Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/19311 Record ID: 2fbb27a2-51c9-4b66-b7da-4459284de0c2
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Kay, Joseph | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:45:28Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:45:28Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2004 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/19311 | - |
| dc.format | 121 p. | en |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Family Court of Australia | en |
| dc.subject | Human rights | en |
| dc.subject | Child protection | en |
| dc.subject | Impact on children and young people | en |
| dc.subject | Legal issues | en |
| dc.title | The Hague Convention - order or chaos? : an update on a paper first delivered to a Family Law Conference in Adelaide in 1994 | en |
| dc.type | Report | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 3822 | en |
| dc.identifier.url | http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10766/20040721-0000/www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/pdf/hague2003.pdf | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Report | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | International | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Invalid URL | en |
| dc.description.notes | Provides a background to the drafting of the Hague Convention and explains the scheme currently operating under it, in which a central authority within a given ‘contracting’ State is given powers to prevent the wrongful removal or retention of children ‘habitually resident’ in that contracting State. Judicial interpretations and applications of the Convention are reviewed and the concepts of ‘habitual residence’ and ‘wrongful removal or retention’ in a variety of contexts are examined. The relationship of parental custody rights with rights and obligations under the Convention is considered and the position of unmarried fathers, non-parents and the court are explained. Approaches taken where the application to the central authority is made after the expiration of one year are outlined and the key exceptions to the mandatory return rule are discussed in light of recent decisions. The exception raised where a grave risk of psychological or physical harm exists is examined in some detail, and the cases that have considered whether domestic violence can be classed as such a ‘grave risk’ are reviewed. Case summaries for each State a party to the Convention are also provided. | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2004-08-27 | en |
| dc.publisher.place | Melbourne | en |
| dc.description.physicaldescription | 121 p. | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Reports | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.