NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Contact Rights between Parent and Child

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

[PASSED] Contact Rights between Parent and Child

Postby Simone Republic » Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:44 am

IC: This resolution serves two purposes:
1. WA # 39 is insufficient to prevent cases where one parent is denied all visitation rights on the simple grounds that a child is "accustomed to live with" another parent.
2. It also closes a loophole whereby parent(s) of child(ren) who are not legally married (and thus not protected by either WA #457 or WA #200 on foreign marriages) would not necessarily be recognised as parents for the purpose of other member states, if the other member states do not recognise civil unions or co-habiting, for example.

(OOC: in real life, (1) is a direct aim at the practice of Japanese courts (plus a couple of other jurisdictions) to rule on the grounds that a parent is not entitled to visitation rights because the child is "habitually with another parent". (2) is explicitly designed to make it easier for couples that were co-habiting or in civil unions or in some kind of "de facto" live-in relationship (such as Australia) to gain recognition in other member states where such unions are not recognised by law.)

This is now in second draft with minor revisions. The operative clauses are Clauses 2-6, with 6 being the only one that affects relations between WA member states.

Category: civil rights, mild.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that WA#39 (The Right to a Lawful Divorce) requires that for children of a divorce, member states shall resolve issues of custody and support with an overriding priority on the best interests of each and every child;

Noting that different laws and customs between member states may allow said child to become the purview of a sole parent or legal guardian due to varying definitions on legal parenthood and marriage laws, and the interests of a child and abhors the potential resulting lack of contact rights by other parents as a a result;

Defining, for the purposes of this Resolution:

"Child" as a person that has not yet attained the age of majority in the WA member state ("Resident State") in which the person ordinarily resides;

"Court" as the relevant court, tribunal, or other competent authority of the Resident State on matters pertaining to the welfare and custody of a child, including the child's best interests (and to interpret what constitutes "best interests");

"Contact" as inclusive of each of the following separate rights: (i) right of a child to stay for a limited period of time with or meeting a Parent with whom that child is not usually living, (ii) any form of communication (including telecommunication) between the child and such Parent; (iii) the provision of information to such a Parent about the child;

"Custody" as inclusive of each of the following separate rights (i) Legal Custody, the right to make decisions about the child, and (ii) Physical Custody, the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child;

"Parent(s)" as (i) persons holding legal parenthood in the Resident State, as defined by the laws of the Resident State and (ii) in custody disputes, any plaintiff or defendant who asserts the right to legal parenthood based on the laws of the WA member state to which the said plaintiff or defendant is a citizen of;

Hereby requires that:

1. A Parent shall have the right to obtain and maintain regular Contact with a child, unless such Contact(s) are deemed by the Court to be manifestly contrary to the best interests of the child;
2. The said right to Contact shall not be denied to a particular Parent solely on the grounds of the Child being accustomed to be in the presence of only one or a specific number of the child's Parent(s);
3. Each of the three Contact rights defined herein shall be considered separately by a Court on its own merits and the Court may impose, in any and all instances where such Contact rights are exercised, such safeguards as it deems to be in the best interests of a child;
4. A Parent that does not have the right to Physical Custody of the child shall, unless deemed by a Court to be contrary to the interests of the Child, be consulted on matters of Legal Custody that are deemed by the Court to be important to the Child's best interests;
5. A Child deemed by a Court as sufficiently competent shall have the right, if deemed by the said Court to be in the Child's best interests, to (i) to receive all relevant information and (ii) to be consulted with regards to such Contact, and that due weight shall be given to those views and to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the Child;
6. In disputes on Custody, a Court must recognize the legal parenthood of a citizen of another WA member state, and to define that person as a Parent, as long as the person can conclusively demonstrate legal parenthood in the WA member state to which that person is a citizen, even if that person would not otherwise be entitled to legal parenthood in the Resident State, and Contact rights may not be curtailed on the grounds of differences in the definition of legal parenthood between WA member states.

Further, hereby encourages a WA member state to also extend the rights to said Contact(s) to a Parent that is a citizen of a non-WA member state.


First draft is below.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that WA#39 The Right to a Lawful Divorce (https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1?start=38) requires that (i) legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce and that (ii) incase the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child;

Acknowledging that variations in laws and customs in individual WA member states may allow said children to become the purview of a sole parent or legal guardian due to differing perspectives on the best interests of a child and abhors the potential resulting lack of contact and visitation rights by other parents as a a result;

Acknowledging on the need for a child to have contact not only with their Parents but also with certain other persons having family ties to the child children and the importance for Parents and those other persons to remain in contact with children, subject to the best interests of the child;

Defining, for the purposes of this Resolution:

"Child" as a person that has not yet attained the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which the person ordinarily resides,

"Contact" as the right of a Child to stay for a limited period of time with or meeting a Parent with whom that child is not usually living, (ii) any form of communication (including telecommunication) between the child and such Parent; (iii) the provision of information to such a Parent about the Child;

"Court" as the relevant court, tribunal, or other competent and duly authorized legal authority of a WA member state on matters pertaining to the welfare of a Child, including the Child's best interests, and matters of Custody;

"Custody" as inclusive of both (1) legal custody, defined as the right to make decisions about the child, and (2) physical custody, the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child;

"Parent(s)" as the legally recognised parent(s) of a Child, regardless of the rationale for granting legal parenthood (including but not limited to marriage, biological or surrogate relationships, or from a legally recognised adoption) and without limit on the number of parents if legal parenthood is established through marriage;

Hereby requires that:

  1. A Parent shall have the right to obtain and maintain regular Contact with a Child, and such rights shall only be restricted only where deemed necessary by the Court to be in the best interests of the Child;
  2. The said right to Contact shall not be denied to a particular Parent solely or primarily on the grounds of the Child being accustomed to be in the presence of only one or a specific number of the Child's Parents;
  3. If any of the other Parent(s) seek to deny a Parent the right to Contact, the burden of proof is on the Parent seeking such denial that it is manifestly contrary to the best interests the Child to have such Contact;
  4. A Court shall be required to periodically review, at the request of a Parent, the Custody arrangements of a Child, including whether Custody is held by a sole parent, multiple parents to the exclusion of some parents, or all parents, and including both Legal and Physical Custody, and shall conduct such review without regard to prior arrangements on Custody, with expenses to be determined at the discretion of the Court;
  5. A Parent that does not have the right to Physical Custody of the Child shall, unless deemed by a Court to be manifestly contrary to the interests of the Child, be consulted on matters of Legal Custody that are deemed by the Court to be important to the Child's best interests;
  6. Where a Court finds that it is not in the best interests of a Child to maintain unsupervised Contact with a Parent, to actively consider the possibility of supervised personal contact or other forms of contact with this Parent;
  7. Contact may be established by order of the Court between the Child and persons other than the Child's Parents if the said persons have legally recognised family ties with the Child, and of any of the other Parent(s) seek to deny such persons the right to Contact, the burden of proof is on the Parent seeking such denial that it is manifestly contrary to the best interests the Child to have such Contact;
  8. A Child deemed by a Court as sufficiently competent shall have the right, unless this would be manifestly contrary to the Child's best interests, to (i) to receive all relevant information and (ii) to be consulted with regards to such Contact, and that due weight shall be given to those views and to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the Child;
  9. A Court may require all Contact(s) to be subject additional safeguards as it deems to be in the best interests of a Child, including but not limited to, (i) an obligation for the Parent requesting Contact to provide for appropriate levels of hospitality; (ii) cooperation to ensure the return of a Child to the originating WA member state, if the Contact requires a Child to travel between WA member states, and (iii) any financial guarantees that may be imposed on the Parent requesting Contact at the discretion of the Court to ensure that the said Contact is performed in a manner deemed to be in the best interests of a Child.

Further, hereby encourages a WA member state to also extend the rights to said Contact(s) to a Parent that is a citizen of a non-WA member state.
[/b]
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:20 am, edited 17 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22116
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:45 pm

"This makes no room for contact to be denied or prevented between a child and a dangerous parent. That one person spawned another does not grant them the right to contact with that person. They only acquire that right through good care for that child."
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
West Barack and East Obama
Envoy
 
Posts: 301
Founded: Apr 20, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby West Barack and East Obama » Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:51 pm

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Support. This resolution will be one good step in the right direction towards banning divorce.
Last edited by West Barack and East Obama on Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Official Account for the West Barack and East Obama Foreign Affairs Taskforce. Usually controlled by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Justin Obama, with additional contributions where stated.

Ruled by His Royal Highness, Most Venerable, His Most Serene Presence (among others) President Barack Horatio Obama of the Obama Dynasty.

First team to play in the ODI World Trophy with a legally blind player #progressive

For some reason has a whole department dedicated to commenting on WA proposals despite not being part of it.

Allies: Lozho
Enemies: Anyone who dissents against us


she/her

Proud Esportivan and Forestian

im problematic :/

Not actually an Obama fan in real life

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:36 am

Wallenburg wrote:"This makes no room for contact to be denied or prevented between a child and a dangerous parent. That one person spawned another does not grant them the right to contact with that person. They only acquire that right through good care for that child."


It does..Point 3 makes it possible to deny contact between a Child and a dangeours Parent, BUT it requires the Parent requesting the denial of contact to prove that the other parent is dangerous, not the other way around:

"If any of the other Parent(s) seek to deny a Parent the right to Contact, the burden of proof is on the Parent seeking such denial that it is manifestly contrary to the best interests the Child to have such Contact;"

OOC: The wording is done this way because in some jurisdictions, someone with a conviction for possessing one gram of marijuana decades ago is grounds for deeming the parent "dangerous" and denying ALL visitation rights - i.e., the father can be denied all rights to see or call or otherwise communicate with the child for the next 18 years, 20 years in the case of Japan. (That sometimes results in parents separated from their kids for the rest of their lives, as adults they move on and cannot find their divorced parents). Even letters phone calls etc are prohibited. This draft leaves denying visitation rights in the hands of the Court.

OOC: this is an issue that has reached the highest levels: President Obama for example raised this issue with Shinzo Abe of Japan in 2013:

https://www.news24.com/news24/japan-pressured-over-snatched-kids-20130220
Last edited by Simone Republic on Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:48 am, edited 6 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 296
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:29 am

“Ambassador, I am supporting, however I want something to be clarified or changed. Will the proceedings of the courts of each member state be public or private? If it is decided that they will be public, I feel that this proposal needs to mandate that the proceedings be done in private. After all, a tug-of-war between two parents over their daughter is not as appropriate for national gossip compared to the trial of a murderer.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10737
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:06 am

GA#577 bans member states from criminalising drug possession already. Is this a resolution about visitation or drugs?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:41 am

Tinhampton wrote:GA#577 bans member states from criminalising drug possession already. Is this a resolution about visitation or drugs?


This resolution has nothing to do with drug possession. The comment on drugs was an OOC comment. I was merely referring to that (as an example in real life) that minor convictions for offences in some jurisdiction could be grounds for denying visitation rights to a parent - sometimes for life and that the resolution proposed makes it slightly harder for visitation rights to be automatically denied by reversing the requirement - instead of having a visiting Parent prove that the said Parent's visit is in the best interests of the Child, this resolution reverses this and requires that the Parent with custody rights prove that the visiting Parent is manifestly contrary to the best interests of the Child.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:47 am

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I am supporting, however I want something to be clarified or changed. Will the proceedings of the courts of each member state be public or private? If it is decided that they will be public, I feel that this proposal needs to mandate that the proceedings be done in private. After all, a tug-of-war between two parents over their daughter is not as appropriate for national gossip compared to the trial of a murderer.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire


(IC)

Ambassador: The proposal does not directly address this issue raised. The assumption is that Privacy Protection Act (WA#213) would adequately cover the privacy issue raised by your goodselves since it already declares that "every person has a right to privacy that extends to all lawful actions that occur out of public view and to all lawful actions, places, and other matters for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist". Our view is that Court proceedings (or legal guardian proceedings in some cases) should qualify for an "objective expectation of privacy".

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=212
Last edited by Simone Republic on Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22116
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:45 am

Simone Republic wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"This makes no room for contact to be denied or prevented between a child and a dangerous parent. That one person spawned another does not grant them the right to contact with that person. They only acquire that right through good care for that child."


It does..Point 3 makes it possible to deny contact between a Child and a dangeours Parent, BUT it requires the Parent requesting the denial of contact to prove that the other parent is dangerous, not the other way around:

"If any of the other Parent(s) seek to deny a Parent the right to Contact, the burden of proof is on the Parent seeking such denial that it is manifestly contrary to the best interests the Child to have such Contact;"

"Section 3 does no such thing. What that section actually does is establish evidentiary requirements for any sort of restriction to contact between a child and a parent. Section 6 goes on to establish that the 'right' of the dangerous parent to contact is practically absolute, and that any limitation to direct unsupervised contact ought to be compensated for by other forms of contact."
I want to improve.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

King of Snark, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Arbiter for The East Pacific

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10737
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:04 am

This draft is 600 characters overlong.

GA#457 does not say that member states which allow marriages between two people must allow marriages between any number of people - although I can see the sense behind not requiring a rigid number of parents throughout your draft.

Raw URLs, even to http://www.nationstates.net, cannot display in submitted GA proposals; that is a rules violation, but I forgot which rule exactly.

Article 4 would require the court to review a Child's custody arrangements whenever a Parent requested it, however frivolous that request may be.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:27 am

Tinhampton wrote:This draft is 600 characters overlong.

GA#457 does not say that member states which allow marriages between two people must allow marriages between any number of people - although I can see the sense behind not requiring a rigid number of parents throughout your draft.

Raw URLs, even to http://www.nationstates.net, cannot display in submitted GA proposals; that is a rules violation, but I forgot which rule exactly.

Article 4 would require the court to review a Child's custody arrangements whenever a Parent requested it, however frivolous that request may be.


I am basically trying to avoid the issue of this being ruled illegal on the grounds of contravening GA#457's definition that ""civil marriage" as a legally recognised union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnised as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony." There's also the issue of step-parents which may (depending on jurisdiction) have the same rights as birth parents, which I am consciously trying to avoid discussing.

I'd take the URLs out before submission. Let me think about the Article 4 point. I might take out Article 4 and 5 - basically my main purpose is Articles 2 and 3 (in that order).
Last edited by Simone Republic on Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 330
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Tue Jun 21, 2022 9:58 am

To the Terrifying Bear et al:

The Princess needs further elaboration before she can determine whether or not to support this endeavor. A child's "best interests" are referenced a dozen times in this draft but there does not seem to be any guidelines whatsoever on what is meant by that phrase. Do you have any intention of fleshing the concept out further? For instance, by providing a list of factors that should guide a Court? (By the way, Court does not need to be capitalized in any of these instances because you are not using it as a proper noun, like the Superior Court of Petty Grudges or the District Court of Common Chipmunks.) Without some bounds or guidelines, the concept of "best interests" is so broad that it swallows your whole proposal. To use an extreme example, a particularly awful or sleepy judge might decide that it is in a child's "best interests" to have no contact at all with their mother because she is a member of a disfavored political minority. Without guidelines about what factors the judge should be looking at, who is to say that such a decision violates mother's rights?

A few brief notes on other aspects of the current draft:


Simone Republic wrote:"Parent(s)" as the legally recognised parent(s) of a Child, regardless of the rationale for granting legal parenthood (including but not limited to marriage, biological or surrogate relationships, or from a legally recognised adoption) and without limit on the number of parents if legal parenthood is established through marriage;

Our government is generally opposed to tautological definitions. Defining "parent" as "the legally recognised parent" is a special kind of meaningless. You need a good definition of parent for this law to have substantial meaning and defining "parent" as meaning "parent" isn't a good definition.

Simone Republic wrote:Contact may be established by order of the Court between the Child and persons other than the Child's Parents if the said persons have legally recognised family ties with the Child, and of any of the other Parent(s) seek to deny such persons the right to Contact, the burden of proof is on the Parent seeking such denial that it is manifestly contrary to the best interests the Child to have such Contact;

This clause is a problem as currently written. Drunk, abusive Uncle Donald should not have the inherent right to demand a court order granting him contact with a child. Parent's should not have the burden of proof here. You need to flip this standard so that other people may be granted court-ordered contact if they establish that contact with them is in the child's best interest.

Simone Republic wrote:A Court may require all Contact(s) to be subject additional safeguards as it deems to be in the best interests of a Child, including but not limited to, (i) an obligation for the Parent requesting Contact to provide for appropriate levels of hospitality; (ii) cooperation to ensure the return of a Child to the originating WA member state, if the Contact requires a Child to travel between WA member states, and (iii) any financial guarantees that may be imposed on the Parent requesting Contact at the discretion of the Court to ensure that the said Contact is performed in a manner deemed to be in the best interests of a Child.

Everything after the first reference to "Child" (again, you do not need to capitalize this) is micromanagement. We don't need international law telling judges they have the power to order parents to set out cheese and crackers. I have no idea what "financial guarantees" part (iii) refers to and I don't like it - it sounds like a way for rich parents to get a leg up on poor parents.

Best of luck.

Yours Truly,

Roweina of Prancerville
International Liaison, Class Five
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 296
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:18 am

Simone Republic wrote:
Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I am supporting, however I want something to be clarified or changed. Will the proceedings of the courts of each member state be public or private? If it is decided that they will be public, I feel that this proposal needs to mandate that the proceedings be done in private. After all, a tug-of-war between two parents over their daughter is not as appropriate for national gossip compared to the trial of a murderer.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire


(IC)

Ambassador: The proposal does not directly address this issue raised. The assumption is that Privacy Protection Act (WA#213) would adequately cover the privacy issue raised by your goodselves since it already declares that "every person has a right to privacy that extends to all lawful actions that occur out of public view and to all lawful actions, places, and other matters for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist". Our view is that Court proceedings (or legal guardian proceedings in some cases) should qualify for an "objective expectation of privacy".

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=212

“Thank you for the clarification. With that out of the way, the Clevesian Empire will support.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:39 am

The Princess needs further elaboration before she can determine whether or not to support this endeavor. A child's "best interests" are referenced a dozen times in this draft but there does not seem to be any guidelines whatsoever on what is meant by that phrase. Do you have any intention of fleshing the concept out further? For instance, by providing a list of factors that should guide a Court? (By the way, Court does not need to be capitalized in any of these instances because you are not using it as a proper noun, like the Superior Court of Petty Grudges or the District Court of Common Chipmunks.) Without some bounds or guidelines, the concept of "best interests" is so broad that it swallows your whole proposal. To use an extreme example, a particularly awful or sleepy judge might decide that it is in a child's "best interests" to have no contact at all with their mother because she is a member of a disfavored political minority. Without guidelines about what factors the judge should be looking at, who is to say that such a decision violates mother's rights?


(IC)
Dear Ambassador to the Princess - Greetings. We have never thought of our flag as a terrifying bear, but thank you for pointing that out.

The drafting is to avoid the issue that "best interests" can vary significantly between WA members depending on cultural and local conditions. We assume that some common considerations would be family integrity, health safety, and (in some states) relative wealth, the availability of education and opportunities, etc., etc. We are relying on the discretion of the individual WA members on this matter, on the assumption that they also implement existing WA resolutions fully as WA members.

(As someone pointed out, there is the additional issue that WA#39 already requires "legal parenthood shall never be annulled" and "appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child" without defining either the terms "legal parenthood" and "best interests", and that resolution seems to explicitly defer the interpretation of such definitions to member states.

(OOC)
I considered this issue but the definition varies considerably even between US states, so there is no general consensus on this matter. For example 28 states require family integrity to be considered, 21 states require health, safety and/or protection of the child to be considered, and some states such as Illinois have a laundry list of factors to be considered. Some states on the other hand explicitly require certain matters not to be considered, such as Connecticut and Delaware.

A quick guide to this information is as below:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/best_interest.pdf

(End of OOC Comment)

(IC)

A few brief notes on other aspects of the current draft:[/i]

Our government is generally opposed to tautological definitions. Defining "parent" as "the legally recognised parent" is a special kind of meaningless. You need a good definition of parent for this law to have substantial meaning and defining "parent" as meaning "parent" isn't a good definition.


(IC)

Dear Ambassador to the Princess - the definition about multiple parents is explicitly to allow for flexibility between WA members that recognise step-parents versus those that do not, and due to WA#457 permitting polygamy.

This clause is a problem as currently written. Drunk, abusive Uncle Donald should not have the inherent right to demand a court order granting him contact with a child. Parent's should not have the burden of proof here. You need to flip this standard so that other people may be granted court-ordered contact if they establish that contact with them is in the child's best interest.


(IC)

Dear Ambassador to the Princess - We agree that a drunk, abusive, lunatic Uncle Donald feasting on fast food and denying the results of a vote and causes a riot and insurrection should have not access. We are open to flipping this wording in the next draft.

[i]Everything after the first reference to "Child" (again, you do not need to capitalize this) is micromanagement. We don't need international law telling judges they have the power to order parents to set out cheese and crackers. I have no idea what "financial guarantees" part (iii) refers to and I don't like it - it sounds like a way for rich parents to get a leg up on poor parents.


Dear Ambassador to the Princess - We are happy to drop this. The financial guarantees part is somewhat akin to posting a bail bond for establishing contact with a child but it is not a necessity.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:58 am

This has been re-drafted to take in concerns stated above, especially from Wallenburg (I am obviously counting votes).

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that WA#39 (The Right to a Lawful Divorce) requires that for children of a divorce, WA member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child;

Acknowledging that variations in laws and customs in individual WA member states may allow said children to become the purview of a sole parent or legal guardian due to differing perspectives on legal parenthood and the interests of a child and abhors the potential resulting lack of contact rights by other parents as a a result;

Defining, for the purposes of this Resolution:

"Child" as a person that has not yet attained the age of majority in the WA member state ("Resident State") in which the person ordinarily resides;

"Court" as the relevant court, tribunal, or other competent authority of the Resident State on matters pertaining to the welfare of a child, including the child's best interests (and what constitutes "best interests"), and matters of Custody;

"Contact" as each of the following rights: (i) right of a Child to stay for a limited period of time with or meeting a Parent with whom that child is not usually living, (ii) any form of communication (including telecommunication) between the child and such Parent; (iii) the provision of information to such a Parent about the Child;

"Custody" as each of the following rights (i) legal custody, the right to make decisions about the child, and (ii) physical custody, the right and duty to house, provide and care for the child;

"Parent(s)" as (i) persons holding legal parenthood in the Resident State, as defined by the laws of the Resident State and (ii) in disputes on Custody, any plaintiff or defendant who asserts the right to legal parenthood based on the laws of the WA member state to which the said plaintiff or defendant is a citizen of;

Hereby requires that:

1. A Parent shall have the right to obtain and maintain regular Contact with a Child, and such rights shall only be restricted only where deemed necessary by the Court to be in the best interests of the Child;
2. The said right to Contact shall not be denied to a particular Parent solely on the grounds of the Child being accustomed to be in the presence of only one or a specific number of the Child's Parents;
3. Each of the three Contact rights defined herein shall be considered separately on its merits and the Court may require all instances where such Contact rights are exercised to be subject to such safeguards as it deems to be in the best interests of a child;
4. A Parent that does not have the right to Physical Custody of the Child shall, unless deemed by a Court to be manifestly contrary to the interests of the Child, be consulted on matters of Legal Custody that are deemed by the Court to be important to the Child's best interests;
5. A Child deemed by a Court as sufficiently competent shall have the right, unless this would be manifestly contrary to the Child's best interests, to (i) to receive all relevant information and (ii) to be consulted with regards to such Contact, and that due weight shall be given to those views and to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the Child;
6. In disputes on Custody, a Court must recognize the legal parenthood of a citizen of another WA member state, and to define that person as a Parent, as long as the person can conclusively demonstrate legal parenthood in the WA member state to which that person is a citizen, even if that person would not otherwise be entitled to legal parenthood in the Resident State, and Contact rights may not be curtailed on the grounds of differences in the definition of legal parenthood between WA member states.

Further, hereby encourages a WA member state to also extend the rights to said Contact(s) to a Parent that is a citizen of a non-WA member state.


Some of the previous concerns addressed:
Wallenburg wrote:"Section 3 does no such thing. What that section actually does is establish evidentiary requirements for any sort of restriction to contact between a child and a parent. Section 6 goes on to establish that the 'right' of the dangerous parent to contact is practically absolute, and that any limitation to direct unsupervised contact ought to be compensated for by other forms of contact."


Section 3 has been considerably weakened and the right of a parent to some form contact has also been removed. This is amended such that "[e]ach of the three Contact rights defined herein shall be considered separately on its merits", so it's possible if a Court finds that a physical visit is not desirable, the Court needs to consider if telecommunications is desirable, failing which whether it is desirable for a Parent to keep another Parent up to date on matters concerning a child.

(OOC: in real life, this is to cover situations where a Parent cuts off ALL contact including telephone calls and letters with another Parent automatically, even if the other Parent is an upright member of society - Japan being the biggest locality where this is prevalent but it is by no means the only one).

If any instances of abuse appear, Addressing Domestic Abuse (GA#597) should take care of it anyway.

The rights to relatives of a child to Contact has been removed, to avoid concerns that a lunatic Uncle Donald who incited an insurrection and a riot would automatically have Contact rights.

The definition of what constitutes "best interests" is left to the Court. This is based on the assumption that "a nation with a well developed government" (in TNP lingo) would have rules that are appropriate for the circumstances of that particular member state.

A new section 6 has been introduced. This covers the situation where a children is born outside of marriage (and thus not protected by WA#457) and not adopted (and thus not protected by WA#297).

(OOC: in real life, this is to cover the somewhat infrequent situation where a Parent is refused recognition because they were co-habiting or in a romantic relationship and local laws differ on this matter - an example being a "de facto" partnership in Australia not being recognised for custody purposes in a lot of jurisdictions).
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:48 am, edited 5 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:01 am

In a coincidence that I entirely did not expect, this resolution's clause 2 is to explicitly overrule the use of "not habitually living with the (foreigner, most likely the father)" in custody disputes in Japanese courts in denying visitation rights, something Abe Shinzo tried to overturn (with some success) in 2014 by ratifying the Hague Convention. This was partly at the urging of President Obama, who took up the issue on behalf of American parents (more likely the father, and especially for those where there was no formal marriage). And Mr Abe was assassinated today by a gunman. I don't agree with Mr Abe's policies (most of the time) but assassination is not the way to go. I am utterly shocked. And I apologise that I have ended up advocating for one of Mr Abe's policies back from 2014 at the same time as his assassination today.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:23 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
The Orwell Society
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1614
Founded: Apr 16, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The Orwell Society » Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:06 am

This has reached the voting floor.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
•  Ideology is either radical centrist or authoritarian social democrat. Which one, I may never know.
•  Ffteen year old guy living in the US.
•  Nerdy nerd
•  Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sildoria
•  Aspiring WA author
•  Semi-experienced gameplayer and cards trader

this
this

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 330
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:44 pm

To the Member Nations of the World Assembly:

While we appreciate the noble intentions of this proposal, the Princess must sadly cast her vote
AGAINST at this time.

I note the following:

  1. This was publicly debated for less than three weeks between first draft and submission. It went through only one substantive revision.
  2. There is no clarity or criteria whatsoever for assessing what is in a child's "best interests," allowing the provisions here to be easily loopholed.
  3. There are ambiguous clauses with uncertain effects and serious potential for abuse, such as:
    1. the definition of "parent" including "any plaintiff or defendant who asserts the right to legal parenthood," even if they have never met the child and have no connection to the child, simply because their nation of citizenship allows them to make such a claim;
    2. the definition of "contact" including an ill-defined right to "the provision of information to such a Parent about the child" without any clarity of exactly how much information or how often it must be provided.

These are just a few points. Unfortunately, there are more problems in this proposal than I have time now to mention.

If this passes we will assist in a repeal. We would prefer it not pass and for the author to spend more time addressing this very complicated issue before attempting to make international law on the subject.

Regretfully,

K. Twinklebright
Political Ally, Class 37
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Attaché
 
Posts: 94
Founded: Jul 03, 2022
Corporate Police State

Postby Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:50 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:LONG POST

"The mission agrees with these arguments and has voted against."
Last edited by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 on Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~Jeramy Vliet,
Duke of Magecastle and WA Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 296
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:54 pm

“I indeed find that most of Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints (points 1-3a) are major flaws of the proposal. However, section B of her third complaint is unnecessary nitpicking. It is my belief that it is unnecessary for the author to be over-detailed regarding the information, and that it should be up to the discretion of the person informing the ‘parent’ and the ‘parent’ him/herself to determine the frequency/quantity of information. Since in my eyes this nitpicking slightly damages the validity of those complaints overall and since no major complaints (to my knowledge) have been brought up regarding the actual legislating portion of the final draft, the Clevesian Empire will remain just slightly in favor of this proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 330
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:55 pm

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“I indeed find that most of Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints (points 1-3a) are major flaws of the proposal. However, section B of her third complaint is unnecessary nitpicking. It is my belief that it is unnecessary for the author to be over-detailed regarding the information, and that it should be up to the discretion of the person informing the ‘parent’ and the ‘parent’ him/herself to determine the frequency/quantity of information. Since in my eyes this nitpicking slightly damages the validity of those complaints overall and since no major complaints (to my knowledge) have been brought up regarding the actual legislating portion of the final draft, the Clevesian Empire will remain just slightly in favor of this proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

“Parental rights is a complex issue affecting millions of families. Creating an international “right” of uncertain dimensions - because we didn’t even try - will create unfathomable heartache.”

User avatar
Anne of Cleves in TNP
Envoy
 
Posts: 296
Founded: Aug 12, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Anne of Cleves in TNP » Fri Jul 08, 2022 6:05 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“I indeed find that most of Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints (points 1-3a) are major flaws of the proposal. However, section B of her third complaint is unnecessary nitpicking. It is my belief that it is unnecessary for the author to be over-detailed regarding the information, and that it should be up to the discretion of the person informing the ‘parent’ and the ‘parent’ him/herself to determine the frequency/quantity of information. Since in my eyes this nitpicking slightly damages the validity of those complaints overall and since no major complaints (to my knowledge) have been brought up regarding the actual legislating portion of the final draft, the Clevesian Empire will remain just slightly in favor of this proposal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

“Parental rights is a complex issue affecting millions of families. Creating an international “right” of uncertain dimensions - because we didn’t even try - will create unfathomable heartache.”

“Okay, now I get why you are opposed in general, due to the uncertainty of adding this new right. But why bother using a nitpicking statement (i.e.: section B of your third argument) as part of supports for your stance? Your other arguments are fine, it’s just argument 3, section B that I don’t like due to how nitpicking it is. Feel free to defend that part of your argument if you disagree that it is not nitpicking.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
IC Name: The Clevesian Empire
Capital: New Cleves
Leader: Empress Anne of Cleves III
Failed WA Proposals: “Repeal: Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol”
IC WA Ambassador: Ms. Charlotte Schafer
“Give me a proposal, I’ll give you some criticism.”
[RIP Technoblade]

User avatar
Simone Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Simone Republic » Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:15 am

Dear Princess Rainbow Sparkles,

[*]There is no clarity or criteria whatsoever for assessing what is in a child's "best interests," allowing the provisions here to be easily loopholed.


OOC: as mentioned above, even within the US, each state has different considerations on what constitutes "best interests", some of which are mutually contradictory. Deferring to the local authorities appears to be the best solution, in the hope that the local authorities will be able to analyze each child and each case on its own merits and make an appropriate decision.

There are ambiguous clauses with uncertain effects and serious potential for abuse.


We would like to clarify that given any recognition of legal parenthood does not imply any rights. (Clause 6 does not impose anything on Clause 1 or Clause 3). A person with legal parenthood as a result of Clause 6 can have standing in court if that person desires. However, the court is entirely able to give zero custody rights (and cut off all contact) as it deems appropriate. In other words, say one of the stepfathers is an abusive orange buffon who tries to incite a riot, or if another stepparent turns up with 94 strangers in a polygamous relationship in some suicidal cult. There was a requirement to give some recognition in any earlier draft but it was taken out when Wallenburg mentioned this point.

Obviously any forms of child abuse are already prohibited under WA #222 as well as some of the subsequent resolutions.

The definition of "contact" including an ill-defined right to "the provision of information to such a Parent about the child" without any clarity of exactly how much information or how often it must be provided.


Again, a court is at liberty to simply decide not to grant any such Contact Rights to anyone it deems unfit. Or to send zero information whatsoever. That's again up to the Court.

(OOC: yes a lot of powers are deferred to the local Court, but we take the view that each child is different, and each case is different, and it would be more prudent to defer to local courts and appeals processes).

We will add that we would interpret all Court proceedings would be protected by WA#213 and the subsequent privacy resolutions.

I hope the above helps.

Simone Republic
Last edited by Simone Republic on Sat Jul 09, 2022 5:49 pm, edited 10 times in total.
Please note for WA resolutions (excluding the Strangers' Bar) I answer as if IRL and OOC, I ignore the NS multi-verse. Please ignore my comments if they differ to your IC/RP arrangements.

User avatar
Xeknos
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Xeknos » Sat Jul 09, 2022 9:34 pm

Voting AGAINST because this sounds like some MRA tomfoolery in disguise.
Originally created in ~2004/2005, reactivated 2019. Nation beliefs largely reflect my own. Former RPer.
Founder of MPIC.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6662
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:06 am

“I am confused how this resolution applies, if at all, to parents who do not reside in a WA Member State?” said Percy, jotting notes in his pad. “I see no reason why the law should limit the rights of parents based on WA status. I am also confused why a child does not have a clear and explicit right to veto contact with the estranged parent - the resolution only vaguely refers to a “consultation.” Surely the child’s opinion matters most here?”
Last edited by Unibot III on Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Org. Join Date: 25/05/2008 | Former Delegate of TRR | Gameplay Alignment: -18 / -13
Unibotian Factbook // Collected works // The Gameplay Alignment Test //
Proudly Authored 9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Commended by SC#78

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lord Dominator

Advertisement

Remove ads