Jamaica - Canada - Marriage - Divorce - Separation -

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
QUESTION: My 27 yr. old Canadian born daughter is planning on marrying a Jamaican and having children in Jamaica.  Would the children be Canadian or Jamaican?  Could she bring her children permanently to Canada if the relationship doesn't work out?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
david ingram replies:
The Children will have dual citizenship - They will be Jamaican by birth and Canadian by  virtue of your daughter's citizenship.
The  question of her bringing the children to Canada is impossible to answer. The  answer is yes, she "can" bring the children to Canada  but  she may not be able to if her husband wins custody in Jamaica.
I have reproduced part of a significant case in Jamaica
You can find the whole judgment at: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:w8o59IrmM9oJ:www.sc.gov.jm/Judgments/Judgment%2520M127%2520of%25201998%2520Marzouca%2520v%2520Marzouca.pdf+child+custody+Jamaica+-ny+-new+-york&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
I have reproduced the part where the judge granted joint custody and stated that the children had to be in Jamaica each summer and alternate years for Xmas.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA 
JUDGE HARRIS 
I now turn to the matter of the custody of the children. The principal factor in 
the resolution of matters with respect to the custody of a child is centred on the 
welfare of the child. Therefore, in determining questions relating to the custody and 
upbringing of an infant a court must pay regard to the child's welfare. 
Section 18 of the Children Guardianship and Custody Act which establishes the 
principles governing the custody and the upbringing of a child, states as follows: 
"
18. 
Where in any proceeding before the court the custody or 
upbringing of a child or the administration of any property 
belonging to or held on trust for a child or the application of 
income thereof, is in question the Court in deciding that question, 
shall have regard to the welfare of the child as 
the first and paramount consideration and shall not take into 
consideration whether from any other point of view the 
claim of the father, or any right at common law possessed by 
the father in respect of such custody, upbringing administration or 
application is superior to that of the mother, or the claim of the 
mother is superior to that of the father."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Page 5
     
5
It is manifest that neither parent enjoys a pre-emptory right to be the custodian 
of a child. A claim by the mother does not rank in superiority to that by the father; nor 
is a father's claim superior to that of the mother. The predominant concern of the 
court is the welfare of the child. 
It has often been conceptualized that the interest of a child of tender years is 
best served and protected by committing him or her to the mother's custody, provided 
the mother is fit and displays the capability of discharging the responsibilities of taking 
care of the child. This view had been recognized by Romilly, Master of the Rolls in 
Austin v Austin 1865 55 ER 
634 at 637 when he stated: - 
" No thing, and no person and no combination of them can in my 
opinion with regard to a child of tender years supply the place of a 
mother and the welfare of the child is so intimately connected with 
its being under the care of them other and that no extent of 
kindness on the part of any other person can supply the place."
Although Romilly MR had propounded that a young child ought to be reared 
by the mother and although it has been frequently proposed that a mother should be 
the recipient of custody of a child of tender years, provided this can be achieved 
without any mental or physical injury to the child, this does not buttress any 
presumption that a mother should be given preference as a custodian of a child. 
There is no presumptive right that one parent ought to be preferred to the other in the 
making of a custodial award. The interest of the child is the predominant 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Page 6
     
6
consideration. This proposition was validated by Butler-Schloss in Re S (A 
Minor)(Custody) 1991 2 F.L.R 388 at page 390 when he declared: - 
"The welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration. 
Under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971, under which this 
matter is being dealt, there is no presumption that one parent 
should be preferred to another parent at a particular age. It used 
to be thought many years ago that young children should be with their 
mother, that girls approaching puberty should be with their mother 
and boys over a certain age should be with father. Such presumption, 
if they ever were such, do not in my view exist today. They are dicta 
of this court to the effect that it is likely that a young child, particularly 
perhaps a little girl, would be expected to be with her mother 
but that is subject to the overriding factor that the welfare of the child 
is the paramount consideration." 
In the case under review, the Petitioner wishes to have exclusive custody of the 
children of the family .The Respondent desires to have the benefit of sharing their 
custody with the Petitioner in order to participate in decisions relative to their welfare. 
He states that the Petitioner is a good mother. The fact that she is a good mother does 
not in itself grant her a right to sole custody of the children. It is necessary to 
emphasize that the need of any party to secure custody of the children is subordinate 
to their welfare. 
Mr. Steer, during his submissions, made reference to the respondent being an 
alcoholic. This was not denied by Mr. Foster who stated that he is receiving treatment 
for his alcoholism but that his alcoholism does no preclude him from being a good 
father. These submissions are of no evidential value. If the Petitioner intended to rely 
on any fact to establish that the Respondent ought not to be permitted to participate in 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Page 7
     
7
the custody and upbringing of the children, then, evidence in support of her contention 
should have been presented to the
court. 
The Petitioner removed the children from the jurisdiction without consulting the 
respondent. He is the father of these children and if the petitioner thought it fit to 
relocate, taking the children with her, their removal from this jurisdiction is matter of 
great importance and one which ought to have been discussed with him. This is a 
factor which points to the need for the Respondent to be involved in important matters 
relevant to the children. The Respondent should have an input in the major activities 
directly related to their upbringing. He ought to be permitted to play an integral role 
in their development in a wide a spectrum of situations as is reasonably possible. It is 
crucial that he becomes a party to the essential policies and decisions in the general 
upbringing of these children and that he be given a right to exercise certain parental 
responsibilities in their evolution. 
No compelling reasons have been advanced by the Petitioner to demonstrate that 
the welfare of the children would be best promoted by her being appointed exclusive 
custodian of the infants. In my opinion, the Respondent should be involved in all 
important decisions affecting the upbringing of the children, as is reasonably 
practicable. The Petitioner and the Respondent are therefore awarded joint custody of 
the children. However, the Petitioner is granted the right to have care and control of 
them. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Page 8
     
8
Since care and control of the children now reside with the Petitioner, provision 
must be made for the respondent to have access to them. They ought to spend some 
time each year with the Respondent in Jamaica. During the summer vacation, they 
should spend two weeks annually with the respondent as well as one half of the 
Christmas holidays each year and Christmas day each alternate year. They live in the 
Bahamas, they are very young. They will not be able to travel on their own. They 
should be accompanied by a chaperone, who should remain with them and supervise 
them while on their visit to Jamaica, until the year 2004.The Respondent should pay 
the cost of the children's airfare as well as one half of their chaperone's airfare. 
On each occasion on which the Respondent visits Nassau, he should have access 
to the children at a time and place to be agreed on by the parties, provided the 
respondent gives to the Petitioner at least one week's notice of his desire to see the 
children. 
Costs of the application is granted to the Petitioner. 
=============================================================================
As you  can see, it is not that simple and it is quite possible that custody could  be awarded to the father
David Ingram's US/Canada Services
US / Canada / Mexico tax and working Visa Specialists
US / Canada Real Estate Specialists
4466 Prospect Road
North Vancouver,  BC, CANADA, V7N 3L7
Calls accepted from 10 AM to 10 PM 7 days a week
Res (604) 980-3578 Cell (604) 657-8451
Bus (604) 980-0321 
[email protected]
www.centa.com www.david-ingram.com
Disclaimer:  This question has been answered without detailed information or consultation and is to be regarded only as general comment.   Nothing in this message is or should be construed as advice in any particular circumstances. No contract exists between the reader & the author and any and all non-contractual duties are expressly denied. All readers should obtain formal advice from a competent financial, or real estate planner or advisor & appropriately qualified legal practitioner, tax or immigration specialist in connection with personal or business affairs such as at www.centa.com. If you forward this message, this disclaimer must be included."
This from ask an income tax immigration planning and bankruptcy expert consultant guru or preparer  from www.centa.com or www.jurock.com or www.featureweb.com. Canadian David Ingram deals daily with tax returns dealing with expatriate:
multi jurisdictional cross and trans border expatriate problems  for the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, South Africa,  Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Antarctica,  Japan, China, New Zealand, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Georgia, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Scotland, Ireland, Hawaii, Florida, Montana, Morocco, Israel, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Bangkok, Greenland, Iceland, Cuba, Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, St Vincent, Grenada,, Virgin Islands, US, UK, GB, American and Canadian and Mexican and any of the 43 states with state tax returns, etc.
income tax wizard wizzard guru advisor advisors experts  specialist specialists  consultants taxmen   taxman tax woman planner planning preparer of Alaska,  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Arizona, 
 California,  Colorado, Connecticut,  
Delaware, District of Columbia,  Florida, 
Garland, Georgia,  Hawaii,  Idaho,  Illinois,
  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky, 
 Louisiana,  Maine,  Maryland,  
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,  
Mississippi,  Missouri,  Montana,  Nebraska,  
Nevada, New Hampshire,  New Jersey, 
New Mexico,New York, North Carolina,  
North Dakota,  Ohio,  Oklahoma,  Oregon. 
Paris,  Rome, Sydney, Australia Hilton
Pennsylvania,  Rhode Island,  Rockwall, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,  
Texas,  Utah, Vermont,  Virginia, 
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, 
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, 
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec City, 
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, 
Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Yukon and 
Northwest and Nunavit Territories,  
Mount Vernon, Eumenclaw, Coos Bay 
and Dallas Houston Rockwall Garland 
Texas  Taxman and Tax Guru  and wizzard 
wizard - Your name has been added to our email list because of an enquiry we have received,  we may not answer your question but 
another similar question will be as we lump them.
You may find more answers at www.centa.com
If the number of messages is too many for you or the US / Canada Taxation and Immigration information is not of interest, simply  reply with a remove request.
David Ingram of the CEN-TA REALTY  Group
US / Canada / Mexico tax and working Visa Specialists
US / Canada Real Estate Specialists
4466 Prospect Road
North Vancouver, BC, CANADA, V7N 3L7
(604) 980-0321 - Fax 913-9123 [email protected]
www.centa.com www.david-ingram.com
 
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.centa.com/CEN-TAPEDE/centapede/attachments/c7cd37a2/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://www.centa.com/trackback.php/UsCaWeekofMon20040126000695.html

Here's what others have to say about 'Jamaica - Canada - Marriage - Divorce - Separation -':

????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? from ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????
... ?????? ????? ??? - ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???????, ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????????, ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????. ???, ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ????, ???. ??? ?????? ... Jamaica - Canada - Marriage - Divorce - Separati... [read more]
Tracked on Friday, March 13 2015 @ 06:21 PM PDT

0 comments