Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 5/24/2016 3:41 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems 
> reasonable, it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a 
> situation in which the breastfeeding mother would be present with the 
> baby, but the local government would not recognize _her_ parental 
> rights.   Or is the concern that if she were incapacitated, the other 
> parent would be unable to take responsibility for the baby?   I think 
> you have to engage in some pretty significant contortions to construct 
> this as a problem that the IAOC absolutely must, out of fairness, 
> solve. That said, I have no personal experience in this, so I'm 
> asking, not telling: is there a scenario where this would actually be 
> a problem?   How likely is this in practice?

IANAL.  That said, Singapore appears to be a signatory to the Hague 
Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA.
The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf

The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf
It states in part:

The objects of the present Convention are -

/a)/   to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or 
retained in any Contracting State; and
/b)/   to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of 
one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting 
States.

To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one 
Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting 
States - See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf
The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf 

The objectives of the Convention are:

 1. To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or
    retained in any Contracting State; and
 2. To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one
    Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting
    States.

- See more at: 
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Singapore-Central-Authority/HCCAICA#sthash.A13d9Ik9.dpuf
As I said, IANAL, but (b) seems to imply that your right of custody is 
set by where the child lives, not where you visit.  The answer to Ted's 
question appears to be "it depends" - and the dependency table is at 
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/acceptances/?mid=1094. 
If the child's country is on this list, then the custody of the child is 
governed by the laws of that country.


(Side note - has anyone ever seen a date represented like it is in this 
table?  E.g. Day-month in roman numerals-4 digit years).


>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Jordi,
>
>     I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal
>     companion stuff (a mailing list and one gathering that the
>     companions pay for) has factored into the IAOC venue-selection.
>
>     It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't
>     affect you.
>
>     In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal
>     guardianship & medical concerns in a
>     country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other
>     countries.   There can certainly be personal
>     reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't
>     require others' judgement as to whether those
>     reasons are "deserving" enough.
>
>     Regards,
>     Alia
>
>     On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>
>         +1 to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC
>         venue-selection criteria difficulties, and I want to make it
>         clear, even if it affects me personally at any time.
>
>         Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our
>         decisions must consider other organizations decisions, but is
>         always good to know), it will be nice to know if
>         venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations take
>         in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.
>
>         Regards,
>         Jordi
>
>
>         -----Mensaje original-----
>         De: ietf <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> en nombre de Yoav Nir
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         Responder a: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
>         Para: Melinda Shore <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         CC: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed
>         path forward and request for input
>
>         >
>         >> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>         >>> Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is
>         that I don’t
>         >>> think the ability to bring families along should be an
>         important
>         >>> consideration.
>         >>
>         >> I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides
>         >> a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel
>         >> should be equally accessible to all families.  I'd personally
>         >> be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
>         >> specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
>         >> to same-sex partners.
>         >
>         >I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many
>         reasons. The fact that it adds considerations and criteria to
>         the IAOC’s decision process that already has way too many
>         criteria is just another reason to drop it.
>         >
>         >Yoav
>         >
>         >
>
>
>
>
>