy.
