Free movement of persons, child abduction and relocation within the European Union

Lamont, Ruth

doi:10.1080/09649069.2012.718537

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most will not move unless they can take their children with them (Behrens, ; Young, ). There are human rights issues involved concerning freedom of movement which impact more upon primary caregivers than nonresident parents (Lamont, ; Parkinson, ; Young, ). Realistically, little can be done to require nonresident parents to stay in close proximity to their children, since court orders cannot require a parent to spend time with his or her children in a way that benefits them (Parkinson, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

Parkinson¹,

Cashmore²

2015

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been much discussion within international fora about the need for a greater consensus on how to approach relocation cases. Empirical research on the lived experience of parents and children who have been through relocation disputes has an important role to play in providing an evidence base for decisions on policy. In this article, we summarize the findings of a 5-year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia and make recommendations in the light of this and other research evidence concerning a new approach to relocation law. We argue that there should be no presumptions. Nonetheless there is an appropriate place for legislative or appellate guidance on how to approach these disputes. "Good faith" should be irrelevant to decision making, and children should not be placed in the center of the conflict. The adjudication of relocation disputes should be on the basis of asking three questions: First, how close is the relationship between the nonresident parent and the child and how important is that relationship developmentally to the child? Second, if the relocation is to be permitted, how viable are the proposals for contact with the nonresident parent? Third, if the relationship between the child and the nonresident parent is developmentally important to the child and is likely to be diminished if the move is allowed, then (a) what are the viable alternatives to the parents living a long distance apart? and (b) is a move with the primary caregiver the least detrimental alternative?Key Points for the Family Court Community:• Describes the findings of empirical research on relocation disputes in Australia on the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes. • Reviews various features of relocation law and proposals for reform in the light of this research evidence. • Proposes an approach to deciding relocation cases based upon three essential questions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

Parkinson¹,

Cashmore²

2015

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A parent can be restrained from removing the children if the court considers it is in their best interests to stay where they are, but it cannot restrain a parent's freedom to move without the children ( AMS v. AIF ). In the European Community and elsewhere, rights of freedom of movement may similarly restrict the capacity of legislatures to restrain the movement of a parent away from where his or her children are living in the care of the other parent (Lamont, ).When the first author was chair of Australia's Family Law Council, the Council made recommendations in a report on relocation that sought to express the principle of mutual parental obligation in a different way. It proposed that the legislation be amended to state: “A parenting order that deals with whom the child is to spend time, imposes an obligation to maintain a relationship with a child in accordance with the terms of the order.” That is, if a nonresident parent, say the father, seeks a court order to be able to spend time with his children, then that order may be enforced against him as well as by him.…”

Section: Areas Of Agreement On Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

Parkinson¹,

Cashmore²

2015

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson's critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledge on children's well‐being generally, supports the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but provides no support for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are the same as those of their primary caregiver. We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult‐centric debate to focus resolutely on children's interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson's approach and our own involve guided decision making with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents and children respond to relocations issues. We do not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to impecunious parents. Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the family law system may impact upon decisions about the substance of the law concerning relocation

show abstract

Cross-border public care and adoption proceedings in the European Union

Lamont

Fenton‐Glynn

2016

Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free movement of persons, child abduction and relocation within the European Union

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

Cross-border public care and adoption proceedings in the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About