II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following

Викладач

факультету лінгвістики і перекладу Леонтьєв О. М.

1. Children 'Must Have Say in Custody Orders'

Paul Melia

Parents who secure custody orders for their children may find they will not be recognized in another EU country unless the child is allowed to give their views prior to the order be­ing made.

A conference organized by the Family Lawyers Associa­tion heard on Saturday that court orders relating to where a minor lived, or how the order was maintained, would need the consent of the child — otherwise European courts could refuse to enforce it.

One possible scenario is where the mother has custody but the father— who lives in another EU country— is allowed four weeks' continuous access per summer. The child travels to see the father, who decides he wants the child to remain on past the four-week period the Irish court stipulates. Unless the child has been involved at the drafting of the custody or­der stage, the foreign court might not recognize it and could not compel the father to send the child home.

Unless guidelines on how children should contribute to the process are put in place, a parent who allows their child to visit a former spouse living in another EU country could find custody orders are meaningless.

There're all sorts of implications as to how you allow the child to be heard,' Dervla Browne, Chair of the association, said. 'This is something we have to address because there is the possibility a court shall not recognize the order unless the child has been consulted.'

Irish courts currently allow children to contribute to the process via an interview with a psychiatrist or social worker. — Irish Independent

I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:

Custody orders are accepted in EU countries without the consent of a child.

Family Lawyers Associa­tion conference heard the issue of court orders.

A former spouse considers custody orders are meaningless without certain regulations on how children should contribute to the process of their issuing.

II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following

At present Irish courts let children affect custody orders issuing.

If the child has not participated in custody order preparation the foreign court may not force the spouse to return the child.

III. Please explain in English the following terms.

custody order

enforce

stipulate

draft

IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of the problem of custody orders in EU.

2. Joan Collins Has Starring Role in Lawsuit

Reuter and Associated Press NEW YORK

British actress Joan Collins made her debut Tuesday in a New York courtroom, battling publishing giant Random House over a multimillion-dollar book contract. Random House is suing Collins, demanding the return of a $1, 2 million advance paid to her for manuscripts it claims were unfinished and unpublishable Collins, best known for playing the scheming Alexis Carrington in the television series Dynasty, has сountersued for $3.6 million she claims the publishing house still owes her.

Collins said she "felt completely shattered and let down" by the lawsuit- ‘It has seriously upset my writing career and my reputation,’ she said. The dispute centered on a simple question: what is a completed manuscript? Delivering the opening argument for Random House, attorney Robert Callagy said Collins had not met the terms of her contract and had to return the advance money. ‘Miss Collins should be treated like any other person,’ Callagy said. ‘If you sign the contract, you must perform ’.

Former Random House editor Joni Evans testified that in 1991, when she first read Collins' manuscript, she felt 'alarmed'. ‘It just wasn't working in any shape or form’ said Evans, now a literary agent ‘It was no good- It wasn't grounded in reality. It was dull, primitive and rough. It was cliched in plot’.

Collins attorney, Kenneth David Burrows, argued that the actress had submitted two complete manuscripts, A Ruling Passion, written in 1991 at her home in Trance, and a second manuscript with the working title Hell Hath No Fury. Thus she had turned in the required number of words and therefore had complied with the contract. He also said Random House should have provided her with editing and advice but instead it was trying to avoid meeting its obligations. He argued earlier that under the 1990 book deal she was guaranteed the money even if the publisher rejected the book.

Verdict. The jury decided that Collins had completed one manuscript in compliance with her contract. But Random House did not have to pay her for the second manuscript because it was merely a rehashing of the first one and not a separate piece of work. The verdict meant Collins could keep the advance and collect more from Random House, though how much more remained in dispute.

I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:

Random House demands the return of the advance payment from British actress Joan Collins.

Joan Collins agrees to pay the advance back.

The attorney of Random House said Collins had not performed the contract.

The publishing house provided the actress with all the necessary things.

II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following

Joan Collins felt unwell by the litigation.

The former Random House editor criticized Collin’s manuscript.

The jury attained a compromise verdict.

III. Please explain in English the following terms.

sue

terms of contract

manuscript

jury

verdict

IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of the nature of the suit against Joan Collins

3. Scales of justice out of balance

By Grant B. Brown, guest Columnist, June 4, 2007

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in Doe v. Alberta, has called into question decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on the obligations of a common-law partner to the children of that partner. It has also set the stage for what hopefully will be an eventual SCC ruling clarifying exactly who owes what to whom in common law relationships.

The way it stands now, women acquire rights, while men -- even if their female partners want them free of them -- acquire obligations.

John and Jane Doe -- obviously not their real names -- are common-law partners. Jane wanted a child, but John didn't. Nor did he wish to stand in the place of a parent, act as a guardian, or support a child. Jane was artificially impregnated and gave birth. John and Jane want to enter into an express written agreement which would stipulate that John has neither parental rights nor any obligations towards Jane's child. They sought a declaration of the validity of their agreement, despite the Family Law Act which gives final authority over the issues of parental rights and responsibilities to the Courts.

The courts, so far, have rejected their request. The Alberta Court of Appeal (ACA) stated: "...The "settled intention" to remain in a close, albeit unmarried, relationship thrust John Doe, from a practical and realistic point of view, into the role of parent to this child. Can it seriously be contended that he will ignore the child when it cries? When it needs to be fed? Were it otherwise, one can only imagine the emotional damage visited upon the child..."

Suppose John Doe were a favoured uncle who lived in the same home as the mother of a newborn. Or suppose he were a renter, or a live-in nanny. In any of those cases, surely, he would have all the same duties of care for infants in distress that members of society at large have. And nothing more.

Furthermore, in that case, rather than John owing support obligations to the child, Jane might well owe John remuneration for his day-care services. Why, on the mere basis that John and Jane share a bed, is the flow of entitlement to financial support reversed by the ACA?

This reasoning has been endorsed by no less an authority than the Supreme Court. In Peter v. Beblow, a woman sought compensation from her common-law partner for domestic services rendered to him and his two children. Although Mr. Beblow provided free room and board for Ms. Peter and her own four children, the SCC determined Peter was entitled to additional compensation.

The state of the law in Alberta today is that, when a man lives in a relationship of some permanence with the mother of a biologically unrelated child, he acquires support obligations toward that child; but when a woman lives in a relationship of some permanence with the father of a biologically unrelated child, she acquires rights to his property.

The ACA's decision at least has the virtue of being consistent with a long string of family-law cases in Canada which interpret the supposed "mutuality of rights and obligations" arising from these relationships so as to presumptively assign all of the rights to the mothers and all of the obligations to the fathers. One can only hope the Supreme Court will settle this imbalance.

Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.

I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:

1. The Family Law Act transfers the power over the issues of parental duties to courts.

2. In common law relationships men do not obtain rights.

3. The Supreme Court of Canada determined Peter had the right to reimbursement.

II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following

1. The ACA has permanently made an award in favour of women, asserting imbalance in common law relationships.

2. The conclusion has been approved by the SCC authority.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16