Friday, July 31, 2020


I just found this ruling from a while back by a judge in Connecticut on the impact of my testimony as an expert witness on India law and practice.

We, normally in these matters, do not have the opportunity to hear from an expert witness, particularly someone as learned and as experienced in what I'll call international issues as Attorney Morley who was here this morning. As everyone knows Attorney Morley only testified for probably 15 or 20 minutes. We sometimes, lawyers and Judges will discuss people's testimony and sometimes we say it's the quality not the quantity of the testimony that is appropriate. In that 15 or 20 minutes Attorney Morley laid out what I'll refer to as both, I think, the social interaction between the parents and the political in India, the United States, the Hague Convention, their courts, our courts, that sort of thing in a very succinct, intelligent and sophisticated manner; the Court found Attorney Morley's testimony to be extremely credible .
The Court also in observing and reading about the Defendant Father's objection to the Plaintiff taking his daughter on this trip to India is aware of at least one prong of Attorney Morley's comments; he did indicate, my notes reflect this morning that there were two issues here. One would be the, in this case, the mother leaving, extensively staying in India with the child and the Defendant having no opportunity, A) to see the child or B) because of India's steadfast refusal to adhere to the spirit rules and law the Hague Convention having no opportunity to get her back….
But in analyzing the totality of this motion, the affects of this motion, I am brought back with, frankly, some frustration to Attorney Morley's analysis, of what I again will refer to the political aspects of this case.  While this Court is absolutely convinced that Ms. B… has no intention at this time to go to India and not return with her daughter , this Court finds, and I believe this is something that Attorney Morley said today that it is the Country, India, presenting the risk here, not the parent. ‘’’
If god forbid, the Plaintiff were permitted to take her daughter to India and for some reason her daughter were kidnapped or something else happened, there is virtually no way, based on the credible testimony from Attorney Morley the Expert, that this Court or any other Court in the United States would be able to exert one iota of influence to get her back, which is, frankly, if that happened what this Court would be doing in a heartbeat.
India for whatever reason, according to Attorney Morley and, again, I found his testimony to be credible, both the written testimony that was offered and the oral testimony he gave here today, has indicated quite fully that India des not find it a crime … if for some reason this little girl … were snatched over there that the American courts would be able to do anything t get this young girl back to her parents. That is a risk that in the best interests of this young girl I am not willing to take, therefore ... [the] motion for permission to take the young girl to India is denied.”

Friday, July 17, 2020

State Department's Annual Report on International Child Abduction, 2020: UAE

The U.S. State Department has recently released their annual report on International Child Abduction. Below is our tenth post in a series here focusing on the ten countries classified as “demonstrating patterns of noncompliance.” Today’s country is United Arab Emirates.
Country Summary: The United Arab Emirates does not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction. In 2019, the United Arab Emirates continued to demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the competent authorities in the United Arab Emirates persistently failed to work with the Department of State to resolve abduction cases. As a result of this failure, 67 percent of requests for the return of abducted children remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average, these cases were unresolved for four years and four months. The United Arab Emirates was previously cited for demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance in the 2018 and 2019 Annual Reports.

Central Authority: Central Authority: In 2019, the competent authorities in the United Arab Emirates regularly failed to work with the Department of State toward the resolution of pending abduction cases. Moreover, the competent authorities have failed to resolve cases due to a lack of viable legal options, which contributed to a pattern of noncompliance.
Voluntary Resolution: In 2019, one abduction case was resolved through voluntary means.
Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from Emirati authorities.
Judicial Authorities: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases brought before or decided by the Emirati judiciary in 2019.
Enforcement: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases in which a judicial order relating to international parental child abduction needed to be enforced by the Emirati authorities.
Department Recommendations: The Department will continue to encourage the United Arab Emirates to accede to the Convention.