CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY - Assignment Example For improvement of poise, one must have parental connection and is influenced by the child rearing methodologies and management utilized to bring a person. Connection that helps in restraint is with the family. One needs to shape convictions in law and family connection, responsibility with accepted practices and organizations and contribution in social exercises (Bouffard and Rice, 2011). As indicated by Social control hypothesis/social holding hypothesis, with the assistance of wrongdoing, we can fulfill our needs faster when contrasted with traditional conduct. For controlling reprobate conduct, we should have social bond that is made by â€Å"emotional connection to guardians, peers and customary establishments, for example, the school; duty to long haul instructive, word related, or other regular objectives; contribution in ordinary exercises, for example, work, schoolwork and side interests, and faith in the ethical legitimacy of law† (Costello and Vowell, 1999, p. 817) Social learning hypothesis can be characterized as a hypothesis as indicated by which, an individual learns through perception or direct preparing. At the point when an individual learns progressively positive meanings of criminal conduct and more positive meanings of wrongdoing, he will portray criminal conduct. Since as indicated by his cognizance and comprehension, wrongdoing is certain. Those having reprobate companions themselves show wrongdoing (Costello and Vowell, 1999). Youngsters will in general seem reprobate dependent on impersonation, learning constructive or pessimistic meanings of law disregarding conduct and the information about remunerations and disciplines connected to overstepping of law (Neff and Waite, 2007). Agnew’s general strain hypothesis expresses that any sort of strain can bring about discouraging feelings that can prompt outcomes including wrongdoing. Strains are there due to powerlessness to achieve esteemed targets, for example, financial achievement, instructive

Happiness Levels and Income Levels Free Essays

Ariella Dayan (326883881) Quantitative Research Methods-Shani Greenspan November 25, 2012 The Correlation of Income Level and Happiness Level This examination will explore the connection among pay and joy. A well known inquiry in today’s society is whether cash can purchase joy. Bliss has been demonstrated to be identified with numerous things. We will compose a custom paper test on Joy Levels and Income Levels or on the other hand any comparable point just for you Request Now It is seen as identified with social class, achievement, influence, wellbeing, esteemed effects, strict convictions, friendship, being utilized in a protected activity, having a full public activity, and pretty much amassing of cash. Research shows that cash doesn't accepting satisfaction yet it comes by implication from the higher position in the public eye that cash brings. â€Å"The rank-salary hypothesis† was tried and discovered that the positioned position of an individual’s pay predicts general life fulfillment. When somebody has a lot of cash they may turn out to be a piece of an alternate social gathering which brings more certainty and fulfillment. A persons’ fulfillment and confidence will increment if his social status increments or if the individuals who once had a similar social status him diminishes. Individuals normally feel much improved and more fulfilled on the off chance that they are superior to other people. (Boyce, C. et al. 2010) People commit such a great amount of vitality in attempting to get more cash-flow, while having more cash doesn't make them that a lot more joyful. Individuals might be content with their present degree of riches and quit attempting to collect more notwithstanding the urge people need to contrast themselves as well as other people inside and out: engaging quality, insight, tallness, weight, and urgently, monetary achievement. The essayist H. L. Mencken stated, â€Å"A well off man is one who wins $100 every year more than his wife’s sister’s spouse. This dissatisfaction of seeing somebody â€Å"better† than you turns into a tremendous spark with regards to getting more cash. Individuals are exceptionally worried about the wonder of â€Å"Keeping up with the Joneses. † Hollywood made a film about a rich and attractive American family and the influences they have on the individuals living in their neighborhood. The film presents us with â€Å"conspicuous consumption† and contrasting each other’s costly belongings and social status. Individuals will consistently to attempt to push forward of whatever number of their companions as could be allowed all together to† improve† themselves. Individuals attempt to improve their social chain of importance by causing superfluous interests so as to fulfill their distraction with their relative social standing which the financial class isn’t Ariella Dayan (326883881) Quantitative Research Methods-Shani Greenspan November 25, 2012 ready to do, in spite of the fact that we can see this type of intensity in the financial class also. An ongoing report shows that a gathering of individuals in the US who are generally restricted to an expansion in the lowest pay permitted by law are the individuals who make simply over the lowest pay permitted by law. Supposing that the lowest pay permitted by law builds, these individuals will presently be in â€Å"last place†, alongside all the individuals whom they used to feel better than. (Norton, M. 2012) Another motivation behind why cash meant satisfaction regularly is on the grounds that cash has a property that numerous different things that issue in life don't. Cash is something that can be checked. At the point when individuals ponder whether they are in an ideal situation this year than last, they can't generally offer a precise response. An individual can't state that their life is 32 percent progressively important. This isn't an estimation we are acclimated with making. Compensation, then again, is quantifiable. On the off chance that an individual is improving a compensation they will feel that they are improving in their life. This additionally may clarify why individuals are continually purchasing bigger houses and bigger TVs. As individuals become more extravagant, they rapidly become used to greater houses, flashier vehicles, and fashioner articles of clothing, however their assets don’t really make them a lot more joyful. (Norton, M. 2012) Studies show that even lottery victors, after an underlying time of alteration, don’t become a lot more joyful. The explanation behind this is on the grounds that the quicker individuals attempt to excel, the faster they end up back where they began. Another examination directed in the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, requested that individuals foresee how cheerful they would be if their yearly salary was somewhere in the range of $5000 up to $1 million. After this, the individuals were asked how much cash they truly earned and how cheerful they were with their lives. It was discovered that individuals for the most part overestimated the effect of cash on bliss. The individuals who earned $25,000 a year anticipated that their satisfaction would twofold on the off chance that they made $55,000. In any case, when we estimated the joy of individuals at these two degrees of pay by having them rate their fulfillment with life on a cale from 1 to 10, it was discovered that the wealthier gathering was just 9 percent more joyful. Then again, individuals who bring in next to no cash do turn out to be fundamentally more joyful when they gain more. Yet, a huge study of individuals in the US indicated that the effect of extra pay on satisfaction Ariella Dayan (326883881) Quantitative Research Methods-Shani Greenspan November 25, 2012 will in general blur around a yearly compensation of $75,000. There is no information proposing that getting more cash makes individuals less glad however it stops making them a lot more joyful. (Cassidy, J. 008) What individuals can do so as to pick up satisfaction in a superior way is by accomplishing something uncommon with it or â€Å"giving it away†. Things being what they are, burning through cash on yourself doesn't make you any more joyful, however spending on others does. Giving to good cause or purchasing espresso for a companion is a productive method of transforming money into satisfaction. (Cassidy, J. 2008) An overall study was made in 2006 by Gallup. He requested that individuals envision themselves on a stepping stool with steps numbered from zero to 10, with the base of the stepping stool speaking to â€Å"the most noticeably terrible conceivable life f or you† and the top speaking to â€Å"the most ideal life for you. The respondents were then approached to state which step they were remaining on. In the event that you train individuals to consider the most ideal and most noticeably awful potential lives they could be living, you are without a doubt welcoming them to contrast their expectations for everyday comforts and those of individuals somewhere else. This methodological characteristic alone could without much of a stretch clarify why inhabitants of poor nations report low scores and occupants of rich nations report high ones, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with lucrative individuals more joyful. ( Buchanan, M. 2009) The end is that bliss and cash do connect however just to a limited degree. Individuals are increasingly worried about their social class, â€Å"getting ahead† and where cash can get them in life than the genuine measure of cash. This point should keep on being looked into so as to discover if in today age an individual can really be content with what the person has without contrasting themselves with their companions and environmental factors. Ariella Dayan (326883881) Quantitative Research Methods-Shani Greenspan November 25, 2012 References Boyce, C. Christopher J. 1 Brown, Gordon D. A. 2 Moore, Simon C. (2010). Cash and Happiness: Rank of Income, Not Income, Affects Life Satisfaction. Mental Science, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p471-475, 5p http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc. air conditioning. il/ehost/detail? sid=daeaee80-c08b-433b-84c3-094cde8b9e7c%40sessionmgr10;vid=1;hid=13;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h;AN=62587809 Norton, M. I. (2012). The more cash, the merrier? New Scientist, 215, 40-41. http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc. air conditioning. il/ehost/detail? sid=86a4832c-2e11-4055-a8c7-ba24949afac4%40sessionmgr11;vid=1;hid=13;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h;AN=78189804 Cassidy,J. 2008) Happinness is†¦. Conde Nast Portfolio; Vol. 2 Issue 7, p36-36, 1p http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc. air conditioning. il/ehost/detail? sid=ab06d568-bb15-434e-b357-a6330d98f4a5%40sessionmgr4;vid=1;hid=13;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth;AN=38013329 Buchanan, M. (2009) Money in Mind. New Scientist Vol. 201 p26-30, 5p http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc. air conditioning. il/ehost/detail? sid=81a76105-8 2e3-428d-8827-47f8203d01bc%40sessionmgr111;vid=1;hid=126;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h;AN=37249111 The most effective method to refer to Happiness Levels and Income Levels, Essay models

International Visitation Between Arizona (United States) and Mexico - Our Sample Paper

International Visitation Between Arizona (United States) and Mexico - Our Sample Paper International Visitation Between Arizona (United States) and Mexico Our Sample Paper Introduction I. Historical and Legal Background A. Hague convention B. Background problems and how to fix them. II. Visitation A. Visitation Resources B. What Happens when parenting plan is not followed C. Enforcement: Mexico Vs. United States III. Border Exchange Procedures A. Facilities at the border to facilitate exchanges B. What do other Countries do? IV. Proposed Solutions A. Pros B. Cons C. Empowering judges to have confidence in their authority V. Conclusion Abstract The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in collaboration with the ICARA, are the two most significant regulations supporting international visitation, specifically between U.S. and Mexico. The main goal of the Hague Convention is to deter the international abduction of children by establishing a shared acknowledgement of custody rights between two nation states. Through interviews with experienced immigration law attorneys the report finds that there needs to be a better understanding of what will be done if someone doesnt follow an order, such as how would Hague protect the other parent if someone breaks the orders.   It is also very important to expand the reach and effectiveness of The Hague Convention. This can only be done through more countries implementing the legislation. In addition, judges need to take more responsibility in executing rule of law in regards to the Hague Convention. Interview data demonstrates that it is a popular consensus amo ng immigration attorneys, that U.S. judges avoid issuing decrees for lack of faith in their ability to be enforced beyond the borders of Mexico. Likewise, Mexican courts and citizens lack the proper understanding of the U.S. court system or the resources provided to them by the Hague convention, such as the right to free legal representation. I. Historical and Legal Background: A. Hague Convention The General Structure of ICARA The Hague Convention The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a universal regulation designed to supplement the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from their habitual or legal residence.1 Regulations mandated by The Convention are applicable within all states that contract the laws and courts consider only whether the child was wrongfully removed and no custody claims are taken into account. The Hague convention was adopted in the U.S. by legislation known as ICARA, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1988. The main goal of the Hague Convention is to deter the international abduction of children by establishing a shared acknowledgement of custody rights between two nation states. In a case where a child is removed from their country of residence by one parent in violation of the custody rights of the other parent, through The Hague Convention the legal guardian can file a petition for the child’s return. The convention is only applicable to those nations that incorporate the legislation in their national policy.  Across international lines the Hague Convention has many regulations and procedures that are used to regulate specific instances of child abduction that can possibly arise from international visitation. One core procedure in cases of child abduction or stealing as a result of a visitation is for the court to establish the child’s habitual residence. Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the case People v. Beach set precedent for identifying the threat of child abduction as a form of parental abuse.” Case reports note that, “once the child’s habitual residence is determined, courts will not automatically mandate a case to be heard in that country. Courts examine whether or not a child was wrongfully abducted under the Convention. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the judicial authority may refuse to return the child under cer tain circumstances.” These circumstances are the key tenants that warrant whether the court even deems itself empowered with the authority to interfere in a custody issue across borders. In fact, custody rights, as in most cases between estranged parents or divorced parents are the only credible factor in cases like these. In fact, custody rights, as in most cases between estranged parents or divorced parents are the only source of authority over the life of the and care of the child. Case data notes that, the Convention does not make it an obligation for a child to be returned unless there is a violation of custody rights. This means in cases where there hasn’t been a wrongful removal or retention of a child, “there is no jurisdiction for a federal court to enforce the rights of a non-custodial parent under the Convention. A parent’s contentions are not enough to constitute a violation of custody rights (wrongful retention not demonstrated).” There must be some jurisdiction for a Federal court t o enforce, before getting involved with the care of the child. This in part demonstrates why many international visitation cases that result in a child snatching or a child abduction are so complex to litigate, especially when they are across borderlines. B. Background problems and how to fix them. Domestic Violence There are a few court cases where judges deem it unwise to return a child due to a threat of potential abuse to the child or caregiver. In these particular cases the threat of domestic violence plays a major role in deciding the habitual residence. The Hague Convention Article  permits the Department of State, to act as a “Central Authority,” to perform duties needed to identify the gravity of risk related to a child’s return. In addition the Hague Convention also establishes a set of safeguards for respondents to orders issued requesting a child’s return be denied or enforced to the full extent of the law. For example, in an instance of prima facie, where the petitioning parent has made a case that provides enough evidence to go to judgment, if the arguments of the case are not contested by the petitioned parent, then the Convention mandates the child must be promptly returned to the habitual residence. Case law established in Croll v. Croll allowed for vindication of breac h of access rights. An amendment to the convention in Article 21 provides that a parent who holds only access rights can file a petition with the Central Authority of the State to provide services which will secure the exercise of rights of access. Wrongful Removal As Sue T. Bench notes, “more than two hundred children are kidnapped each day in the United States, not by the stereotypical evil-doer offering candy, but by one of the child’s parents. These kidnapped children are the innocent victims.”  The Hague Convention provides a remedy for returning children, but the petitioner must prove that the child was wrongfully taken from the state or region in which they are a habitual resident, and that the petitioner’s custody rights were violated in their removal. In regards to the issue of child snatching and parental child abduction cases, it is noted that they are a growing national epidemic. This is due to the fact that there are reportedly over 200 cases that occur daily in the U.S. In the Court Sponsored Custody Mediation to Prevent Parental Kidnapping: A disarmament Proposal, authors note that a large majority of these cases stem from conflicts that arise in international visitation situations. The report defines parental kidnapping, as the stealing, abduction or concealment of a child without the parent acknowledged consent of the other parent. Despite the large number of abductions across international borders of children by their parents, a legal guardian can petition for their child’s return under the Hague Convention, but courts will not mandate a child be returned if the abductor can justify his actions. Under Article of the Convention, the child does not have to be returned to the country of habitual residence if there is reason to believe they would be in risk of psychological or physical harm or that returning the child would place them in an intolerable situation.” “Penal Code section, subdivision (a) in pertinent part, provided: Every person who in violation of a custody decree takes, retains after the expiration of a visitation period, or conceals the child from his legal custodian is guilty of child stealing.” The aspect of child stealing and wrongful removal brings up many complicated iss ues that must be assessed. This is especially true in regards to habitual residence. “Suppose, for example, that a child has lived for 15 years in a new country after a wrongful removal. It would be an abuse of ordinary language to say that the child had been habitually resident for all of that time in the country from which he or she had been removed and had not become habitually resident in the new country.” Attorneys have reported cases in which parents absconded. One case in particular occurred, when parents living in Mexico brought their daughter to Tucson for urgent medical care on two occasions. On the second occasion, CPS was contacted because there appeared to be the possibility of abuse.” In an interview with Lic. Ricardo Gallego, the Mexico Legal Representative Inter-Governmental Liaison International Child Foundation, when asked whether there are resources to help facilitate exchanges at the border Gallego noted that, “it depends on each state either from the U.S. side and for the Mexican side, for example, Sonora-Arizona have some agreements on issues for child support. Other than that both countries needs to follow up with international treaty. ” Gallego further notes that officers at the border, who are familiar with international treaty policy, sometimes assist with enabling exchanges. An example Gallego uses is when temporary visas or permits are issued for medical purposes. Gallego does mention that these same procedures apply in cases of child abduction noting that, “it is the same in cases of child abduction: U.S. customs and Mexican customs takes note from the relatives that goes to their offices requesting for help.” CPS took over custody of both children. The father’s visa expired and he had no choice but to return to Mexico. This put the man in a situation where he was unable to see his children for the next nine months. The case goes on to note that, “the mother was able to obtain a temporary visa and was complying with the case plan. According to this attorney, she was about three weeks away from regaining custody of the children when she had the children for a weekend visit and fled. He explained, “She ran for the border and [we] never heard from her again. I can’t really say I blame them.” This demonstrates just one of the many complications that can occur due to internationals politics. These are just some of the minor instances mentioned y attorneys. One judge mentioned a case in which fear actually got in the way of reunification, as the parent was in fear of getting deported. The judge details an instance where the intensity of fear prevented reunification from occurring. In t his case, a mother was deported and her infant child was left with her sister, who was undocumented. The father, also undocumented, lived in Texas. CPS arranged for a site visit of the father’s home and approved it.” Habitual Residence The court must determine a child’s habitual residence in order to establish whether or not a child was wrongfully removed. There is no specific definition of habitual residence identified by The Hague Convention of the ICARA. The term is actually interpreted by the court judge case by case based on its literal meaning in relation to case circumstances. In determining habitual residence, it is standard that courts all follow the belief that an individual is limited to one habitual residence and when a child is born in a particular country, that country is considered to be their country of habitual residence but not necessarily or automatically recognized as the habitual residence of the child. In cases where the petitioner permanently relocates to the country of the abductor, the court does not provide any form of remedy relief and the petition is voided. It is also a standard practice for courts to focus on the intent of the parents in an attempt to identify what’s known as their ‘settled purpose.’ Acquiescence or Petitioner Consent When the lawful guardian of a child petitions under the Hague Convention to have their child returned from a parent who has wrongfully removed them from their habitual residence, the ICARA allows the respondent to challenge the petition if they can prove the petitioner directly or indirectly consented in the retention or removal of the child. In Gonzalez-Caballero v. Mena, the appellate court found that the petitioning mother consented to removal and trial court did not err by not addressing the petitioner’s argument that she did not subsequently acquiesce or that she revoked her consent after removal occurred. II. Visitation A. Visitation Resources The Hague Convention refers to visitation rights as “Rights to Access,” and it makes a distinction between rights of custody and rights to access children. Convention, Art., states “only a parent with rights of custody may petition a court for an order of return.”U.S. Courts take the position that parents who have established visitation rights are not automatically entitled to custodial rights, and therefore are not provided the authority to petition for return under the Hague Convention. The Convention also establishes the rights and procedures for the timely return of children as well as mapping out the rights of visitation. Children who are wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention are to be promptly returned unless one of the narrow exceptions set forth in the Convention applies. The Convention provides a sound treaty framework to help resolve the problem of international abduction and retention of children and will deter such wrongful removals a nd retentions. Article 25 of the convention provides that legal aid can be allocated as well as advice to foreign applicants. For this aid to be provided to foreign applicants, they must meet the same eligibility requirements as the nationals in which the convention’s resources were sought. Furthermore, Article 26 of the convention actually prevents Central Authorities from charging applicants any fees or expenses associated with any advising or legal counsel. B. What Happens When Parenting Plan is not Followed When asked what happens when one family does not follow the custody agreement, Ricardo Gallego, the Mexico Legal Representative Inter-Governmental Liaison International Child Foundation noted that, “legally in both countries, the only one that can force a violation to any legal agreement is the judge that issues the first order or that know the case. An example he uses is a case where a couple gets divorced in Mexico and one of the members move to the U.S. but does not keep up with child support. He notes that when the divorced partner chooses to no longer comply with child support, the Judge that handled the divorce proceedings is the same one who will issue an order to the parent that they need to abide by the decree of the court. This decree issued by the judge in Mexico must be honored and respected in the U.S. and the same applies is the situations are reversed. On the matter on the matter of the decree of a U.S. judge sustaining its authority across the border into Mexico, R icardo notes that, to have a U.S. decree be valid in Mexico, you need to do a process in a Mexican court that we call, “Homologation.” It is kind of an approval process, where the Mexican judge will issue an order to force the U.S. decree in Mexico and try to notify or issue a summons to the counter party of the divorce…Ricardo goes on to point out that there is an International Treaty that rules over this entire process. C. Enforcement: Mexico Vs. United States Getting a court order for visitation across the border, when one parent is unable to cross the border can be very complicated. CPS Case workers play a significant role in directing the end result of cases. This is due to the fact that they are the ones who make the initial decisions about reunifications and placements, as well as future severance proceedings. Due to this fact, there is substantial variance in regards to reports that are filed and how procedures are handled in dealing with those filed reports. Interview with Heather Garcia, Legal assistant for John J. Assini, April. 08, 2013 “ In Mexico you can register a US decree or order.   It is not easy though as I said.   I would assume in the US you can register a Mexico Decree, but they are very different laws and so Im unsure how the US would enforce anything really.   Mexico takes a different stance on custody and parental contact, it favors the mother a lot more and the father may get some time but they are not generally seen as important.” Assini notes that he has never had to try out enforcing a visitation order because there are rarely any issues in Mexico that call for it. He goes on to note that, “in Mexico, the court would first making a finding that a person is not following the order and then order the police to enforce it by finding the parent/child and return to the other parent, etc.   That is what we were told at least, again we never had to find out how this would happen.” Of course domestic disputes is not the only area where border migration needs to be enforced, especially in regards to the border between Mexico and Arizona. According to the Governors Conference on Tourism in their Arizona Tourism 2001 report it’s noted that in 2011, over 13.4 million Mexican travelers made their way to America. This can be seen in the chart below: The study further notes that international visitation from Mexico makes up 67.1% of Arizona’s visitation, why only accounting for 21.5% of total U.S. international visitation. This means Arizona has had estimated 4.8 million overnight visitors compared to U.S. total 62.3 million overnight visitors in 2011. Heavy tourism numbers from Mexico to Arizona also creates the need for even stricter enforcement of the borders and illegal immigration which carries over to reunification cases with parents and their displaced children.  In an interview of a select group of attorneys who had dealt CPS case workers. It was found that many of them are reluctant to undertake reunification efforts in cases where a parent is in risk of deportation, or already has been deported. The study notes that “many commented on the tendency to write off parents who are facing deportation. This could be attributed to several factors. First, the high turnover of CPS workers makes it difficult for them to adequately to understand how to work with the equivalent of CPS in Mexico, DIF (“Desarrollo Integral de la Familia”), to coordinate reunification services in Mexico.” The authors go on to further point out that Even if DIF is involved, CPS workers and the Mexican Agency to not have a cooperative relationship with one another. This is mainly due to the fact that CPS does not trust the DIF to provide service at a standard level of excellence that can be compared to the services of this country. CPS worker reluctance is also credited to the significant amount of cases they have to work through verses their actually amount of available resources which is slim to none could also be attributed to their high caseload and lack of resources.”Language and culture barriers also play a key role in shaping CPS workers’ relationships with immigrant families. Several participants lamented the dearth of Spanish-speakers in the child welfare system. One attorney said it was a “giant problem” that Mexican parents “simply cannot communicate with their case worker because their case worker does not speak Spanish.” This demonstrates how language barriers create a significant gap for enforcement. Border Exchange Procedures D. Facilities at the border to facilitate exchanges Actual facilities at the border designed to assist with exchanges can vary depending on which side of the border is being assessed. Gallego notes that the reason it depends on each state either from the U.S. side or from the Mexican side can be seen with the example of Sonora-Arizona which already has established some agreements on issues for child support. Other than that, both countries need to follow up with international treaty. Most of the customs officers at the border sometimes help to facilitate exchanges. For example for medical purposes, they will issue a parole visa, or some form of permit. The border patrol will also document cases or accusations of child abductions. To give to relatives that visit their offices in search of their missing children. In regards to instances where parties are unable to cross the border and make the exchange, due to one parent being incapacitated for whatever reason Gallego noted that when this happens, “they are stuck in the U.S.! I have s een this happening a lot! At this time at my Mexican law office in Nogales, Mexico, we are trying to help all these people that cannot cross to Mexico or vice versa, to fix any kind of legal situation that they may need to fix.” These services provided in Arizona represent some of the most beneficial faculties provided at the border. There are numerous cases of people needing medical assistance, law enforcement, or law representation services. A real look at the facilities that are offered at the Arizona border for visitation and how they work in action under pressure can truly be seen with case law examples. In an interview with Heather Garcia, the legal assistant for John J. Assini, she elaborated on a detailed case that involved visitation issues between Mexico and the U.S. Her observations reveal many of the complicated factors that are confronted within enforcing the Hague Convention. She notes that in 2006 she was asked by a friend of  Marias to take a case where the attorne y that was hired was not experienced enough due to the complexity border exchanges and the numerous other problematic factors that stem from international visitation procedures and navigating the court process.  The core issue of the case revolved around Maria, who had an improper visa. She lived in Ciudad Obregon, Sonora, Mexico, about 8 hours from Nogales, and due to immigration issues is unable to come into the US.   Her husband had failed to follow through with getting Maria proper visas to live in the US when married and Maria was caught living in the US on an improper visa. In an attempt to get around the conflict with the visa, her husband paid a polero (aka coyote) to help her cross, but Maria did not make it because she was pregnant and began experiencing problems which landed her in the hospital.   Garcia notes that, “her husband was refusing to bring Maria their daughter to at least visit her.   The stress was causing health issues for Maria during the pregnancy and Maria had to limit the contact she had with her husband due to the effect it had on her.   Eventually her husband filed dissolution in Tucson citing that Maria had abandoned them.   He did not however serve proper notice on Maria and so even though he obtained a custody order and banned Maria from seeing their daughter, the decree was set aside entirely except the parties remained divorced. Her husband had also failed to list the second child common to the parties.   It didnt appear to be too complicated to at least get visitation for our client of the first child and establish paternity of the second child. Eventually it turned out to be much more than that, it became 7+ year immigration/international custody and visitation/dependency/child support case that we never could have imagined.   In regards to the main issues of the case, Garcia cited the main obstacle in the case as the media reputation of Mexico and the influence it had on the behavior of U.S. courts. Garcia noted that, “the stigma against Mexico due to widespread media coverage of drug cartel violence as well a misconception of corruption in Mexico.   Even though the Courts often deal with military families moving out of the US, and visitation and custody rights are established all the time, when it came to doing the same thing in Mexico the judges in this case were very timid to do anything.” She furt her notes that there were also issues of finding someone that could provide supervision of the exchanges and the visits.   Maria is unable to cross to the US, despite multiple efforts to obtain some sort of parole visa for the purpose, her issues with immigration prevented her from getting any type of visa.   Maria also did not want for the Ben to be involved in the visits because of the fear she had for him and his family.   For the visits someone would need to cross with the child and initially supervise the visit and bring the child back.   There was only one agency willing/able to do this, Little Tree Family Services, but had never actually done said type of service.  When asked what resources are available to families in similar situations, Garcia noted that unfortunately there have not been a lot of resources.   Primarily the resources we turned to were the Mexican Consulate in Tucson Protection area provided most resources or assistance by making arrangements with DIF (the Me xico version of CPS), the Consulate in Nogales providing transportation on occasions, assisting in registering/serving the US order for visitation in Mexico, arranging counseling services through DIF, etc. We also relied upon Little Tree for all arrangements of the visitations and the supervision during crossing the border.   Otherwise, there were no other resources available for us to utilize.   In some respect we had to make things up as we went. E. What do other Countries do? When asked what other countries do in similar situations most of the respondents noted that they were unfamiliar with how visitation conflicts were handled outside of the U.S. Garcia recognized it was such a problem to order visitation in Mexico because there was a overwhelming stigma that sending a child to Mexico was not seen as the same thing as sending a child to Germany or other countries.   The Convention is only applicable when both countries participate in it. Mexico participates in Hague Convention, but that too did not alleviate the judges initial hesitations.   This case also went through multiple judges before ever getting close to having visitation ordered.   After the initial judge there was a rotation in judge assignments and the case was with Judge Simmons who was essentially ready to order visitations to start, but then had to recues because Bens attorney at the time lied in court to her.   The case was then assigned to Judge Browning, but essentially we had to go ov er everything again because he was not convinced he had jurisdiction to order the visitation in Mexico.   However he eventually found he had the ability to do so and ordered visitation to occur. III. Proposed Solutions A. Proposed Solutions There needs to be a better understanding of what will be done if someone doesnt follow an order, such as how would Hague protect the other parent if someone breaks the orders.   How would the local officials react to the situation.   It is also very important to expand the reach and effectiveness of The Hague Convention. This can only be done through more countries implementing the legislation. In addition, judges need to take more responsibility in executing rule of law in regards to the Hague Convention. Interview data demonstrates that it is a popular consensus among immigration attorneys, that U.S. judges avoid issuing decrees for lack of faith in their ability to be enforced beyond the borders of Mexico. Likewise, Mexican courts and citizens lack the proper understanding of the U.S. court system or the resources provided to them by the Hague convention, such as the right to free legal representation. B. Empowering judges to have confidence in their authority   Conclusion The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in collaboration with the ICARA, are the two most significant regulations supporting international visitation, specifically between U.S. and Mexico. Visitation between Arizona and Mexico is no different. With the Hague Convention designed to supplement the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from their habitual or legal residence applicable across over 70 countries, the regulations in collaboration with International Treaties play a major role in retrieving children who have been abducted. Since the Convention is applicable within all states that contract the laws, it is essential to expand the reach and effectiveness of The Hague Convention that more countries implement the legislation a key component of their international policies. Likewise, judges need to take affirmative authority in executing rule of law in regards to the Hague Convention. Interview data demonstrates that it is a popular cons ensus among immigration attorneys, that U.S. judges avoid issuing decrees for lack of faith in their ability to be enforced beyond the borders of Mexico. Likewise, Mexican courts and citizens lack the proper understanding of the U.S. court system or the resources provided to them by the Hague convention, such as the right to free legal representation. Another negative aspect of the Hague Convention is that courts consider only whether the child was wrongfully removed and no custody claims are taken into account. This actually can lead to more complications across borders