回複:Chinese law?

來源: law111 2004-03-25 12:24:35 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (873 bytes)
You are right in stating the complexity of the case; not so speculating other's awareness of legal system difference between the two countries. Yet just because of the complexity that the defantant can cite for her failure of fulfilling her responsibilities and factual non-existence of that parent-child relationship, the case can go either way.

I hope you are addressing the important questions of culture tradition and the basic humanity / consiousness of all cultures: regardless of specific circumstances, we all need to use common sense and exercise our instinct of right and wrong in searching for a sensible solution. I don't consider the court proceeding the right way for this type of conflict. By the way, has both parties reached out for the other trying to understand instead of pursue the heartless course of action adding more salt on wounds?

所有跟帖: 

回複:回複:Chinese law? -wal-mart- 給 wal-mart 發送悄悄話 (768 bytes) () 03/25/2004 postreply 15:26:52

回複:回複:回複:Chinese law? -law111- 給 law111 發送悄悄話 (1230 bytes) () 03/25/2004 postreply 15:52:55

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”