Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-17-Speech-5-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001117.4.5-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, these days divorce is no longer the exception. Often, couples go their separate ways in a civilised manner. They find it unpleasant to continue sharing each other's lives, but they do not start hating their ex-partner. Unfortunately, others separate on the basis of accumulated hatred. Parents who separate on that basis are a disaster for their children who become victims of that insoluble conflict. One parent wants the absolute power of decision over the children in order to exclude the other parent forever.
Everyone is familiar with the awful situation in which the parent to whom custody of the child is awarded, often the mother, tries to make contact with the other parent impossible. We also recognise the equally terrible situation in which the other parent, often the father, abducts the child and makes him or her untraceable. Children remember that sort of occurrence for their whole lives. My mother lived through such a separation and abduction 85 years ago, and she still talks about it.
Mrs Banotti has tried to make creative use of all the possibilities for securing effective arrangements for parental access on a cross-border basis too. She is trying to preclude all situations in which parents can misuse the existence of different rules of law in the Member States of the European Union in order to delay or prevent effective arrangements for parental access. A part of her solution involves drastically curtailing the right to call in a judge in order to overturn a foreign court order.
That regulation will only work if both parents are nationals of an EU country or are resident within the European Union and if their relationship was confirmed by a legal marriage. Only a part of the problem will be solved, but a precedent will be created. If we also start applying something similar to other situations, we are undertaking in the future to have centralised unitary legislation such as does not even exist between the 50 States of the United States.
That is why I see drawbacks. But I have many more objections to tackling legal weaknesses and setting precedents in ways that leave social problems permanently unsolved. Because we support the goal that has been set, we are voting for the proposed measures."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples