On May 14, 7:44 am, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> CL <flot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Basically, this is a problem of foreign courts and US courts not
> > respecting each other.  Parents are secondary.  The problem is that the
> > Japanese spouse is agreeing to a legal venue, not getting the outcome
> > s/he wants, and is running off to Japan to try again.  In the US this is
> > called "shopping for venue" and is illegal, yet we do it every time we
> > allow a foreign court to overturn a US judge's decision.
>
> Well, there's that whole "US Constitution only works in the US" thing....

Not to mention that the Australian Constitution only works in
Australia,
etc. etc.

On the whole courts in different countries do respect each other.
One of the problems with custody cases is that Japan has
refused to sign up to the the main treaty covering custody, which
makes it almost impossible to have consistent handling of such
cases when one spouse is Japanese.

On the matter of courts respecting each other, there's a
guy currently being tried for murder in Alabama. The alleged
murder (of his wife) took place in Australia. He was charged
with murder here, but the prosecution decided the case wasn't
strong enough and withdrew that charge, instead getting a
conviction for the lesser crime of manslaughter. When he was
deported back to the US after serving time, he was charged
(again) with murder and it's now going to trial. The judge has
ruled that what happened in an Australia court is not
relevant. It'll be interesting to see how they go getting
witnesses.

I find it interesting that the state of Alabama can say that its
murder laws apply to something that happened in Australia,
but then Australia has enacted laws against sex tourism
involving minors which apply to Australia citizens anywhere,
so who knows.

Jim