Main article: Hague Divorce Convention The Hague Convention that compels Contracting States to recognize divorces and legal separations obtained legally in another contracting state is the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations concluded on 1 June and entered into force 24 August Only the state of being divorced or legally separated must be recognized.
Property Issues[ edit ] As the Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations does not deal with matrimonial property in a divorce, the Hague Conference concluded a separate convention convw 14 March The Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes, which entered into force on 1 Septemberallows spouses in a marriage to decide which jurisdiction's laws will apply to their property. For instance, questions arise when assets are held in trust in a country that neither spouse has an actual connection to through residence or nationality and neither the state in which the trust is located nor the state in which suit is brought the state of nationality or residence is a member of the Convention.
Some courts have found ways around the jurisdictional issue at hand i.
Such was the case in the New York case of Riechers v. In this case the husband had used marital assets to fund a Cook Islands trust; even though the New York court had no jurisdiction over MMarriage trust money, they ordered the wife's share of that money paid from other assets.
The European Union has been moving towards a common divorce law. The European Commission promulgated the so-called Brussels II regulation in March in an effort to settle the conflict of laws relating to divorce between the members of the European Union. The confe, amended indetermines which courts will have jurisdiction over what matters.
Observers note that the generosity of settlements and alimony differ from state to state. High-profile divorce cases such as the one between American pop-star Madonna and her British husband Guy Ritchiemust deal with such issues, especially if one party stands to gain by filing in a certain jurisdiction.
In this case, Ritchie, who is comparatively less well off, would benefit from filing in Britain where settlements tend to be larger off alimony more generous. Also this regulation does not provide substantive law provisions.
Child Custody[ edit ] While the Hague conference has not concluded any agreements specifically on the issue of child custody, it has dealt with two incidental issues: parental child abduction and child support or maintenance payments. Its goal is to provide that if is removed from his habitual residence and custodial status to another country, the child can be returned to the country of his habitual residence thus maintaining the custodial status quo prior to the removal. For example, although a plain-text reading of the convention seems to support the notion that is habitually resident in the state he or she lived in prior to abduction, some courts have disagreed.
For example, in the case of Mozes v. Mozes where the wife and children had travelled to the United States from Israel for a period of fifteen months with the consent of the father, during which time the wife obtained a divorce and temporary custody of the children in Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cpnve that habitual residence can change.
Child support was an area where comity was not always observed, even after the entry into force of the UN convention. It would compel individuals who moved from one Contracting State to Marriagge to continue to remit payment by forcing the second Contracting State to enforce the child support agreement from the first.