This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Focusing on the sentence that begins "For example, removal of a child from the UK for a period of 28 days" (they thought this passage was so important they repeated it twice), I traced the evolution in the article. This has been on Wikipedia since April 2006 ([1]) In October 2007, after many edits, we see the addition of more content which forms the material copied by that site. There can be little doubt that we had it first, and they are using the content without respect for license. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases the left behind parent is legally the only victim. This because child custody has noting to do with children’s rights, only parental rights. This is especially the case in which a court in the United States orders a Japanese mother to return her children to the United States, while the courts in Japan rules that she has the legal right to keep the same children in Japan and prevent her children from seeing their American father.
Really comes out of left field, and it does not at all jibe with my understanding of family court philosophy, where the child's interest are always considered paramount. Jess (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone seems to have reinserted the first part, twice, and expanded it in section "The Law". This section needs a rewrite and sources, and an introduction that clarifies which legal system it refers to.--92.219.8.20 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Quality and Importance Scales of the WikiProject Men’s Issues on Wikipedia, this article is categorized as C-Class and High-importance. It’s categories are a little better than the Parental Responsibility article described above, although we believe that Parental Responsibility could be of high importance if evaluated from a growing-issue perspective. As a C-Class article it needs citation to reliable sources, spelling and grammar corrections, adding important information to fill gaps and removing irrelevant information. Specifically, Wikipedia describes that the information would not be enough for a moderately detailed study but we surprisingly found on the talk page a reference to the article being duplicated by an external publication. Although the publication Child abduction in divorce issues is not of world-wide renown, this is an example of how Wikipedia is used every day to create information that may be inaccurate or incomplete and is put out there to misinform people. For this article we could research to improve the information and its quality, add citation to improve the reliable sources and help with the cleanup process too as defined by Wikipedia. Nkchicago (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: There is no benefit to the reader to providing a current link to almost twenty-year-old, obsolete data. The most recent version of the NISMART is here and once I can find the correct information in that I will update the body text and the citation. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now:
Partly done:Updated text and citation with most-recent data available from NISMART 3. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
