Taiwan Child Abduction

TAIWAN - CHILD ABDUCTION

Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention is by far the most significant international treaty pertaining to the prevention of international child abduction. Indeed, at least 74 countries are party to the Convention, including the United States. The failure of a country to become a party to the Convention sends an extremely strong signal that the country’s legal institutions will not cause an abducted child to be returned to her habitual residence. The likelihood of such a return is rendered particularly unlikely if the abductor is a national of the country and has family in that country.

The U.S State Department has issued a specific warning to parents concerning Taiwan that:

“Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; nor are there any international or bilateral treaties in force between Taiwan and the United States dealing with international parental child abduction. American citizens who travel to Taiwan place themselves under the jurisdiction of local courts. American citizens may wish to consider this before planning a trip to Taiwan with dual national children.”

The danger is greatly exacerbated when the abducting parent is a Taiwanese mother. In Taiwan custody is invariably given to a mother. The U.S. State Department reports that “In Taiwan, parents who are legally married share the custody of their children. If they are not married, by law the custody is granted to the mother unless there are known facts of inappropriate behavior, mental or social problems.”

Taiwan Civil Code: Marriage

Taiwan News(2006/05/10 14:06:37)

Child cannot leave before custody case is retried, says court

The Taipei District Court ruled on Tuesday that Emily Juan, a two-and-half-year-old girl at the center of a custody battle, cannot leave Taiwan until the case is retried in a local court, after her mother Juan Mei-fen requested a preliminary injunction to stop Emily' American biological father from taking her back to the United States.

Juan said that she was also planning to file other lawsuits against Emily's father, Cary Sartin, for "falsely accusing" Juan of seizing their daughter's Republic of China passport. The passport is presently in Juan's possession.

In addition, Juan said she would also request the court to grant her visiting rights and also expressed her wish, via her attorney, to see the child before Mother's Day. Sartin, however, reportedly declined to comply with Juan's wishes, but agreed to allow local social workers to visit the toddler.

The Bureau of Immigration said on Tuesday that Sartin could not apply for a replacement passport for Emily because her passport is not missing, but rather is in the possession of her mother.

Emily entered Taiwan using her ROC passport and cannot leave the country using other travel documents, the BOI said.

Meanwhile, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Michel Lu (呂慶龍) said that although the U.S. court handed down a ruling in Sartin's favor and granted him the sole custody of the child after he convinced judges that Juan is unfit to take care of the child due to mental problems, the verdict would now be subject to Taiwanese law since Juan has appealed the case in Taiwan.

"The U.S. ruling was in Cary's favor because Juan was absent from the hearing and failed to defend herself," Lu said. "Although there's a mutual assistance judicial agreement between Taiwan and U.S., the ruling will still have to be based on Taiwan law."

Lu further noted that the government administers its duties according to the law. The MOFA would provide any necessary assistance in the case and assure the citizens' interest, he added.

Source: Taiwan News(2006/05/10 14:06:37)

TAIWAN CUSTODY LAW

In 1996, Taiwan adopted the best interests of the child standard to substitute for the presumption of paternal custody. It appears that cultural and social circumstances may significantly influence judges' explanations of what is best for the child. In one analysis, seventy cases of an urban district court and a rural district court were collected and analysed. The findings of this analysis attest that Taiwan's court decisions of child custody cases actually reflect many cultural ideas, such as stereotyped gender roles, a sense of `face', and the tradition of parents' long-term financial support for their children. Meanwhile, the varying socio-economic climate of Taiwan across districts and the lack of public welfare programs also clearly affect judges' custody decisions. Moreover, this study finds that since 1996, custody has been overwhelmingly awarded to mothers, whereas before 1996 fathers were favored by the courts. This change of court preference was not only caused by the gender-neutral standard and the influence of the women's movement, but it was also caused by the influence of traditional ideas and social customs on judges. Judges prefer the `all-or-none custody' arrangement that imposes a double burden on single mothers. This decision pattern undermines both gender equality and the child's best interests and further worsens the economic status of post-divorce single-mother families. The study argues that judges should stop using economic competence as a necessary factor in determining custody. Both public welfare programs and private child support from the non-custodial parent should be implemented to assist the custodial parent if she or he is the more suitable but economically less competent parent. In addition, judges should give visitation orders more often and pay attention to the child's psychological and emotional needs.