Home State, Cross-Border Custody, and Habitual Residence Jurisdiction: Time for a Temporal Standard in International Family Law

This article addresses three jurisdictional standards that arise in every cross-border child custody dispute between European Union Member States and the United States: home state, cross-border, and habitual residence jurisdiction. These jurisdictional standards face uncertainty in many cases. First, this article provides a history of family law jurisdiction in the United States and thoroughly reviews home state jurisdiction in United States domestic law. While domestic family lawyers know this standard, the standard’s rigidity and fragmented application among the states baffle many foreign family lawyers. Second, this article offers an overview of the remarkable emergence of family law in European Union law, chronicling the history of crossborder jurisdiction as a treaty matter to the present day status of family law jurisdiction under European Union law. This article reviews the recent Court of Justice of the European Union and United Kingdom court decisions on habitual residence, which leave an uncertain standard for habitual residence determinations in custody disputes. Third, this article reviews habitual residence jurisdiction in custody disputes under private international law. After reviewing the relevant treaties, this article examines cases in seven jurisdictions to show the uncertain jurisdictional standard that remains, despite habitual residence’s supposed uniformity. After analyzing these cases, this article proposes a time-based, categorical standard for habitual residence jurisdiction determinations. Private international law needs a uniform standard for the growing number of cross-border custody disputes. A temporal standard would make habitual residence determinations more certain, which would in turn benefit children, parents, and courts

Home State, Cross-Border Custody, and Habitual Residence Jurisdiction: Time for a Temporal Standard in International Family Law

This article addresses three jurisdictional standards that arise in every cross-border child custody dispute between European Union Member States and the United States: home state, cross-border, and habitual residence jurisdiction. These jurisdictional standards face uncertainty in many cases. First, this article provides a history of family law jurisdiction in the United States and thoroughly reviews home state jurisdiction in United States domestic law. While domestic family lawyers know this standard, the standard’s rigidity and fragmented application among the states baffle many foreign family lawyers. Second, this article offers an overview of the remarkable emergence of family law in European Union law, chronicling the history of crossborder jurisdiction as a treaty matter to the present day status of family law jurisdiction under European Union law. This article reviews the recent Court of Justice of the European Union and United Kingdom court decisions on habitual residence, which leave an uncertain standard for habitual residence determinations in custody disputes. Third, this article reviews habitual residence jurisdiction in custody disputes under private international law. After reviewing the relevant treaties, this article examines cases in seven jurisdictions to show the uncertain jurisdictional standard that remains, despite habitual residence’s supposed uniformity. After analyzing these cases, this article proposes a time-based, categorical standard for habitual residence jurisdiction determinations. Private international law needs a uniform standard for the growing number of cross-border custody disputes. A temporal standard would make habitual residence determinations more certain, which would in turn benefit children, parents, and courts

Language endangerment and language documentation in Africa

Non peer reviewe

Severe early onset preeclampsia: short and long term clinical, psychosocial and biochemical aspects

Preeclampsia is a pregnancy specific disorder commonly defined as de novo hypertension and proteinuria after 20 weeks gestational age. It occurs in approximately 3-5% of pregnancies and it is still a major cause of both foetal and maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide1. As extensive research has not yet elucidated the aetiology of preeclampsia, there are no rational preventive or therapeutic interventions available. The only rational treatment is delivery, which benefits the mother but is not in the interest of the foetus, if remote from term. Early onset preeclampsia (<32 weeks’ gestational age) occurs in less than 1% of pregnancies. It is, however often associated with maternal morbidity as the risk of progression to severe maternal disease is inversely related with gestational age at onset2. Resulting prematurity is therefore the main cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity in patients with severe preeclampsia3. Although the discussion is ongoing, perinatal survival is suggested to be increased in patients with preterm preeclampsia by expectant, non-interventional management. This temporising treatment option to lengthen pregnancy includes the use of antihypertensive medication to control hypertension, magnesium sulphate to prevent eclampsia and corticosteroids to enhance foetal lung maturity4. With optimal maternal haemodynamic status and reassuring foetal condition this results on average in an extension of 2 weeks. Prolongation of these pregnancies is a great challenge for clinicians to balance between potential maternal risks on one the eve hand and possible foetal benefits on the other. Clinical controversies regarding prolongation of preterm preeclamptic pregnancies still exist – also taking into account that preeclampsia is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the Netherlands5 - a debate which is even more pronounced in very preterm pregnancies with questionable foetal viability6-9. Do maternal risks of prolongation of these very early pregnancies outweigh the chances of neonatal survival? Counselling of women with very early onset preeclampsia not only comprises of knowledge of the outcome of those particular pregnancies, but also knowledge of outcomes of future pregnancies of these women is of major clinical importance. This thesis opens with a review of the literature on identifiable risk factors of preeclampsia

Measurement of associated W plus charm production in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV

Peer reviewe