Jul 14, 2022
In Welcome to the Forum
The justice mentioned that the court's ruling did not consider the records of the minor children's wishes. Although there was a reference to the opposition between parents, the mother had resorted to the media, and the video of minor children was publicly broadcast on social media, but this is not a daughter. will. When the Taipei District Court ruled, her daughter was already living in Taiwan. At the time of the two rulings, her daughter’s age was 5 years and 8 months, and her age was 7 years and 8 months. She should have the opportunity to express her opinions in court or outside the court. As for this part, The original ruling had circumstances where it should have been considered but not. Although the Taipei District Court has appointed company banner design a procedural supervisor for her daughter, and also reviewed her statement during the enforcement process, as well as the visit report and life photos issued by an Italian psychologist, the Supreme Court held that even if the daughter was not questioned in court, Nor can it be considered illegal. However, the judge believes that in non-litigation proceedings, as long as the minor child has the ability to express opinions and objectively has the possibility to express opinions to the court, the court must give her the opportunity to express her opinions, so that her opinions can be heard by the court. discretionary. Furthermore, the Constitutional Judgment also pointed out that allowing minor children to express their opinions is not just to listen to her opinions, but must carefully consider and explain how the opinions are considered, so as not to listen to the opinions in a mere formality. Whether it is a decision to hand over a child or an appeal procedure, minor children should have the opportunity to express their opinions, so as to protect the subject rights of the procedure and comply with due process of law. 2. The principle of continuity (the principle of maintaining the status quo) The judge believed that her daughter lived in Italy for about a year from the end of 2016 to the beginning of 2010, and then returned to Taiwan to live for about 2 years and September when the second-instance judgment was originally issued for temporary punishment, and her daughter was able to adapt well in Italy and Taiwan. If this is the case, my daughter has lived in Taiwan longer than Italy, and she is also adapting to life and schooling in Taiwan.