Number of abductions a year

[NoansDad]

I was talking with Allison the staffer at Chris Smith's office about the recent judge's decision in my case to not even allow contact with me on the grounds that it would 'not be in the best interests of the child.'

She stated, as means to explain how overworked the OCI is, that in the year before last there were 1400 children abducted from the US, last year 1600 children were taken.

3000 lives taken in two years. How many lives were taken in 9/11 UNDER 3000. What has been done for those that lost family in 9/11?

I am not diminishing  the tragedy of 9/11, I am elevating the tragedy of child abduction.

[StrngConviction]

What is the OCI ?

[momoftwo]

What is the OCI ?

Office of Children's Issues (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the branch within the State Dept. that is supposed to be assisting parents in Hague case

[StrngConviction]

What is the OCI ?

Office of Children's Issues (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the branch within the State Dept. that is supposed to be assisting parents in Hague case

no correction needed , it is a division of the State Dept . that assists LBPs,  I am a little upset with my American Central Authority Barbara Greig as she with the Irish Central Authority pushed and pushed me to get the Article 15 ruling and after breaking my bank because of the lies and deciept she(babys mother) used to acquire her paperwork which she relys on in court and now my solicitor in Ireland wont use it in court because she says the abductor wasnt present during the application of the article . HELLO . There was no.application ! It wasnt even before.the court.when i was.asked to get it !
I guess being a n00bie to this site i require a little "cheat sheet" with all the little code worda lmbo.

[tweinstein]

This article addresses the terminology in the United States and Brazil.

http://bringseanhome.org/?page_id=63

[SageDad]

What is the OCI ?

Office of Children's Issues (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the branch within the State Dept. that is supposed to be assisting parents in Hague case

no correction needed , it is a division of the State Dept . that assists LBPs,  I am a little upset with my American Central Authority Barbara Greig as she with the Irish Central Authority pushed and pushed me to get the Article 15 ruling and after breaking my bank because of the lies and deciept she(babys mother) used to acquire her paperwork which she relys on in court and now my solicitor in Ireland wont use it in court because she says the abductor wasnt present during the application of the article . HELLO . There was no.application ! It wasnt even before.the court.when i was.asked to get it !
I guess being a n00bie to this site i require a little "cheat sheet" with all the little code worda lmbo.

The foreign court or Central Authority has the right to request an Article 15 statement from a US Court acknowledging that the removal/retention was wrongful, though I don't see that happen very often.  If the Irish CA was asking for it, I can't blame OCI for insisting on it as well.

The real problem, in this respect, is that your Irish attorney is spouting some nonsense about how it's not valid because the abductor was not present.

Without going into the legal/logical inconsistencies of that, it's worth noting that an Article 15 statement simply acknowledges that the removal/retention was wrongful under the terms of the Hague Convention.  By very definition, the abductor is not present when such an order or opinion is issued since the order is supposed to make specific reference to Article 3 of the Convention.  It doesn't make much sense for someone to have a court order with language that references Article 3 of the Hague Abduction Convention and classifies a removal or retention as wrongful under that article before the abduction has even occurred.

If it's the case the "Article 15" order you obtained went above and beyond classifying the removal/retention as wrongful, for example if it also granted you full custody, then they can argue that the abductor was not properly notified of the custody aspect of the hearing without refusing to acknowledge the fact that the court has also clearly acknowledged the removal as wrongful. 

In any case, it should be up to the abductor and her attorneys (in both the US and Ireland) to argue that your wife was not properly notified of custody proceedings in the US.  Why is your attorney, in effect, acting as both the abductor's attorney and the judge, by unilaterally excluding the order from the court proceedings (after the Irish Central Authority specifically requested it at great expense and it was submitted through the USCA)?

[StrngConviction]

This is what is included in the declaration ,  an order declaring jurisdiction (needed to declare the removal wrong since this.case has numerous jurisdictions involved.within the US and in Ireland) it also declares that under the UCCJEA that is codified in Missouri Law it has the jurisdiction over said minor child with regard to all matters pending related to the foreign judgement Registered with this court . It goes on to say ....FURTHER , THE COURT FINDS that pursuant to provisions of the UCCJEA,Missouri is the "Homestate" of said minor child,Dylan.
FURTHER DECLARE Gary Warren has properly registered with this court the judgement of Divorce  aug 15th ,2003 and the ammended judgement dated  dated feb.3rd 2006 both from Farmington Maine ,USA and pursuant to MO. Supreme Court Rule74.14(2011)" Uniform Enforcement of Form Judgements," said judgements are entitled to full faith and credit in this state ,and this Court shall henceforth treat said judgement(s) from Maine in the same manner as a judgement rendered by this court and any defenses the defendent may have and ,further,said Maine judgement(s)may be enforced or satisfied in a like manner.
FURTHER Declares the Movant/Respondent Gary WarrenJr. Had rights of Custody as defined by article 5 of the convention On the CivilAspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) with regard to his minor child as set forth in the judgement of divorce   and amended judgement of the parties herein.
FURTHER Declares that pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention,he said minor child who is subject.of this court's jurisdiction was habitually resident of Missouri,USA in and before Feb,2010,immediatly before his apparent removal to the country of Ireland and ,further,it does appear from the pleadings that the Movant Gary Warren was attempting to exercise his rights of custody at the time the child was removed from this jurisdiction and thatMovant/Respondant would have and is trying to exercise his rightsof cuatody and access to his minor child but cannot do so because of the removal from this jurisdiction.
THE COURT FURTHER DECLARES ,ORDERS,ADJUDGES AND DECREES that removal of the said minor child by the original petitioner Elizabeth Sharples under these circumstances was therefore wrongful and the said minor child.should be returned and made available and subjected to the jurisdiction of this Court for further legal proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED
dated:april12th, 2011
Signed by.the judge Kenneth Thompson and filed same day in thw Webster County Court by.the circuit clerk.
Dont think it went outside the scope of an Article 15 Declaration ,do you ?

[SageDad]

....
Dont think it went outside the scope of an Article 15 Declaration ,do you ?

Nope.  Not at all.  It looks perfect.  But even if it had gone above and beyond that I don't see why that would be a problem.  There's a world of difference between outright excluding evidence from even being submitted and arguing, after the fact, that the evidence is invalid for some reason.

Are the Irish courts in English or Gaelic?  Have you discussed this with any other Irish attorneys?  What is OCI saying about this?  They also asked you to get this order (and the Convention says they were supposed to help you get it, though I'm sure they did not.)

[StrngConviction]

....
Dont think it went outside the scope of an Article 15 Declaration ,do you ?

Nope.  Not at all.  It looks perfect.  But even if it had gone above and beyond that I don't see why that would be a problem.  There's a world of difference between outright excluding evidence from even being submitted and arguing, after the fact, that the evidence is invalid for some reason.

Are the Irish courts in English or Gaelic?  Have you discussed this with any other Irish attorneys?  What is OCI saying about this?  They also asked you to get this order (and the Convention says they were supposed to help you get it, though I'm sure they did not.)

not to put you on the spot but can you specifically point out where it says they are to help if it does ¿
   as I said previously ,the Irish Solicitor(LegalAide Board"ya i'm f**ked it seems) is saying that the application for the article 15 declaration should have both parties represented at the hearing of the application and it seems in this instance Ms. Buckley was not represented and the declaration was secured on  an Ex-Parte basis.
Please ,the only internet I have is my phone that i am typing all this on , can you or anyone find a case where a declaration was obtained and proffered without both parties being represented ?
 not that i think it would change things if she did have , i know it wouldnt . I just know they are not wanting to proffer it because its in my favor .

[StrngConviction]

Http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/CJ51/SearchAction/?PersonType=&county=Pulaski
 this is Dylans missing persons  report and poster put out by the MO. State Highway Patrol

[SageDad]

not to put you on the spot but can you specifically point out where it says they are to help if it does ¿
   as I said previously ,the Irish Solicitor(LegalAide Board"ya i'm f**ked it seems) is saying that the application for the article 15 declaration should have both parties represented at the hearing of the application and it seems in this instance Ms. Buckley was not represented and the declaration was secured on  an Ex-Parte basis.
Please ,the only internet I have is my phone that i am typing all this on , can you or anyone find a case where a declaration was obtained and proffered without both parties being represented ?
 not that i think it would change things if she did have , i know it wouldnt . I just know they are not wanting to proffer it because its in my favor .

If you haven't read the Hague Abduction Convention I recommend you do so.  It's only about 10 pages long and is written in very clear language.  You can view it here:

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=24

In response to your question about Central Authority assistance:

---------------------------------------

Article 15

The judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to the making of an order for the return of the child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination.

----------------------------------------

In response to your other question, yes, I can find lot's of examples where Article 15 opinions are issued Ex Parte.

http://www.family-laws.co.il/he/node/159

http://www.hcch.net/incadat/fullcase/0002.htm

Again, I don't understand why your own attorney is trying to exclude the order you got.  In addition to applying US laws to your particular case, the order also clarifies what the relevant US law says with respect to right's to custody (as understood by the Convention.)

Even if the Article 15 order is not accepted as a final determination in Irish courts as to the "wrongful" nature of the abduction/retention, it should still be allowed as a persuasive opinion on the matter from precisely the judicial authority of the place of habitual residence.