Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is just your opinion. There is no international law dictating jurisdiction rule like that for international divorces.
Each country follows its own laws. Just like an American can move to another state for better divorce laws, people can move to another country too.
Well, not to keep going round and round over this since it's off topic, but actually, there is international law that determines the appropriate jurisdiction for international child custody disputes. Look up the Hague Convention.
Well, not to keep going round and round over this since it's off topic, but actually, there is international law that determines the appropriate jurisdiction for international child custody disputes. Look up the Hague Convention.
Of course, we can go round and round. There is no international law dictating that a divorce be handled in the country where the marriage took place. That is what I took issue with in your post.
The Hague determines custody by whatever custody arrangements existed prior to a parent removing a child.
And the Hague Convention basically operates on goodwill as there is no viable enforcement for countries to comply. Some members have proven repeatedly to not comply and remain members. Iran isn't even a member so Hague laws don't even apply.
Regardless, since there had been no divorce at the time she left Iran, there was no custody arrangement aside from the normal arrangement when parents are married. As a matter of fact, she is the one who removed her child from a country for a more desirable court. She couldn't remove her daugher from Iran without permission from her husband (as is typical these days for most countries), which seems likely to have been her main motivator for smuggling her daughter across the border IMO.
My main point is about perception. What she did would have been viewed as wrong if he had done the same thing here in the US.
You've missed the point entirely. Betty Mahmoody could have easily divorced her husband and left Iran. However, since she is not Muslim and the courts are biased against women anyway, she would have never been allowed to have custody of her daughter. Had Dr. Mahmoody come back to the US with his wife and daughter to their established home, they could have divorced and gone to court to decide custody there. Instead he forced her to stay after a 2 week vacation in order to manipulate the situation (the act of an abuser) in his favor and coerce her to stay.
The act of forcing his wife to remain in Iran by effectively holding their daughter hostage is an act of abuse. The fact that they outsmarted him and got away is simply fitting justice.
And yes, it would have been wrong if it had happened in the US because their minor child was a US citizen and their established residence was in the US. He essentially kidnapped them by forcing Mahtob to stay and by default forcing Betty to choose between staying or giving up her child. She in turn, gave him a taste of his own medicine, which of course he didn't like. And again, I will point out that Mahtob was well into adulthood when her father's version of events was released. The fact that she wanted nothing to do with him is telling.
You've missed the point entirely. Betty Mahmoody could have easily divorced her husband and left Iran. However, since she is not Muslim and the courts are biased against women anyway, she would have never been allowed to have custody of her daughter. Had Dr. Mahmoody come back to the US with his wife and daughter to their established home, they could have divorced and gone to court to decide custody there. Instead he forced her to stay after a 2 week vacation in order to manipulate the situation (the act of an abuser) in his favor and coerce her to stay.
The act of forcing his wife to remain in Iran by effectively holding their daughter hostage is an act of abuse. The fact that they outsmarted him and got away is simply fitting justice.
And yes, it would have been wrong if it had happened in the US because their minor child was a US citizen and their established residence was in the US. He essentially kidnapped them by forcing Mahtob to stay and by default forcing Betty to choose between staying or giving up her child. She in turn, gave him a taste of his own medicine, which of course he didn't like.
I'm not missing the point.
The Hague Convention recognizes custody arrangements by whatever court determines custody via divorce proceedings in any member country. Forget for a moment that Iran isn't a member country: If the divorce occurred in Iran and she lost custody, the Hague would have recognized the custody arrangement made in Iran. Regardless of the daughter's domicil being the United States, the custody can be legally determined in whichever court the parents chose to divorce. Divorce jurisdiction is determined by domicil of parents, and the father had domicil in Iran. The law protects a parent from another parent fleeing one country for the courts of another country for more favorable rulings, which is what the mother did.
She claims she was held hostage, but she was not because she could have left but not with her daughter. This is no different that what happens to foreign born fathers divorcing American mothers in the United States regardless of if the children have domicil in the father's foreign country. The father is free to leave the country but can not take the child without the mother's permission.
A parent can NOT enter the United States, even with a child whose domicil is the United States, without the written permission of both parents. These laws are designed to protect both parents from abduction, not just the American parent. That's why BOTH parents' permission is required to move a child from country to country, even if the child is returning to her domicil country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by h886
And again, I will point out that Mahtob was well into adulthood when her father's version of events was released. The fact that she wanted nothing to do with him is telling.
I don't think it's telling at all. My children have no desire to meet their biological father even though I have never uttered one negative word about him. Why? Because he is nobody to them. He is a stranger. His blood connection doesn't influence their opinion whatsoever. He could be a saint and it wouldn't influence their decision. Mahtob was raised since 5 being told very negative things about her father, which would strongly influence her decision well into adulthood.
No, again you have incorrect information. The Hague Convention prevents a parent from changing the status quo (by going to another country) in order to gain the advantage of a more favorable court. In plain terms, the place where "home" has been established for the child before the inciting incident (in this case the father forcing the mother/child to remain in Iran against their will) has jurisdiction. This was not a child who had ever been to Iran before. She had lived in the US her entire life. Under no circumstances should Iran have had anything to do with the custody decision. The father was the one who "fled" the country (the US) under the guise of a two-week vacation in order to manipulate the situation. He was the one who did the wrong thing and his wife merely did the same in return to escape.
And yes, the fact that Dr. Mahmoody chose to exploit his wife's lack of rights in Iran is telling. The act of trying to manipulate and wield power over her is an act of abuse. You forget that Mahtob lived trapped with him in Iran for a year and a half. She was either 6 or almost 6 when they escaped. She would have memories of that time. If she chose that she didn't want to speak to him? He has himself to blame for that. If she was fearful because she remembered what it was like to escape? He has himself to blame for that. Perhaps if he had chosen to return to the US, divorced there and shared custody with his wife, Mahtob would have still had a good relationship with him. If he wanted a wife and daughter to live in Iran with him, he should have met/married a woman in Iran and had a daughter there, not tried to force his American wife and daughter to stay there against their will. No, he tried to manipulate the situation to his advantage in order to force his wife and daughter to stay. That's the act of an abuser and cannot be justified.
He did a despicable thing and got exactly what he deserved.
No, again you have incorrect information. The Hague Convention prevents a parent from changing the status quo (by going to another country) in order to gain the advantage of a more favorable court. In plain terms, the place where "home" has been established for the child before the inciting incident (in this case the father forcing the mother/child to remain in Iran against their will) has jurisdiction. This was not a child who had ever been to Iran before. She had lived in the US her entire life. Under no circumstances should Iran have had anything to do with the custody decision. The father was the one who "fled" the country (the US) under the guise of a two-week vacation in order to manipulate the situation. He was the one who did the wrong thing and his wife merely did the same in return to escape.
See, that's the tricky thing about international law, it only applies to those who agree to it and even then only when it serves their interest. In this case, the Hague has/had ZERO jurisdiction. Iran is not a signatory, therefore it doesn't apply, period. It may also interest you to know that the United States (as well as Russia, China and many others) don't recognize the Hague Convention on War Crimes. Why? Because, per its definition we would be guilty of committing them. When it has been suggested that U.S. soldiers stand trial for war crimes, we tell the Hague to go pound sand. So to, would Iran have told the Hague to go pound sand if they got involved in this case. The Hague is a paper tiger with no way to enforce its laws outside of member nations agreeing to comply. The Hague is nothing more than a gentlemans agreement.
The other issue in this case is that the daughter had dual citizenship. She was an Iranian and an American. Iran would view her as an Iranian citizen and once within the bounds of Iran they were subject to Iranian law regardless of their citizenship status.
There is also a bit of controversy over how long they had expected to stay. In Mahmoody's counter he shows evidence that they had packed for a much longer stay than 2 weeks. He states that they had planned to stay for an indefinite period of time and Betty had actually purchased and packed several dresses for their daughter that were several sizes larger than they needed to be.
Quote:
And yes, the fact that Dr. Mahmoody chose to exploit his wife's lack of rights in Iran is telling. The act of trying to manipulate and wield power over her is an act of abuse. You forget that Mahtob lived trapped with him in Iran for a year and a half. She was either 6 or almost 6 when they escaped. She would have memories of that time. If she chose that she didn't want to speak to him? He has himself to blame for that. If she was fearful because she remembered what it was like to escape? He has himself to blame for that. Perhaps if he had chosen to return to the US, divorced there and shared custody with his wife, Mahtob would have still had a good relationship with him. If he wanted a wife and daughter to live in Iran with him, he should have met/married a woman in Iran and had a daughter there, not tried to force his American wife and daughter to stay there against their will. No, he tried to manipulate the situation to his advantage in order to force his wife and daughter to stay. That's the act of an abuser and cannot be justified.
I can't help but feel Betty shares a little culpability in things as they unfolded. Let's be realistic, she married an Iranian, gave her daughter dual citizenship and then agreed to go to Iran post-revolution in a time of severe hatred for Americans and in the middle of one of the bloodiest wars ever in the Middle East. Iran immediately post-revolution was also far more restrictive in terms of womens rights than it is today. In the Muslim world Iranian women since the '90's have far more rights than women in other nations such as Saudi Arabia. However, that was not the Iran Betty decided to go to. The entire decision to go was rather foolish in the first place.
FWIW, like I said before the truth of their story most likely lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think she had simply decided to go for a 2-week vacation, her preparations before leaving would show that she was planning for an indefinite stay, but also not permanently. I think while there she got to the point she wanted to leave her husband and the country. He knew that if she left with the daughter he would most likely never see her again. So, he said she could go, but the daughter had to stay. That was an impossible situation for her, so she hatched a plot to leave with her daughter. Do I believe that he refused to let her leave with their daughter, absolutely. Do I think he abused her and her life in Iran was as hellacious as she made it out to be, no.
Quote:
He did a despicable thing and got exactly what he deserved.
What despicable thing? He wanted to be in Iran and have his family with him. She decided she no longer wanted to be in Iran. He knew that if his daughter went he would most likely never see her again do to Iranian-U.S. relations. So, a father wanted his daughter and did everything he could to keep her. Her mother did the same. The movie and book shows him to be a monster, but I don't think that was reality.
What despicable thing? He wanted to be in Iran and have his family with him. She decided she no longer wanted to be in Iran. He knew that if his daughter went he would most likely never see her again do to Iranian-U.S. relations. So, a father wanted his daughter and did everything he could to keep her. Her mother did the same. The movie and book shows him to be a monster, but I don't think that was reality.
Yes, I'm aware Iran isn't a signatory. I only brought up the Hague Convention's existence after another poster kept spewing rampant misinformation, first setting the date of events a decade off then claiming anyone could just move to any country to get a better deal in court and claiming there was no international law in existence. But that's kind of irrelevant here.
I can understand Dr. Mahmoody wanting to move to Iran. I can. However, he made the choice to make a life for himself in the US, to marry an American woman, to have a daughter with her and to raise her for the first four years of her life in the US. The daughter and wife had never been to Iran. For him to then trap them there (by saying the daughter could not leave and knowing his wife would not leave without her daughter), he chose to manipulate the situation in his favor and that was an act of abuse.
He could have stayed in Michigan, divorced there, been fully involved in his daughter's life through shared custody or visitation and visited with family in Iran at length. Or he could have lived in Iran and come back to the US to visit with his daughter. Or, if relations were so bad that he couldn't travel between the two, he could choose to act as a father to the child he created until she was 18 and then move to Iran afterward. He could maintain a relationship with relatives over the phone. Part of being an adult is making choices, especially when you're a parent, and choosing to have children with a US woman when you're living in the US and have for years tends to obligate you to stick around the US. If you don't want that deal, you need to get back to your home country and marry someone there so it won't be an issue. What he did was to manipulate the situation, essentially trap them there, and ruin any chance for a relationship with his daughter after Betty escaped with her. I would feel no differently if Betty and Dr. Mahmoody had met, married, had Mahtob, and lived for the first four years of her life in Iran. In that case, Mahtob should have remained in Iran because that was established as her home. But in reality, all of that happened in the US.
Who packed what dresses is irrelevant to me. He held them there against their will. I do not know what went on in that house. Neither do you. Only the father and mother can really answer that (and Mahtob, for what she remembers) and they're telling different stories. However, for him to hold them there against their will when their life had been established in the US was an abuse of power and tends to make me believe Betty. The fact that he would manipulate the situation to control two other people is a hell of a lot more compelling evidence that a few dresses in the wrong size.
Yes, I'm aware Iran isn't a signatory. I only brought up the Hague Convention's existence after another poster kept spewing rampant misinformation, first setting the date of events a decade off then claiming anyone could just move to any country to get a better deal in court and claiming there was no international law in existence. But that's kind of irrelevant here.
I can understand Dr. Mahmoody wanting to move to Iran. I can. However, he made the choice to make a life for himself in the US, to marry an American woman, to have a daughter with her and to raise her for the first four years of her life in the US. The daughter and wife had never been to Iran. For him to then trap them there (by saying the daughter could not leave and knowing his wife would not leave without her daughter), he chose to manipulate the situation in his favor and that was an act of abuse.
He could have stayed in Michigan, divorced there, been fully involved in his daughter's life through shared custody or visitation and visited with family in Iran at length. Or he could have lived in Iran and come back to the US to visit with his daughter. What he did was to manipulate the situation, essentially trap them there, and ruin any chance for a relationship with his daughter after Betty escaped with her. I would feel no differently if Betty and Dr. Mahmoody had met, married, had Mahtob, and lived for the first four years of her life in Iran. In that case, Mahtob should have remained in Iran because that was established as her home. But in reality, all of that happened in the US.
Who packed what dresses is irrelevant to me. He held them there against their will. I do not know what went on in that house. Neither do you. Only the father and mother can really answer that (and Mahtob, for what she remembers) and they're telling different stories. However, for him to hold them there against their will when their life had been established in the US was an abuse of power and tends to make me believe Betty. The fact that he would manipulate the situation to control two other people is a hell of a lot more compelling evidence that a few dresses in the wrong size.
I can see your argument and agree with it with one caveat, which is the largest point of contention in their respective stories. How long were they planning to stay in Iran?
Betty states that it was a 2-week vacation.
Mahmoody states that it was an indefinite trip since his intention was to work as a doctor to help the Iranians in their war effort, but they were not planning on staying permanently.
Which version of that you accept frames the rest of the discussion. If Betty's version is correct than Mahmoody is wrong for forcing them to stay in Iran once the 2-weeks had gone by and they wanted to leave. If Mahmoody's version is correct, then it becomes more complex. If Betty went under the agreement that it would be an indefinite stay and she changed her mind, the marriage soured and wanted to leave, then Mahmoody is not necessarily wrong for wanting to keep his daughter with him knowing that legally he wouldn't have any rights if she was back in the U.S.
Forgot to add that the Taylor Swift tickets were bought early on when daughter started dating Indo guy, but they were NOT given to her! He has them, so technically, she did not receive an expensive gift from him.
I found that out yesterday from her. She also said that she does not understand why people end relationships and become enemies. All of her little boyfriends went their way after she either broke off, or they came to a mutual agreement, and they remained friends...except for the one that was a friend for a year and they tried to be more for a short period. He will not speak to her again. To her, that is childish and such a loss.
She told Indo guy that she has started viewing him as a friend. He has not started viewing HER as a friend though, so we will see how that plays out. I had a non-threatening chat with her yesterday about the situation and told her my concerns. I asked her to please keep in mind what I was sharing, and to remember how desperate and controlling he became when they separated for the break. She said that she would. I don't want to demand she totally cuts ties even though that's in my head, because I feel that would only drive her away and more toward him.
I also brought up the cultural differences in dating (thanks to the poster who mentioned this perspective), and she listened. She sees him as Americanized but I had to explain that back in Indonesia he's an Indonesian, and still practices his Hindus beliefs based on the pics he sent her with his family attending a pilgrimage somewhere. In other words, he might be eating burgers and fries here, partying like American kids, and using American slangs, but inside he is Indonesian, and he is dating like one. His expectations are different based on his customs and what he's learned from his country. I also explained maybe that is why he is so intense and only wants to see her, and not have her go out with other males; that this is probably not acceptable (to have male friends) and date another guy. So she has a lot to think about.
But she did say that she feels uncomfortable talking about him because she knows I don't like him now! Oh well. I did beg her to understand that I am her mother, concerned for her well being, but I know that the final decision is going to be hers. Just begged that she look for control signs, and not accept gifts UNLESS she is going into this with the same feelings.
I then told her she should offer to buy the TS ticket for the concert if they are going to remain "platonic", or turn down the offer to attend in September. Again, if she decides to date him and be his gf, then I will have no recourse but to sit back and look on hoping that I am wrong about all of this.
I can see your argument and agree with it with one caveat, which is the largest point of contention in their respective stories. How long were they planning to stay in Iran?
Betty states that it was a 2-week vacation.
Mahmoody states that it was an indefinite trip since his intention was to work as a doctor to help the Iranians in their war effort, but they were not planning on staying permanently.
Which version of that you accept frames the rest of the discussion. If Betty's version is correct than Mahmoody is wrong for forcing them to stay in Iran once the 2-weeks had gone by and they wanted to leave. If Mahmoody's version is correct, then it becomes more complex. If Betty went under the agreement that it would be an indefinite stay and she changed her mind, the marriage soured and wanted to leave, then Mahmoody is not necessarily wrong for wanting to keep his daughter with him knowing that legally he wouldn't have any rights if she was back in the U.S.
Though you guys have gone off topic, I have been reading the commentaries back and forth. I have a friend who is married to an Asian guy, and while they were dating, everything was fine. They got married, and life was bliss. Then they had a baby recently (2 yr old now), and that's when things changed. She is a teacher and he works, and he actually told her it might not be a good idea to send the baby back to the Phillipines with his parents since they're both working! Apparently in the Phillipines, it's not unusual for an entire community to raise your child, but to my American friend (much younger than I), she was shocked. The idea that her baby could be taken away and raised by her in-laws terrified her. Of course he's not going to do this, but only suggested it. To him, it is a good idea. The other thing that is weird is that she has been nursing her baby for almost 2 years, and has been lying about not having a period yet because he has talked about starting on baby #2, and she is not ready.
The cultural differences between them are so stark now. He had lived in America for about 4 years before they met, is now a citizen, but his views and ideas on raising their child is so different.
He also wants to bring the parents to live in America eventually and has told her he will add on to their home so they can live downstairs in a basement apartment Another thing that shocked her. Fun times.
In regular same culture marriages, there are problems, but I feel that there needs to be a lot more communicating in cross cultural marriages BEFORE they commit i.e. what happens if we break up? How will we share custody? Where will our child/children live? It's hard enough with a regular divorce, but dealing with another culture/country is a whole 'nother ball game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently in the Phillipines, it's not unusual for an entire community to raise your child, but to my American friend (much younger than I), she was shocked. The idea that her baby could be taken away and raised by her in-laws terrified her. Of course he's not going to do this, but only suggested it. To him, it is a good idea. The other thing that is weird is that she has been nursing her baby for almost 2 years, and has been lying about not having a period yet because he has talked about starting on baby #2, and she is not ready. 
