Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
International Custody Disputes
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ('UCCJEA') was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1997. The act is the exclusive method of determining subject matter jurisdiction in custody disputes involving competing jurisdictions. It applies to international custody disputes as well as interstate disputes. (Currently, the only two jurisdictions in the United States that have not adopted the UCCJEA are Massachusetts and Missouri.)
Under Section 105(c) of the UCCJEA, foreign countries are to be treated as states for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, unless the child custody law of the country violates fundamental principals of human rights. According to the Comment, this concept is similar to the one found in Section 20 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (where return of a child may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested state relating to the protection of human rights and international freedoms).
In applying Section 105(c) of the UCCJEA, a trial court's attention should be on the child custody law of the foreign country, and not on other aspects of the legal system. While the UCCJEA takes no position on what laws relating to child custody would violate fundamental freedoms, the Comment to Section 105(c) states that this should be 'invoked only in the most egregious cases.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.