Podcasts about international child abduction

Tereshchenko v. Karimi, No. 24-172 (2d Cir. May 16, 2024)Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; wrongful removal; Interpol Yellow Notice; waiving affirmative defense; Ukraine United States v. Verdugo, 682 F. Supp. 3d 869 (S.D. Cal. 2023)generic federal definition of methamphetamine; analogs vs. isomers; Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 11379(a) and 11378; United States v. Rodriguez Gamboa Sridej v. Blinken, et al., No. 23-16021 (9th Cir. July 23, 2024)extradition; habeas; State Department official; the rule of non-inquiry; CAT; ThailandSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEImmigration Lawyer's Toolboxhttps://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/immigration-reviewWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Demons

Sanchez-Perez v. Garland, No. 23-3004 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2024)misdemeanor domestic assault under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-111; crime of domestic violence; physical force; mental harms; bodily injury; United Staes v. Castleman Saleh v. Garland, No. 22-3036 (6th Cir. May 2, 2024)expert witness; attorney concessions; holistic approach to aggregate CAT analysis; Iraq Loredo Rangel v. Garland, No. 23-60089 (5th Cir. May 1, 2024)past persecution; non-physical harm; extreme harm; Mexican Navy Donis-Hernandez de Cabrera v. Garland, No. 23-1266 (1st Cir. May 2, 2024)Mara 18; extortion; death threats; small business owners; immutability; social distinction; state department reports; Guatemala  Rosas-Martinez v. Garland, No. 22-2474 (8th Cir. May 3, 2024)CAT deferral; Sinaloa Cartel; Mexican government acquiescence; BIA overturning IJ; J‑F-F-; relocation; discrepancy with unpublished BIA decisions  Cuenca Figueredo v. Carmen Rojas, No. 23-12566 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024)Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; child settled in U.S.; immigration status; Venezuela Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Driftwood Capital"A vertically integrated powerhouse in commercial real estate, developing hospitalityprojects for families seeking a secure EB-5 residency path."Filevine"Your Complete Legal Tech Stack, Supercharged by AI"Promo: Immigration.AI/ImmigrationReview Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the Show.

Isacco Saada and Narkis Golan married in Italy in 2015 and had a son. From the very start of their relationship, Saada was violently abusive toward Golan, including in front of their son (though allegedly not toward the son). In 2018, Golan and their son traveled to the United States and remained there. Saada asked a court to return their son under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The district court found that Italy was the child's country of habitual residence for the purposes of the Hague Convention. However, it also found that returning the child to Italy would subject him to a grave risk of psychological harm based on Saada's abuse of Golan. Under binding precedent, the district court was also required to determine whether there were any ameliorative undertakings it could impose on Saada that would mitigate the risk of harm in returning the child to Italy. The district court ordered Saada to stay away from Golan, to pay her $30,000, and to visit their son only with Golan's consent. After the district court coordinated with an Italian court to enforce the orders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The Court held that A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1034 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, courts are required to consider all measures that might mitigate the grave risk of harm if the child were to return to their country of habitual residence.

A case in which the Court held that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does not categorically require courts to consider all measures that might mitigate the grave risk of harm if the child were to return to their country of habitual residence.

Guests Catherine Cox | A family law attorney with Maurice Phillips Wisenberg. Helen Fenwick | A retired teacher how lives in Struisbaai.  She recently published her first novel called “A Judge Decided”, which deals with a Hague Convention case.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode I speak with Dr. Sarah Graham and Christine Jorgens. Both of these incredible women have experience with adoption, advocacy, parenting and bringing cultural competency and awareness to the forefront of conversations when working with school and parent groups. About Dr. Sarah Graham and Christine Jorgens:Dr. Sarah Graham is Associate Professor of Music at Lewis-Clark State College where she teaches courses in music and the humanities and conducts the Concert Choir. She has spent her entire career in music education working with students from kindergarten through the graduate level. A life-long church musician, Dr. Graham is also the music minister at the Episcopal Church in Lewiston.In 2010 she and her former husband adopted three children from Ghana in West Africa. The first five years with her children, she lived in Illinois, but has lived in North Central Idaho for the last six years. Dr. Graham  was the recipient of the President's Award for Excellence in Diversity and Cross-Cultural Understanding from LC-State in 2020  and has been working on a master's in Clinical Mental Health Counseling, where cultural competence is woven into the fabric of clinical mental health care. She was instrumental in forming a parent group for supporting parents with children of color in the Lewiston School District after racist incidents at school involved her children. Together they began an action plan to seek change in district policies. A little over a year later the district has implemented the changes that were requested. Christine Jorgens is a transplant resident to the LC Valley. She and her family moved here from Kailua Hawaii in 2007. After working for several years with the Lewiston School District with students with Visual Impairments, Christine took a position with the Idaho School for the Deaf and the Blind, and works as a Consulting Teacher for the Blind.Christine is the mother of 4 beautiful children. She is a passionate advocate for Autism, Adoption, Foster Care, and Education.Christine's background includes finance/banking, probate trust distribution, professional doula, braillist, professional jazz vocalist, and a myriad of other ventures that she has enjoyed exploring - none of which she has mastered. Christine's life is lived by the principals of living boldly, and loving fiercely.In this episode you will learn about adoption, foster care, becoming an advocate and unlearning. We reference some fabulous topics and authors that might interest you:Ibram x Kendi and his book How to Be an Anti RacistDon't Touch My Hair by Sharee Miller Hair Love by Matthew A. Cherry Hair Like Mine by Latashia M. Perry Terms:Transracial adoption: Interracial adoption refers to the act of placing a child of one racial or ethnic group with adoptive parents of another racial or ethnic group. Interracial adoption is not inherently the same as transcultural or international adoption. Find: Chad Goller-Sojourner online for advice, https://www.adoptivefamilies.com/author/chad-goller-sojourner/Attachment:  describes a developmental process and a relationship between a child and their primary caregiver. Attachment usually develops over the first two years of life. Bonding: is a response from an infant, usually within the first few months of life. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the main international agreement that covers international parental child abduction.

When David dropped off his wife and 4-year-old son for a two-week visit to Brazil, he never imagined that he was about to become the left-behind-dad of an international parental child abduction. Through many court hearings that would ensue in both Brazil and in the United States, it would take David five long years to get his son back home. How to protect children at school, camps and other youth-serving organizations: https://sosthreesixty.com/home/ Bring Sean Home Foundationhttp://bringseanhome.org/ Statistics on International Child Abductions of U.S. Children:https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/NEWIPCAAssets/2020%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Appendices%201MAY2020.pdf Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Feb. 25, 2020, in a vote of 9-0 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monasky v. Taglieri, holding that a child’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parents.The Hague Convention, and the federal law that implements it in the United States, indicate that a parent whose child has been removed to another country in violation of that parent’s custodial rights can petition in federal or state court for the return of the child to the child’s country of habitual residence. The courts of that country can then resolve any underlying custody disputes. The opinion was given by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Thomas joined as to Parts I, III and IV, and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Feb. 25, 2020, in a vote of 9-0 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monasky v. Taglieri, holding that a child’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parents.The Hague Convention, and the federal law that implements it in the United States, indicate that a parent whose child has been removed to another country in violation of that parent’s custodial rights can petition in federal or state court for the return of the child to the child’s country of habitual residence. The courts of that country can then resolve any underlying custody disputes. The opinion was given by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Thomas joined as to Parts I, III and IV, and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Monasky v. Taglieri, a case involving the standard of appellate review applicable to determinations of “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as well as the conditions under which habitual residence is established for an infant.The Hague Convention, and the federal law that implements it in the United States, indicate that a parent whose child has been removed to another country in violation of that parent’s custodial rights can petition in federal or state court for the return of the child to the child’s country of habitual residence. The courts of that country can then resolve any underlying custody disputes. Petitioner Michelle Monasky, an American, gave birth to her daughter A.M.T. in Italy. Monasky’s husband Domenico Taglieri, who is the father, is Italian. Alleging that Taglieri had become physically abusive, Monasky took the newborn A.M.T. to a domestic abuse shelter in Italy, and several weeks later both left for Ohio. Taglieri obtained an ex parte ruling from an Italian court terminating Monasky’s parental rights and then petitioned in federal district court in Ohio for A.M.T.’s return under the Hague Convention. The district court granted the petition, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Monasky’s petition for a stay. She then returned A.M.T. to Italy. On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s ruling on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit treated the question of habitual residence as ultimately one of fact to be reviewed on appeal for clear error only.Arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s approach was in tension with that of several other federal circuit courts of appeals, Monasky petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition to consider whether (1) a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo rather than for clear error; and (2) whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant‘s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Monasky v. Taglieri, a case involving the standard of appellate review applicable to determinations of “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as well as the conditions under which habitual residence is established for an infant.The Hague Convention, and the federal law that implements it in the United States, indicate that a parent whose child has been removed to another country in violation of that parent’s custodial rights can petition in federal or state court for the return of the child to the child’s country of habitual residence. The courts of that country can then resolve any underlying custody disputes. Petitioner Michelle Monasky, an American, gave birth to her daughter A.M.T. in Italy. Monasky’s husband Domenico Taglieri, who is the father, is Italian. Alleging that Taglieri had become physically abusive, Monasky took the newborn A.M.T. to a domestic abuse shelter in Italy, and several weeks later both left for Ohio. Taglieri obtained an ex parte ruling from an Italian court terminating Monasky’s parental rights and then petitioned in federal district court in Ohio for A.M.T.’s return under the Hague Convention. The district court granted the petition, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Monasky’s petition for a stay. She then returned A.M.T. to Italy. On appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s ruling on the merits. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit treated the question of habitual residence as ultimately one of fact to be reviewed on appeal for clear error only.Arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s approach was in tension with that of several other federal circuit courts of appeals, Monasky petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the petition to consider whether (1) a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo rather than for clear error; and (2) whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant‘s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

After a battle that began in the Netherlands almost three years ago, 'Petra', a Dutch national, has been granted custody of her daughter by an Australian judge. Her ex-husband invoked the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction and after a tough and scary year, 'Petra' is now settled back in The Netherlands. How is she going? - Toen een Australische rechter had besloten dat 'Petra' terug naar Nederland mocht gaan nadat haar ex-man een Haagse Kinderontvoeringszaak tegen haar had aangespannen, leek de ellende voorbij te zijn. Dat is inmiddels meer dan zes maanden geleden. Hoe gaat het met 'Petra' en haar dochtertje?

Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine what the test should be for determining where to return a child under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention). Ari Wormeli is a lawyer at YLAW Group, a prominent Vancouver family law firm. We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Ari discusses what it is like being a family law lawyer, what he thinks is the number one indicator of whether a marriage will end in divorce and whether he has ever felt threatened by an opposing party.

Tonight's special guest is Peter Thomas Senese from the I CARE Foundation, a returning NAASCA family member. He's been away from us too long, probably owing to the fact that he's been rubbing shoulders with the likes of the Secretary General of the Hague Conference in Washington D.C.! The I CARE Foundation, dedicated to preventing International Child Abduction, has successfully implemented the Prevent Departure Program which stops international child abductions when a parent is a non-US citizen. But the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, released this summer, is changing the global world of abduction prevention. American-citizen parents and their children who are targeted for international child abduction from an individual possessing a right of American citizenship (including dual citizens) now have a new, valuable protective mechanism in place. Peter explains, "In the past, the Prevent Departure Program did not apply to individuals possessing a right of American citizenship. And parental child kidnappers knew this." Mr. Senese will be joined on the show by Dr. Samina Rahmana in New York City (originally from Bangladesh) who 6 months ago had her 7-year-old young son internationally abducted from New York to India via Dubai. Unfortunately, India is not a member of the Hague Convention and her husband is highly insulated in India. She is extremely fearful for her life and will not step foot in India since she and her family have been extensively threatened. Call in to express your support!

Tonight's special guest is Peter Thomas Senese from Los Angeles (and New York City) is a best-selling author, a filmmaker, a child advocate and global activist. Peter Senese is the founding director of the not-for-profit I CARE Foundation, dedicated to preventing International Child Abduction. Ever since he was a young man, Peter has embraced the idea that it was a privilege to help others, leading him to assist in the creation of several transitional housing complexes for battered women and their children. He's been steadfast in his support for at-risk women. After discovering his gift for writing he began making significant donations to a large number of libraries in the United States and Canada. Eventually he began working to protect children from international parental child abduction and human trafficking. A prolific author, he donates 100% of his royalties to his self-funded, not-for-profit I CARE Foundation. Of special note is the just released Universal International Travel Child Consent Form, a world-wide game changer. Peter writes, "The I CARE Foundation has helped rescue many internationally kidnapped children while also preventing many more abductions from occurring. The foundation's achievements are many, yet in comparison to the problem at hand, there is much to be done, particularly since it is expected that as many as 200,000 children living in North America will be internationally kidnapped over the next decade."