Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

The of Indian law,

THE STATUS OF CHILDREN IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS GEORGE WILXRED STUMBER(G* T IS frequently assumed that principles of conflict of laws, at least as they are understood in the United States, make local domicil a necessary jurisdictional prerequisite to the creation by a state of any of those conditions of person which are customarily grouped together under the broad descriptive term “status.”‘ Consistent resort to this assumption for the solution of problems involving state power with respect to the status of children would require that when legitimacy2 is in issue, the circumstances be such as would legitimize under the law of the domicil at the time the circumstances occur, and that in the case of adoption3 or of custody, 4 the judicial proceedings confixning the adoption or awarding custody take place at the domicil. A reason which is frequently given for the assertion that power over status is, or should be, in the domiciliary state is that that state has a peculiar interest or concern in the status of its own citizens.5 Unfortunately, problems relating to permissible state control over legitimacy, adoption, and custody cannot be solved through resort to such a simple thesis. The legal relations which in the aggregate are designated by such terms as legitimacy, adoption, or custody, necessarily affect more persons than one. When the domicils of these individuals are in different states, consideration cannot be given simultaneously to the peculiar interests of all of the states involved. Furthermore, even though it were possible to weigh the interests of the several states for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction or jurisdictions having a predominant claim to power, the process of balancing and counter-balancing would, if state interests alone were taken into consideration, fail to make allowances for the interests of the child