DOCSLIB.ORG

The Parental Responsibility, Child Custody and Visitation Rights in Cross-Border Separations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Parental Responsibility, Child Custody and Visitation Rights in Cross-Border Separations DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS PETITIONS The parental responsibility, child custody and visitation rights in cross-border separations STUDY Abstract Divorces or separations classed as "cross-border" (parents of different nationalities or leaving in different Member States) lead to very complicated legal situations, notably regarding the relationship between the parents and the children of these former couples. An in-depth analysis of the national situations has been conducted in 6 Member States (France, Germany, Spain, UK, Sweden and Poland). In order to comprehend the breadth and types of problems connected to a cross-border separation of parents, various series of information has been collected and analysed for each of these Member States: available statistical data, international and European legal frameworks; national legislations and practices essentially linked to parental responsibility. Even though progress has been made thanks to the quoted legal instruments, notably the Regulation Brussels IIa, some difficulties of interpretation and implementation together with some gaps have been identified. Several actions may be recommended to enable cross-border separation in the European Union to be dealt more efficiently, notably in terms of mediation and international judicial cooperation. PE 425.615 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions. AUTHOR Institut suisse de droit comparé (ISDC) Lausanne, Suisse RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Claire GENTA Policy Department C - Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: FR Translation: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in July 2010. © European Parliament, Brussels, 2010 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. The parental responsibility, child custody and visitation rights in cross-border separations CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 10 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 10 1.1. Organization ............................................................................................ 10 1.2. The “cross-border separation” notion ........................................................... 11 2. STATISTICS GATHERING AND ANALYSIS: AN EVALUATION ............... 12 2.1. Collected Data .......................................................................................... 12 2.2. Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 14 2.3. Conclusions.............................................................................................. 15 3. NATIONAL LAWS: CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES...................... 15 3.1. National Law and Practice .......................................................................... 15 3.1.1. Parental Rights .................................................................................. 15 3.1.2. Interest of the Child............................................................................ 17 3.1.3. Child Protection Services ..................................................................... 18 3.2. National Approaches to Cross-Border Cases .................................................. 19 4. INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAWS: SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT20 4.1. International Legal Instruments .................................................................. 20 4.2. Legal bases for the intervention of European Union law .................................. 21 4.3. Brussels II bis Regulation: Summary and Evaluation ...................................... 22 4.3.1. Achievements .................................................................................... 22 4.3.2. Difficulties of Interpretation and Implementation .................................... 23 5. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 23 5.1. Legislative Technique ................................................................................ 24 5.2. Extending Automatic Recognition ................................................................ 24 5.3. Situations Involving Non-Member States ...................................................... 25 5.4. Child Testimony........................................................................................ 25 5.5. Rules on Applicable Law............................................................................. 26 5.6. International Mediation and Cooperation Reinforcement ................................. 26 PART I ...................................................................................................... 28 FRANCE .................................................................................................... 29 1. THE MEMBER STATE’S APPROACH IN COLLECTING STATISTICS ......... 29 2. ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TRENDS................................................ 30 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “NATIONAL” AND “CROSS-BORDER” DIVORCES/SEPARATIONS ........................................................................ 30 GERMANY ................................................................................................. 32 1. THE MEMBER STATE’S APPROACH IN COLLECTING STATISTICS ......... 32 3 Policy Department C: Citizens' rights and Constitutional Affairs 2. ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TRENDS................................................ 33 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “NATIONAL” AND “CROSS-BORDER” DIVORCES/SEPARATIONS ........................................................................ 33 POLAND.................................................................................................... 35 1. THE MEMBER STATE’S APPROACH IN COLLECTING STATISTICS ......... 35 2. ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TRENDS................................................ 35 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “NATIONAL” AND “CROSS-BORDER” DIVORCES/SEPARATIONS ........................................................................ 37 SPAIN....................................................................................................... 39 1. THE MEMBER STATE’S APPROACH IN COLLECTING STATISTICS ......... 39 2. ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TRENDS................................................ 39 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “NATIONAL” AND “CROSS-BORDER” DIVORCES/SEPARATIONS ........................................................................ 40 SWEDEN ................................................................................................... 41 1. THE MEMBER STATE’S APPROACH IN COLLECTING STATISTICS ......... 41 2. ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TRENDS................................................ 41 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “NATIONAL” AND “CROSS-BORDER” DIVORCES/SEPARATIONS ........................................................................ 43 UNITED KINGDOM .................................................................................... 44 1. THE MEMBER STATE’S APPROACH IN COLLECTING STATISTICS ......... 44 2. ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TRENDS................................................ 45 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “NATIONAL” AND “CROSS-BORDER” DIVORCES/SEPARATIONS ........................................................................ 45 PART II..................................................................................................... 47 1. THE 20 NOVEMBER 1989 CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF THE CHILD .... 48 1.1. Legal Instrument of Universal Application ..................................................... 48 1.2. The Child’s Right to Direct Contact with the Parents ....................................... 48 1.3. Illegal Abductions and Detentions of the Child ............................................... 49 2. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS: CONVENTIONS PROMULGATED BY THE HAGUE CONFERENCE ......................................................................... 50 2.1. The 1 June 1970 Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations50 2.1.1. Scope of Application ........................................................................... 51 2.1.2. Grounds for Indirect Jurisdiction ........................................................... 51 4 The parental responsibility, child custody and visitation rights in cross-border separations 2.1.3. Expressly Excluded Grounds for Denying Recognition............................... 51 2.1.4. Expressly Permitted Grounds for Refusing Recognition ............................. 52 2.2. The Convention of 5 October 5 1961 Concerning the Powers of Authorities and the Law Applicable in Respect of the Protection of Infants .............................................. 52 2.2.1. Scope of Application ........................................................................... 52 2.2.2. Jurisdiction of Authorities .................................................................... 53 2.3. Applicable Law.........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Redalyc. Attachment Style and Adjustment to Divorce
    Scientific Information System Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Sagrario Yárnoz-Yaben Attachment Style and Adjustment to Divorce The Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol. 13, núm. 1, mayo, 2010, pp. 210-219, Universidad Complutense de Madrid España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=17213039016 The Spanish Journal of Psychology, ISSN (Printed Version): 1138-7416 [email protected] Universidad Complutense de Madrid España How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage www.redalyc.org Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative The Spanish Journal of Psychology Copyright 2010 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology 2010, Vol. 13 No. 1, 210-219 ISSN 1138-7416 Attachment Style and Adjustment to Divorce Sagrario Yárnoz-Yaben Universidad del País Vasco (Spain) Divorce is becoming increasingly widespread in Europe. In this study, I present an analysis of the role played by attachment style (secure, dismissing, preoccupied and fearful, plus the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance) in the adaptation to divorce. Participants comprised divorced parents (N = 40) from a medium- sized city in the Basque Country. The results reveal a lower proportion of people with secure attachment in the sample group of divorcees. Attachment style and dependence (emotional and instrumental) are closely related. I have also found associations between measures that showed a poor adjustment to divorce and the preoccupied and fearful attachment styles. Adjustment is related to a dismissing attachment style and to the avoidance dimension. Multiple regression analysis confirmed that secure attachment and the avoidance dimension predict adjustment to divorce and positive affectivity while preoccupied attachment and the anxiety dimension predicted negative affectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Outlaws: Regulating Polygamy in America
    Faucon_jci (Do Not Delete) 1/6/2015 3:10 PM Marriage Outlaws: Regulating Polygamy in America CASEY E. FAUCON* Polygamist families in America live as outlaws on the margins of society. While the insular groups living in and around Utah are recognized by mainstream society, Muslim polygamists (including African‐American polygamists) living primarily along the East Coast are much less familiar. Despite the positive social justifications that support polygamous marriage recognition, the practice remains taboo in the eyes of the law. Second and third polygamous wives are left without any legal recognition or protection. Some legal scholars argue that states should recognize and regulate polygamous marriage, specifically by borrowing from business entity models to draft default rules that strive for equal bargaining power and contract‐based, negotiated rights. Any regulatory proposal, however, must both fashion rules that are applicable to an American legal system, and attract religious polygamists to regulation by focusing on the religious impetus and social concerns behind polygamous marriage practices. This Article sets out a substantive and procedural process to regulate religious polygamous marriages. This proposal addresses concerns about equality and also reflects the religious and as‐practiced realities of polygamy in the United States. INTRODUCTION Up to 150,000 polygamists live in the United States as outlaws on the margins of society.1 Although every state prohibits and criminalizes polygamy,2 Copyright © 2014 by Casey E. Faucon. * Casey E. Faucon is the 2013‐2015 William H. Hastie Fellow at the University of Wisconsin Law School. J.D./D.C.L., LSU Paul M. Hebert School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Incest Statutes
    Statutory Compilation Regarding Incest Statutes March 2013 Scope This document is a comprehensive compilation of incest statutes from U.S. state, territorial, and the federal jurisdictions. It is up-to-date as of March 2013. For further assistance, consult the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at 703.549.9222, or via the free online prosecution assistance service http://www.ndaa.org/ta_form.php. *The statutes in this compilation are current as of March 2013. Please be advised that these statutes are subject to change in forthcoming legislation and Shepardizing is recommended. 1 National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorneys Association Table of Contents ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-3 (2013). INCEST .................................................................................................................... 8 ALA. CODE § 30-1-3 (2013). LEGITIMACY OF ISSUE OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES ...................................................... 8 ALASKA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.450 (2013). INCEST .............................................................................................................. 8 ALASKA R. EVID. RULE 505 (2013)
    [Show full text]
  • Susan Blackburn and Sharon Bessell
    M arriageable Ag e : Political Debates on Early Marriage in Twentieth- C entury Indonesia Susan Blackburn and Sharon Bessell The purpose of this article is to show how the age of marriage, especially for girls, became a political issue in twentieth century Indonesia, and to investigate the changing intensity, focus, and participation in the debate over the issue. Compared with India, the incidence of very early marriage among Indonesian girls appears never to have been exceptionally high, yet among those trying to "modernize" Indonesia the fact that parents married off their daughters at or before the onset of puberty was considered a "social evil." Social reformers differed as to the reasons for their concern and as to what action should be taken and by whom. In particular there were strong disagreements about whether government intervention was either desirable or effective in raising the age of marriage. The age at which it is appropriate for girls to marry has been a contentious matter in many countries in recent centuries. In societies where marriage was considered to be the prerogative of families, the children themselves were rarely consulted and the age of marriage, or at least of betrothal, was likely to be quite young, before children could exert their own will. Although physical readiness for sexual intercourse and child­ bearing was a consideration, this was a matter to be supervised by adult kin, and the wedding could, if necessary, be timed so that it occurred separately from the consummation of marriage. Apart from families, the only other institutions directly concerned with marriage were likely to be religious ones.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lived Experience of Ambiguous Marital Separation a Dissertation
    The Lived Experience of Ambiguous Marital Separation A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Sarah Ann Crabtree IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Adviser: Steven M. Harris June 2018 © 2018 Sarah A. Crabtree i Acknowledgements It is not lost on me that I am here because of the efforts and contributions of so many people. I recognize the privilege associated with entering a doctoral program, and while I do not want to minimize my own hard work, I cannot claim to have gotten here entirely on my own volition. I must acknowledge how fortunate I am to have had the support of so many people along the way. First, I want to thank my family. I am grateful for the ways you cheered me on, sent notes of encouragement, checked on how things were progressing, and offered unending patience and understanding through the entirety of this process. Thank you, as well, for affording me opportunities through of your financial support of my education. Having access to a quality education opened innumerable doors, which subsequently opened even more. It is hard to quantify what has come from all the ways you have invested in me and this process. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I also want to acknowledge several instrumental mentors who helped me envision a future I would not have dared dream for myself. Dr. Leta and Phil Frazier, Dr. Mary Jensen, Dr. Steve Sandage, Dr. Cate Lally, Dr. Carla Dahl, Tina Watson Wiens – thank you for imagining for and with me, for helping me find a home in my own skin, and for encouraging me to dream big.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Historians of Child Welfare As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
    No. 19-123 In the Supreme Court of the United States SHARONELL FULTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT BRIEF OF HISTORIANS OF CHILD WELFARE AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS BETSY HENTHORNE JEREMY S. BARBER WILKINSON WALSH LLP CHANAKYA A. SETHI 2001 M St. N.W., 10th Flr. Counsel of Record Washington, DC 20036 WILKINSON WALSH LLP 130 West 42nd St., 24th Flr. ROXANA C. GUIDERO New York, NY 10036 RAHUL R.A. HARI (929) 264-7765 WILKINSON WALSH LLP [email protected] 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of amici curiae ............................................................... 1 Summary of argument ................................................................. 2 Argument ....................................................................................... 4 I. The government has played a substantial role in overseeing child welfare since the Nation’s founding ........ 4 II. Foster care developed into a public service in the 20th century not only to ensure adequate protection of children, but to attempt to guard against discrimination .......................................................... 16 Conclusion ................................................................................... 25 Appendix: List of amici curiae ................................................. 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Commonwealth v. Jones, 3 Serg. & Rawle 158 (Pa. 1817) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Symbols for Genograms
    Standard Symbols for Genograms Male Female Birth DateAge Death Family Secret ‘41- ‘82- 1943-2002 23 59 Heterosexual written on written an X through Symbol left above inside Age at death in box of symbol symbol Death date on right above symbol Gay/Lesbian Bisexual Location & Significant Person who Annual Income Institutional has lived in Immigration Connection 2 + cultures Boston Transgender People $100,000 ‘72- ‘41- ‘41- Pet Man to Woman woman to man written above birth & death date AA m 1970 Therapist Therapist Couple Secret Committed Marriage Relationship Affair Relationship m 1970 Rel 95, LT 97 Affair ‘95 LT ‘95 LT = Living Together Marital Separation Divorce Divorce and Remarriage m ‘90, s 95-96, s 96, d ‘97 remar ’00, rediv 02 met ‘88,, m ‘90 s ’95 m ‘90 s ’95 d ‘97 m ‘03 m ‘05 Children: List in birth order beginning with the oldest on left ‘97-97 -‘99 -‘01 LW 98-99 A ‘97 ‘92- ‘94- ‘95- ‘03- ‘03- ‘04- ‘04- ‘05- Stillbirth Abortion 13 11 10 Miscarriage Biological Foster Adopted Twins Identical Pregnancy Child Child Child Twins Symbols Denoting Addiction, and Physical or Mental Illness Physical or Physical or Smoker Psychological illness Psychological illness S in remission Obesity O Alcohol or Drug abuse In Recovery from Language Problem alcohol or drug abuse L Suspected alcohol In recovery from Serious mental and or drug abuse substance abuse and physical problems mental or Physical problems and substance abuse Symbols Denoting Interactional Patterns between People “spiritual” connection Close DistantClose-Hostile Focused On Fused Hostile Fused-Hostile Cutoff Cutoff Repaired Physical AbuseEmotional Abuse Sexual Abuse Caretaker Annual income is written $100,000 $28,000 just above the 1943-2002 ‘53- birth & death date.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Presumption of Legitimacy in the Same-Sex Couples Era
    ARTICLES PRESUMING WOMEN: REVISITING THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY IN THE SAME-SEX COUPLES ERA ∗ SUSAN FRELICH APPLETON INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 228 I. TRACING THE PRESUMPTION’S TRAJECTORY IN TRADITIONAL CASES .................................................................................................. 232 II. PRESUMING WOMEN: LESBIAN COUPLES............................................ 237 A. A Gendered Rule in an Increasingly Gender-Neutral Regime .... 237 B. Extending the Presumption.......................................................... 240 C. Revisiting the Presumption’s Objectives and Policies in This New Context ................................................................................ 242 1. Child Welfare ........................................................................ 243 2. Public Funds.......................................................................... 246 3. Public Norms: The Model Family......................................... 248 4. Patriarchy and Husbands’ Vanity.......................................... 251 a. “Biological Reality” Versus Appearances...................... 251 b. Ownership of Children .................................................... 255 III. THE PROBLEM CHILD: GAY MALE COUPLES....................................... 260 A. Extending the Presumption to Men: Ignoring Gestation or Recognizing Three Legal Parents................................................ 262 B. A Limited Extension: Presuming
    [Show full text]
  • OMG Quick Divorce Guide By: Aaron D
    OMG Quick Divorce Guide By: Aaron D. Heller and W. Lance Owens 1 | P a g e Copyright Owens, Mixon & Gramling, P.A. 2016 Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3 Marriage in Arkansas ...........................................................................................................4 Annulment............................................................................................................................6 Issues Concerning Engagements..........................................................................................7 Pre-Marital Agreements .......................................................................................................8 Separation ..........................................................................................................................10 Separate Maintenance ........................................................................................................13 Divorce From Bed and Board ............................................................................................15 Reconciliation Agreements ................................................................................................16 Uncontested Divorce ..........................................................................................................17 Contested Divorce ..............................................................................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Joint Custody on Marriage and Divorce
    The Effect of Joint Custody on Family Outcomes Martin Halla∗ University of Linz & IZA forthcoming in: Journal of the European Economic Association (Last update: 2011/04/19) Abstract Since the 1970s almost all US states have introduced a form of joint custody after divorce. I analyze the causal effect of these custody law reforms on different family outcomes. My identification strategy exploits the different timing of reforms across the US states. Esti- mations based on state panel data suggest that the introduction of joint custody led to an increase in marriage rates, an increase in overall fertility (including a shift from non-marital to marital fertility), and an increase in divorce rates for older couples. Accordingly, female labor market participation decreased. Further, male suicide rates and domestic violence fell in treated states. The empirical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that joint custody increased the relative bargaining power of men within marriage. JEL Classification: J12, J13, J18, K36, D13, N32, R2. Keywords: Joint custody, marriage, divorce, fertility, marriage-specific investment, suicide. ∗Address for correspondence: Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Department of Economics, Altenberger- str. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria, phone: +43 70 2468 8706, fax: +43 70 2468 28706, email: [email protected]. For very helpful comments I would like to thank four anonymous referees and the Editor Stefano DellaVigna. The paper has also benefited from comments and discussions with Joshua Angrist, René Böheim, David Card, Steven
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Parenting Agreements After Marital Separation
    SHARED PARENTING AGREEMENTS AFTER MARITAL SEPARATION: THE ROLE OF NARCISSISM AND CHILD-CENTEREDNESS Marion Felix Ehrenberg B.A. (Hons.), McGill University, 1984 M.A., Simon Fraser University, 1987 THESIS SUBMllTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Psychology O Marion Felix Ehrenberg 1991 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY June1 991 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Marion Felix Ehrenberg Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Title of Thesis: Shared Parenting Agreements After Marital Separation: The Role of Narcissism and Child-Centeredness Examining Committee: Chair: Dr.#illiam Krane - - Senior Supervisor Dr. Michael F. Elterman Adjunct Professor -1 u I - Dr.aobert G. Ley Associate Professor Dr. Ronald Roesch Professor 'Dr.iTmes Profes or Extemal Examiner Department of Psychology University of Waterloo Date Approved: June 3, 1991 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • A Partial Solution to Legitimacy Problems Arising from the Use of Artificial Insemination
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 35 Issue 2 Article 2 Winter 1960 A Partial Solution to Legitimacy Problems Arising from the Use of Artificial Insemination Andrew D. Weinberger Member, New York Bar Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Medical Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Weinberger, Andrew D. (1960) "A Partial Solution to Legitimacy Problems Arising from the Use of Artificial Insemination," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 35 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A PARTIAL SOLUTION TO LEGITIMACY PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION* ANDREW D. WEINBERGERt GENERAL BACKGROUND One out of ten married couples in the United States cannot have children in the usual manner.' Many of these two million families2 would like to adopt children, but the privilege is available only to a se- lected few. In 40 per cent of the reported cases of infertility, the fault is the husband's sterility.3 In the United States, some 100,000 families, it is estimated, have had children through the medical procedure of artificial insemination (AI). While there have been no definitive surveys, it is estimated that in from 33-1/3 per cent to 66-2/3 per cent of the at- tempted procedures, the semen used is that of the husband (AIH) .
    [Show full text]