About this Issue
This issue of the Journal focuses on the voice of the child in custody, visitation and other proceedings concerning minor children. The extent to which the wishes of a child are heard and considered varies widely from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Our Issue Editor for this Voice of the Child issue is Suzanne Harris. Ms. Harris is a partner in the Los Angeles, California firm of Harris-Ginsberg, LLP. The firm limits its practice to family law and has been ranked by U.S. News and World Report as of one of the Best Law Firms in Family Law in California. Ms. Harris has been certified as Family Law Specialist by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. She has been listed in Best Lawyers in America, Southern California Super Lawyers and is a Fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
The first article – Ascertaining the “Voice” of the Child in the International Context – The “Objection Exception” Under Article 13 of the Hague Convention, is authored by Toronto, Canada attorneys Phyllis Brodkin and Michael Stangarone. It discusses the application of Article 13 of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which provides that a court may consider, as a defense to a claim of wrongful removal or retention of a child, that the child objects to being returned, if the child has reached an age and level of maturity where it is appropriate to consider its views.
The next article titled Direct From the Witness Box: The Voice of the Child in Family Proceedings in England and Wales, by London barrister Barbara Mills, examines the current state of the law and procedure in England and Wales respecting the giving of oral testimony by a child as to his/her wishes concerning custody, visitation and related matters. Then, an article entitled The European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, by Swedish attorney Mia Marie-Louise Reich-Sjögren, discusses The European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, its provisions for a child to express his or her preferences as to visitation and custody, and how a number of European countries have applied the European Convention in that regard.
Following is an article entitled “Dude, I’m 14 Years Old and I’m Here to Address the Court…Now What? California Prepares for Teenagers in Family Court by California attorney Leslie Ellen Shear. It discusses a new California Family Code provision which creates a presumption in favor of granting a request of a child at least 14 years old to “address the court” and state his or her wishes as to custody and visitation. Ms. Shear addresses the many questions the new statute raises and the challenges judges and attorneys will be faced with in implementing it.
Also In This Issue
This issue of the Journal concludes with an article by New York City attorney Jeremy Morley, which critically analyzes a recent case issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The article, titled The Hague Abduction Convention and Human Rights: A Critique of The Neulinger Case, discusses and severely criticizes the conclusion of the court in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland that an “abducted” child need not be returned to its place of habitual residence if it would not be in the best interest of the child. Mr. Morley discusses the conflict between the decision by the ECHR in Neulinger and the principles of the Hague Abduction Convention. He concludes that a cornerstone of the Hague Abduction Convention is completely emasculated if a responding court is permitted to consider the best interests of the child in determining whether the child should be returned to his or her habitual residence.
Frank L. McGuane, Jr.
Editor-in-Chief
Denver, Colorado USA