THE LAWS OF ALESSIA'S HABITUAL RESIDENCE
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION
FEDERAL LAW: 28 USCS § 1738A (b)(4):
(b)(4) "Home State" means the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved,
the child lived with his parents, a parent, or person acting as parent, for at least
six consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six months old,
the State in which the child lived from birth with any of such persons.
Periods of "temporary absence" of any of such persons are counted as
part of the six-month period."
TEXAS FAMILY CODE §152.102 (7):
" Texas has jurisdiction if it is the Home-State of the child the date proceedings commenced or
[was] Home-State within 6 mos of the proceedings’ commencement and the child’s parent, or
person acting as parent, continues to live in the State’ (even after child has been removed);
“Periods of temporary absence" from home-state are counted as
part of six-month period.”
TEXAS FAMILY CODE §152.105(b)(c)
The UCCJEA also makes it adamantly clear that any decisions regarding American children made in
a foreign country are only given recognition if made "under factual circumstances and in conformity
with the UCCJEA"... "A court of this state need [not] apply this chapter if the child custody
law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights."
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION
FEDERAL LAW: 28 USCS § 1738A (b)(4):
(b)(4) "Home State" means the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved,
the child lived with his parents, a parent, or person acting as parent, for at least
six consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six months old,
the State in which the child lived from birth with any of such persons.
Periods of "temporary absence" of any of such persons are counted as
part of the six-month period."
TEXAS FAMILY CODE §152.102 (7):
" Texas has jurisdiction if it is the Home-State of the child the date proceedings commenced or
[was] Home-State within 6 mos of the proceedings’ commencement and the child’s parent, or
person acting as parent, continues to live in the State’ (even after child has been removed);
“Periods of temporary absence" from home-state are counted as
part of six-month period.”
TEXAS FAMILY CODE §152.105(b)(c)
The UCCJEA also makes it adamantly clear that any decisions regarding American children made in
a foreign country are only given recognition if made "under factual circumstances and in conformity
with the UCCJEA"... "A court of this state need [not] apply this chapter if the child custody
law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights."
THE FOREIGN COURT WAS IN BREACH
OF HAGUE CONVENTION ARTICLE 3
OF HAGUE CONVENTION ARTICLE 3
* The Foreign Judgment failed to give proper consideration, alternatively NO consideration to the laws of Alessia's prior habitual residence pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The foreign judgment made no mention of Police documents submitted to the foreign court, or to the Laws of Alessia's prior habitual residence put forth by the Senator, member of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Global Missing Children's fund... nor did it even mention or reference their letters ANYWHERE in the foreign judgment...
" The United States will [NOT] recognize a foreign judgment that fails to mention or properly consider the laws of the child's prior habitual residence pursuant to Art 3 and or fails to observe the purpose and objectives of the Convention."
In the United States decision of Hague Abduction case re Carrascosa vs McGuire; Case 2:07-cv-00355, a Spanish foreign judgment was refused recognition because it never mentioned the applicable New Jersey Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA].”
The following link confirms the U.S. Court ruled that Spain's departure from jurisdiction conferred by the Hague Convention"violated the principals of international comity by failing even to attempt to apply New Jersey law."
" The United States will [NOT] recognize a foreign judgment that fails to mention or properly consider the laws of the child's prior habitual residence pursuant to Art 3 and or fails to observe the purpose and objectives of the Convention."
In the United States decision of Hague Abduction case re Carrascosa vs McGuire; Case 2:07-cv-00355, a Spanish foreign judgment was refused recognition because it never mentioned the applicable New Jersey Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA].”
The following link confirms the U.S. Court ruled that Spain's departure from jurisdiction conferred by the Hague Convention"violated the principals of international comity by failing even to attempt to apply New Jersey law."