http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10436941/Another-couple-flee-to-France-only-to-have-their-baby-taken-away.html?fb
Christopher Booker schrijft regelmatig artikelen over de handelswijze van de British Child Protection Services. Dezelfde smerige wanpraktijken gebeuiren ook in Engeland.
Christopher heeft ook een artikel gewijd over Ilja zijn zaak in The English Telegraph. Ook in Engeland is de kinderrooforganisatie goed op dreef. Op deze blog vindt u meerdere artikelen van Christopher Booker. Zie rechts bij zoeken. In Engeland is er een ware ondergrondse verzetsgroep van ouders die elkaar helpen bij het vluchten. Onder andere gesteund door een rijke zakenman uit Monaco.
Last
year I reported the shocking story of Marie Black and Joe Ollis who escaped to
France for the birth of their first child, after learning that Norfolk social
workers intended to seize it at birth on the grounds that Marie had previously
been in a violent relationship with another man, who was by then out of her
life. The social workers tracked down the couple and, after baby Luna was born,
returned, with the approval of a British judge, to deport the child to England.
Fortunately, the couple had been put in touch
with a robust British solicitor, Brendan Fleming, who took their case to the
High Court. Here, a more senior judge ruled that, since Luna was born in France
and was therefore, under an EU law called Brussels II, “habitually resident”
there, the British authorities had no jurisdiction over her. He ordered the
social workers to return the baby to her parents in France.
Far from our social workers having learnt any
lesson from this case, I have lately been following one which is almost a
carbon copy. Another couple fearful that Bedfordshire social workers might
seize their first child at birth, again on the grounds that the mother had
previously been in an abusive relationship, set off to start a new life in
France. A few days ago their baby was born in a French hospital, by caesarean
section, and given a French birth certificate. The next day, the mother
returned from a shower, covered only in a bath towel, to find her room filled
with 10 French policemen and her baby gone.
The policemen were holding a piece of paper
indicating that they had been sent by Interpol, at the instigation of the
British authorities, to remove the child on the grounds that the mother was a
dangerous woman who might harm her baby. The couple were shocked to see that
much of the description of her was factually wrong. It was also clear that they
could only have been traced by someone hacking into emails they had sent since
their arrival in France. The French social workers had removed the baby on
“orders from Britain”, but could not otherwise have been more friendly,
allowing the couple to see their baby, who had been taken to an orphanage an
hour’s drive away. They were horrified to see their child lying in a room full
of cots containing other babies.
The mother had already been in touch with
Marie Black and Brendan Fleming (although there is still no order from a
British court to authorise all that has happened). When the couple appeared in
a French court to contest the demand that their baby be deported, the judge was
shown a statement citing the Marie Black judgment, making clear that, since
Britain had no jurisdiction over the child, deporting her would be illegal. The
judge, seemingly out of her depth, adjourned the case, suggesting that it
should be heard by a more senior judge in three weeks’ time. We may hope that
the new judge can recognise that the law is clear, and that the British
authorities had no legal right to arrange what amounted to an act of
kidnapping. Meanwhile, a note from Marie Black glowingly reports that
21-month-old Luna has just started attending a toddler group and that all is
well. In due course, I hope to be able to
report that this new case has come to a similarly happy ending.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten