2. Why do the American law require that a court have personal jurisdiction over both spouses to enter orders concerning property or support matters, financial aspects of an ex-parte foreign divorce will not be given effect based on comity?2
3.What does the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act codify common law comity principles?5
4. What is the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act for? 7/8/9
5. Can the U.S. Marital Property and Support Judgment be recognized in foreign countries?
II. Write a summary of the text with 150 words.
Section D Translation Skill---
ANSWERS Section A
II. Choose the best answer for each of the following according to the text: 1. B 2. C 3. A 4. A 5. D
III. Fill in the following blanks with the given words below
1. respondent 2. divisible divorce 3. hearing 4. divorce 5. forum 6. tag jurisdiction
7. lis pendens 8. jurisdiction 9. matter 10. personal jurisdiction IV. Translate the following passage into Chinese:
在可分割的离婚诉讼管辖权原则下，州法院基于原告的住所或居住地而作出的单方面离婚判决在每个州都能得到完全信任。但若涉及到婚姻财产分割和抚养义务时，只有该管辖法院对原被告双方都有属人管辖权时，其判决才会被信任和认可。基于上述规则，美国法院以礼让规则承认很多国外单方离婚判决的效力，但并不承认和执行外国法院作出的财产判决，除非该法院具有完全的人身管辖权。 Section B
I. Write T (true) or F (false) for each statement of the following according to what you
45
have learnt from the text:
1. F 2.F 3. T 4.T 5. T 6. F 7. F 8.T 9. T 10.T II. Translate the following into Chinese
1. 大陆法系国家的夫妻协议须依不同的正式手续达成，通常需经公证人公证。公证人是经专门培训以备鉴证各种法律文件的律师，如遗嘱、证书和特定类型的合同。许多大陆法系国家的制定法确定了一系列不同婚姻财产的体系并允许夫妻协议在此范围内进行约定。即使民法上的夫妻财产协议约定内容与州法院的规则背景有极大不同，美国的法庭也通常会对其进行承认和执行。但是，当外国法院程序并不符合州法关于公开或自愿的标准时，此种承认或执行可能很困难。 2.依据美国传统的准据法规则，已婚夫妇的动产权利适用他们获得财产时的居所地法，而不动产权利适用财产所在地法。这会给居住和取得财产不在同一地点的夫妇带来更大的困难，尤其是对那些曾在普通法管辖区和共同财产管辖区之间来回迁徙生活的夫妇更是如此。
46
UNIT THREE
A FAMILY LAW PERSPECTIVE ON PARENTAL INCARCERATION
Section A
Family Law and Child Development
1 Family law is unique among American legal fields in making children's interests paramount, as it does in the context of custody disputes between a child's legal parents. Under the ―best interests of the child‖ standard that family law courts apply in adjudicating such disputes, the child's interests prevail over all else. By elevating children's interests over other concerns, custody courts provide an unparalleled examination of children's development, and how that development is affected by each child's placement in one or another caretaking environment. 2 Courts assessing children's best interests in order to resolve custody disputes take for granted that the ways in which children are brought up will shape the type of adults they become. While custody courts care about children's day-to-day happiness, they are especially concerned with how children's current experience will affect their future. The custody literature therefore provides extensive analysis of the ways in which childhood experience and early caregiving arrangements can alter a child's course of development into adulthood, for better or for worse.
3 Underlying the best-interests assessment is the often unspoken assumption that the goal of the custody decision-maker is to ensure that each child become a happy and well-adjusted adult. Using terms such as ―autonomy‖, ―independen[ce]‖, ―self-sufficien[cy]‖ and ―productiv[ity],‖ courts awarding custody frequently convey that the goal of caregiving is to best foster each child's transition from the dependence
47
that is the hallmark of childhood to the autonomy that is the defining characteristic of adulthood. Custody courts make clear—to an extent unique in legal analysis—that the likelihood of a child reaching his or her potential to become a well-functioning adult can be greatly influenced by his or her upbringing and early environment.
4 The best-interests case law discusses at length the factors that can diminish a child's chances of becoming a well-adjusted and autonomous adult. The custody literature reflects a consensus that the conditions most likely to foster a child's well-being are continuity and stability, and that, conversely, any disruption of a child's environment and caretaking arrangement can inflict developmental harm. Custody decisions often entail change to a child's status quo, such that some disruption is inevitable. The focus of the best-interests inquiry, then, is often on the degree and nature of developmental harm that various types of disruption will inflict on a child. The court's goal in these cases is to find the arrangement that will be the least damaging to the child's future well-being.
5 There is widespread agreement in the custody literature that the disruption of the parent-child tie can be especially damaging to a child's development. For years, courts favored primary caregivers—often mothers—in order to minimize a disruption of the parent-child bond that was seen as potentially traumatic to a child. Today, courts and legislatures increasingly recognize the importance to children of maintaining contact with both parents. Custody courts will discuss with a great degree of nuance—and often with the aid of expert psychological testimony—the harms that disruption of the parent-child tie can inflict on a child given her particular stage of development.
3. What is the widespread agreement in the custody literature? 5
6 Custody courts often acknowledge, for example, that extended separation of an infant or toddler from a parent is particularly dangerous to a child's development, and can have life-long effects. Separation of an infant from a parent can disrupt the bonding process that is the foundation of the child's future emotional and intellectual
48