Jeremy D. Morley
Expert testimony is frequently needed in
international family law cases.
International family lawyers are frequently
called upon to act as expert witnesses.
Such testimony is often secured in cases
concerning international child abduction, particularly in cases in which one
parent is seeking to prevent the other parent from having overseas visitation
with the child or relocating with the child to another country. However it is
also useful in a myriad of other cases.
Such testimony might concern:
-The factors that
indicate that an individual is likely to commit an international child
abduction;
-The degree of the risk
of an international child abduction that is presented by an individual having
specific risk factors;
-The sufficiency of
terms of a proposed custody order in preventing a potential international child
abduction;
-The likelihood that a
foreign country will return an abducted child;
-The lawyer's experience
with and knowledge of a specific legal system;
-The division of foreign
marital assets;
-The discovery of hidden
marital assets; and
-The enforcement of
foreign divorce and custody judgments.
Jeremy D. Morley has frequently appeared as an expert
witness on international child abduction prevention, international child
abduction recovery, international divorce jurisdiction and international family
law.
Mr. Morley has submitted evidence as an expert in courts in the United
States, Canada and Australia, in the form of testimony,
affidavits or affirmations, as to such international family law matters as:
-The terms that should
be in a custody order that will allow international visitation but will
minimize the risk that the child may not be voluntarily returned;
-The family law system
in Japan;
-The fact that
particular left-behind parents would be unable to secure any meaningful
assistance from the Japanese courts (many cases);
-The extent of Italy's
compliance with its obligations under the Hague Convention;
-Whether certain actions
committed by a parent constituted international parental child kidnapping
within the meaning of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act;
-The rampant and
scandalous misuse by many divorcing spouses ofIndia's so-called
"anti-dowry law";
-The enforceability in
the United States of a proposed English shared residency
order;
-The unenforceability in
New York of another proposed English residency order;
-Whether a particular
divorce case should be heard in a U.S state instead of in England;
-Whether Japanese non-judicial
divorces would be recognized in U.S. courts;
-The dangers, in terms
of potential parental child abduction, of allowing children to visit certain
specific countries, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Germany, Mexico,
Malaysia, the UAE (Dubai), Taiwan, China, Japan and Bulgaria;
-Whether the issuance of
multiple passports for a child will enhance the risk that the parent might
abduct the child;
-The potential
recognition in a U.S. state of an Iranian divorce; and
-Whether a parent had
"rights of custody" within the meaning of the Hague Convention under
the laws of a U.S. state.