|
Dedicated to Bringing Our Children Home
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 10 April 2010 21:43 |
One mum reveals how she spent two and a half years fighting to bring her little girl back home... By Laura Millar & Lauren Veevers, 11/04/2010 Sarah Taylor wanted to make a special tea for her daughter. It should have been easy enough. Trouble was, she had no idea what to cook. She didn't know Nadia's favourite food, and she couldn't ask her, because Nadia barely spoke any English. Sarah looked at her beautiful little girl and realised the six year old standing in front of her was practically a stranger. Two and a half years ago Nadia was kidnapped. But she wasn't abducted off the street by a stranger. She'd been taken by her own father - Sarah's ex-husband, Fawzi Abuarghub, 36 - and flown thousands of miles to the North African country of Libya. He had no intention of ever returning her. "Discovering my daughter was gone was the worst moment of my life," says Sarah. It was also the beginning of a tortuous battle to get Nadia back - a battle that took two years, thousands of pounds, political intervention from the highest levels, and Sarah's unflinching determination never to give up.  Sarah and Fawzi's marriage fell apart "I went through hell not knowing if I'd see her again," says Sarah, 34. "From being with her every day to not seeing her for years it broke my heart. At times, I struggled to keep going." And Sarah's story is not uncommon. Each year around 300 British children are abducted and taken abroad by a parent. Getting your child back can be an impossible - and expensive - task. Nadia was abducted in May 2007 after a routine visit to her father, who lived a 10-minute drive away from her home in Wigan, Greater Manchester. The first Sarah knew of her daughter's disappearance was when she called her ex to speak to Nadia as arranged. Fawzi's new girlfriend told Sarah he'd gone to collect a friend from the airport. Immediately alarm bells rang. "My skin went cold. I can't explain why, it was just a gut instinct, but in that second I just knew he'd taken Nadia back to his home country, and I might never see her again," she says. "Taking my daughter away from me was the one thing he knew would hurt me the most."  I feared I'd never see my little girl again
Sarah called the police straightaway, then rang her parents to tell them she feared their granddaughter had been snatched. "I broke down. I couldn't believe it," she recalls. In the months that followed, Sarah would quit her job as a civil servant at the Inland Revenue and leave family and friends in Manchester to live among strangers in Libya in a desperate bid to get her baby back. Sarah met Fawzi through a friend in early 2000. She was soon won over by the engineering student's easy charm and their relationship developed quickly. Within 12 months they'd moved in together. A year later, Fawzi proposed and they married at Wigan register office. Twelve months later, Sarah was pregnant.  The CCTV footage that showed Nadia's abduction Nadia was born in May 2003, and it was then that the relationship began to break down. "I was back at work and Fawzi worked nights at a pizza place. We hardly saw each other," she says. "We'd argue all the time and it was obvious the marriage wasn't working. I felt it would be better if we split." They were divorced within six months, agreeing that Fawzi would see Nadia twice a week, with an overnight stay every other weekend. "It had all been amicable. We were getting on so well. Or so I thought," Sarah says. On that weekend in May 2007, Fawzi asked to swap the night he was due to have Nadia to stay. "He wanted to take her to a friend's party," Sarah remembers. "So I agreed." In fact, he changed the dates because he'd booked two one-way tickets direct from Manchester to Libya. Once the police arrived to take her statement, Sarah gave a description and handed them a recent photograph of Nadia. That evening, the police returned with CCTV footage from the airport showing Nadia walking through the departures gate with her father. Her worst fears confirmed, Sarah listened as the police explained that under British law, Fawzi was guilty of kidnap. They advised her to keep trying to contact her ex to find out exactly where in Libya he was. This was their only hope of tracking him - and Nadia - down. Sarah kept calling Fawzi's mobile and, 12 hours later, he answered. "I wanted to hear Nadia's voice, to make sure she was OK and to reassure her that I'd see her soon," Sarah says. "But he wouldn't let me talk to her. I asked him why he'd taken her and he just said: 'We'll be back soon,' and hung up." Frantic with worry, Sarah hardly slept. The next day police put her in touch with welfare agency International Social Services and arranged a meeting with a specialist lawyer. Over the following weeks, Sarah rang Fawzi constantly, pleading for him to come home. She even offered to give their marriage another go, but he refused. "I was desperate. It was six weeks before he let Nadia talk to me. When I heard her voice saying: 'Hello Mummy,' my heart broke all over again. I choked on tears as I told her: 'Mummy will come and get you soon.'" By now Sarah had lost a stone in weight and taken compassionate leave from work. She'd presumed, as Nadia's mother, she could fly to Libya and bring her daughter home. But it wasn't that simple. Libya is one of several countries - including Egypt, Pakistan and Japan - that are not signed up to the Hague Convention or the European Convention, which protects parents' rights and allows them to demand their child is returned. It meant that Sarah's only options were to move to Libya and launch a petition to have Nadia returned, or to try mediation and attempt to convince Fawzi to allow her access to Nadia. Sarah was prepared to do whatever it took to get her little girl back. In July, two months after Nadia was taken, Sarah flew to Tripoli, Libya's capital, where International Social Services had discovered Fawzi was living. She had no idea where in the city he was and he refused to tell her. She used her savings to book into a hotel and with help from her UK lawyer, contacted the relevant authorities. After two months of having not seen her daughter, she was granted a visit. "Fawzi brought her to the reception area of the hotel. The moment I saw Nadia, I burst into tears. She looked bewildered and surprised, and I was so overwhelmed. Her face broke into a huge smile as I ran to her and swept her up." Sarah spent two weeks in the hotel with Nadia - her ex had booked the room opposite hers to make sure she didn't try to snatch Nadia back.  Sarah and Nadia still talk about her time living in Libya "I did think about it," says Sarah, "but I knew it would never work. My ex was watching me and I didn't have a passport for her as she was on Fawzi's." All too soon their two weeks were up. "I had to hand Nadia back," Sarah says. "She was crying and it broke my heart to have to let her go back to Fawzi." Sarah flew home to the UK and met with the police again. They wrote to Fawzi offering him full immunity from prosecution on kidnapping charges if he brought Nadia back to the UK. But he refused. With her brother's help, she set up the website Nadiasfund.co.uk to raise money for, and awareness of, parental abduction. Three months later, in November 2007, Sarah decided she had no choice but to move to Libya. She quit her job, sold her car and flew back to Tripoli. Once there, she rented a small flat, enlisted a Libyan lawyer and got a job teaching English. She spent her days working and her nights researching how to get her girl back. Four weeks later, her hard work started to pay off. She was called to court and granted access to her daughter for two hours a week. "I was overjoyed," she says. "But Fawzi had other ideas. He never let me go anywhere with her, sitting with me in a locked room in case I made a run for it." But just a few weeks later Fawzi appealed and Sarah's access was put on hold. The setback made Sarah even more determined that she would get her daughter back.  Nadia with granddad David, grandma Dot and Sarah "Two birthdays and Christmases slipped past," Sarah remembers. "I bought her cards and presents each time, hoping that one day I'd be able to give them to her. "It was awful, but there was no way I'd give up. I was so scared Nadia might forget who I was," she admits. "Not being able to see her was torture." Sarah contacted her MP back in the UK, Health Secretary Andy Burnham who championed her cause. As awareness increased, powerful political figures including former prime minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the British ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean, got involved. In July 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a direct appeal to Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi to intervene when they met at the G8 Summit. Then, on December 21 last year, two years since Sarah had last seen Nadia, she got the phone call she'd been waiting for. "The British Embassy rang and told me they'd arranged for Nadia to be returned to me. "I don't know what went on behind the scenes. I was just told that Nadia was at the local police station and I could take her back to the UK," she says. We're getting to know each other again "I was so worried she wouldn't recognise me. I even wore the same clothes I'd been wearing the day she was taken." The moment she saw her daughter, Sarah burst into tears. "I'd been waiting to hold her in my arms for so long," she says. "Nadia remembered me straightaway, saying: 'Hello Mummy Sarah!' She hadn't changed much, she was just taller. I couldn't believe I was finally hugging her." It had taken two years and cost thousands of pounds, but Sarah had realised her dream. She packed a suitcase and, with her daughter in her arms, flew home to the UK. That was four months ago and mum and daughter are settling back into life together in Manchester - after two years of speaking Arabic, the six year old has forgotten almost all the English she knew. Fawzi will not be prosecuted by the UK authorities for abducting Nadia. "I still don't know why he did it - I can only imagine he wanted to punish me somehow," she says. "Nadia and I are slowly getting to know each other again. Her English is improving every day and we talk about her dad and her time in Africa - she has even taught me some Arabic! "Fawzi's still in Libya. Even after everything he's put me through, I'd let him see Nadia. But I'd never leave them alone together. I can't risk losing her again. "The sad thing is I'm one of the lucky ones - there are so many parents out there who haven't got their children back. They must never give up hope." The lost children - In January 2010, British mum Leila Sabra, 32, was reunited with daughter A'ishah, two, after her ex, Saber Mesbah Sabra, snatched her in Egypt last year and kept her there for eight months.
- Abigail Hunter's 12-year-old son, Joe, went to visit his father in the US in the summer of 2007 and hasn't been home since. Last year, she was only allowed to speak to him twice on the phone.
PHOTOGRAPHY: SYRIOL JONES, CAVENDISH PRESS, INS HAIR & MAKE-UP: SARA BOWDEN SARAH WEARS: ALL CLOTHES, EVANS FOR MORE INFORMATION OR HELP VISIT REUNITE.ORG, CFAB.UK.NET, OR PACT-ONLINE.ORG |
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 10 April 2010 21:34 |
Parents lose court battle to prevent return of two children to EnglandMARY CAROLAN THE SUPREME Court has ruled that two children brought to Ireland by their parents must be returned to the custody of the courts of England and Wales within 21 days. The children are subject of an interim care order here. The five-judge court yesterday unanimously upheld a High Court order granted to Nottinghamshire County Council last January requiring the return of the children and dismissed the parents’ appeal against that order. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said the court was delivering its decision at this stage because it was in the interests of the children that the matter be speedily determined. The issue in the appeal related to whether the return of the children should be refused under article 20 of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction which permits refusal of return if that is contrary to the fundamental principles of the State from which return was requested. The Chief Justice said the court had determined no valid grounds for refusing the return of the children on that basis. The matter will now go back to the High Court which will arrange for a sensitive return plan to be put in place. In proceedings under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, Nottinghamshire County Council applied for the return of the two children and that application was granted by Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan on January 26th last. The children, then aged six and three, had lived in England until November 6th, 2008. They were brought to Ireland by their married parents with the intention of living here, according to their parents. They were placed in foster care by the HSE shortly afterwards. The move to Ireland followed proceedings in the English courts where, on November 5th, 2008, notice was served on the mother for an interim supervision order/interim care order/care order relating to the children. The parents challenged the claim that the courts of England and Wales had “rights of custody” of the children and contested the right of the council to seek the return of the children on the grounds they, the parents, had custody and had consented to their removal. They also contested the return of the children on the grounds that they objected to being returned and would be exposed to a risk of physical or psychological harm if returned as they could be subject to adoption without the consent of their parents and such adoption would be contrary to family rights under the Constitution. In the High Court, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found the courts of England and Wales had the right of custody of the children and had not consented to their removal. She was also not satisfied there was evidence the elder child objected to returning to England or had attained a degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views. On the parents’ concern the return of the children might result in their being adopted, the judge said she was satisfied the parents’ consent to the adoption of their children would only be dispensed with if the English court held the welfare of the children required it. She did not accept the legal possibility of adoption constituted a grave risk for them. Addressing the claim their return ran counter to the constitutional protection for the family under Irish law, the judge noted article 20 of the convention permits refusal of return if it was contrary to the fundamental principles of the requested state. She said this was a rare exception to a general principle of return and must be strictly or narrowly construed. In this case, the making of an adoption order by the English courts was only a possibility and there was no current proposal for adoption, she said. She found the making of an order for return did not have, as a direct consequence, any interference with the rights of the family under the Constitution, as was required by the exceptional threshold under article 20. Original Article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0326/1224267098770.html
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 31 March 2010 14:20 |
|
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Former State Department Employee Sentenced for Illegally Accessing Confidential Passport Files
A former State Department employee was sentenced today to 24 months of probation for illegally accessing more than 65 confidential passport application files. Karal Busch, 28, of District Heights, Md., was also ordered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Alan Kay in the District of Columbia to perform 25 hours of community service. Busch pleaded guilty on Aug. 26, 2009, to a one-count criminal information charging her with unauthorized computer access.
According to court documents, Busch worked full-time for the State Department as a citizens services specialist in the Office of Children’s Issues from June 2003 through July 2006. In pleading guilty, Busch admitted that she had access to official State Department computer databases in the regular course of her employment, including the Passport Information Electronic Records System (PIERS), which contains all imaged passport applications dating back to 1994. The imaged passport applications on PIERS contain, among other things, a photograph of the passport applicant as well as certain personal information including the applicant’s full name, date and place of birth, current address, telephone numbers, parent information, spouse’s name and emergency contact information. These confidential files are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, and access by State Department employees is strictly limited to official government duties.
In pleading guilty, Busch admitted that between March 4, 2004, and June 1, 2006, she logged onto the PIERS database and viewed the passport applications of more than 65 celebrities and their families, actors, professional athletes, musicians, models and other individuals identified in the press. Busch admitted that she had no official government reason to access and view these passport applications, but that her sole purpose in accessing and viewing these passport applications was idle curiosity.
Busch is the ninth current or former State Department employee or contractor to plead guilty in this continuing investigation. On Sept. 22, 2008, Lawrence C. Yontz, a former Foreign Service Officer and intelligence analyst, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing nearly 200 confidential passport files. Yontz was sentenced on Dec. 19, 2008, to 12 months of probation and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. On Jan. 14, 2009, Dwayne F. Cross, a former administrative assistant and contract specialist, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing more than 150 confidential passport files. Cross was sentenced on March 23, 2009, to 12 months of probation and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. On Jan. 27, 2009, Gerald R. Lueders, a former Foreign Service Officer, watch officer and recruitment coordinator, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing more than 50 confidential passport files. Lueders was sentenced on July 8, 2009, to 12 months of probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. On July 10, 2009, William A. Celey, a file assistant, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing more than 75 confidential passport files. Celey was sentenced on Oct. 23, 2009, to 12 months of probation and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. On Aug. 17, 2009, Kevin M. Young, a contact representative, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing more than 125 confidential passport files. Young was sentenced on Dec. 9, 2009, to 12 months of probation and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. On Oct. 27, 2009, Yvette M. Burrison, a passport specialist, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing nearly 100 confidential passport files. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled for Burrison. On Nov. 9, 2009, Susan Holloman, a file assistant, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing 70 confidential passport files. Holloman is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 21, 2010. On Aug. 26, 2009, Debra Sue Brown, a file assistant, pleaded guilty to unlawfully accessing more than 60 confidential passport files. Brown is scheduled to be sentenced on Mar. 23, 2010.
These cases are being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Armando O. Bonilla of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. The cases are being investigated by the State Department Office of Inspector General.
09-1351
Criminal Division
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 10 April 2010 21:30 |
BETWIXT AND BETWEEN | | The Supreme Court will soon lay down guidelines on deciding child custody cases between non resident Indian parents. V. Kumara Swamy explains how the legal lacuna is affecting the lives of parents and children alike | | Seven-year-old Adit-ya Chandran and his mother are hiding somewhere in India. If the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as per a recent Supreme Court order, manages to trace Aditya, he will be handed over to his US-based father. “My son has not gone to school for the last two-and-a-half years. He has been forced to live like a fugitive by his mother in violation of court orders both in the US and India,” says Dr V. Ravi Chandran, a scientist. It all began as a custody battle between Chandran and his divorced wife Vijaysree Voora in the US. Things took an ugly turn when Vijaysree, having lost the case in New York to obtain custody of her son, took him and left for India in 2007. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation even filed a case of kidnapping against her. Three years and several court orders later, Aditya remains untraceable. The Supreme Court recently gave the CBI a three-week ultimatum to produce Aditya. With an exponential increase in the number of divorces among the around 30 million non resident Indians (NRIs) settled abroad, children like Aditya are getting caught in the parental crossfire. What is adding to the problem is the lack of a clear legal policy in India to deal with such cases. While hearing a similar case of a US-based NRI couple, the Supreme Court recently agreed to come up with guidelines for the lower courts to follow when deciding on cases where a parent removes a child from one country to another without either the approval of the other parent or in violation of a court order. Ruchi Majoo was accused by her husband Sanjeev Majoo of abducting their son to India while the custody of the child was being decided in a US court. While a district court in Delhi held that the court was within its rights to hear the case, the Delhi High Court set it aside, ruling that the case was not under the jurisdiction of an Indian court. When it comes to law suits involving NRI couples, Indian courts have been deciding on a case to case basis. “Courts have given varying and sometimes conflicting decisions on cases of child removal and abductions by parents. We will continue to face such problems until there is a coherent and consistent policy,” says Anil Malhotra, Supreme Court advocate, adding that inter-parent child removal is neither defined nor specified as an offence under any Indian law. Experts say that India could avoid such inconsistencies if the government signs the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which came into force in 1983. The Hague Convention now has more than 80 signatories. The main objects of the convention are “a) To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and b) To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” Generally, the aggrieved parent seeking the abducted child applies for a writ of habeas corpus in the Indian court. The court can order custody of a minor at the behest of a parent applying for the same. In the Dhanwanti Joshi vs Madhav Unde case in 1998, the Supreme Court observed that the order of a foreign court “will only be one of the facts” that would be taken into consideration while dealing with child abduction matters. According to experts, since that 1998 order, irrespective of foreign court rulings, courts in India have gone by the “merits of the matter with regard to the welfare of the children”. “But what is overlooked is the other parent’s rights,” says Malhotra. Pinky Anand, a Supreme Court lawyer who fought the case on behalf of Chandran, says that fathers find it difficult to get custody of their children in India even if the foreign courts have given them a favourable verdict. “Our courts give preference to the mother even if she has removed her children in violation of courts abroad,” says Anand. In two back to back reports in 2009, the Law Commission of India asked the government to make the necessary changes to the Indian laws to cater to the increasing number of cases of marital disputes among NRIs. While it asked the government to sign the Hague Convention in its 219th report, it recommended amendments to marriage-related laws in the 218th report. “I don’t know what is stopping the government from signing the Hague Convention when more than 80 countries have already signed it,” says Sudha Ramalingam, advocate and vice-president of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). Girija Vyas, chairperson of the National Commission for Women, also urged the India government to sign the Hague Convention, speaking at the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas recently. “Prolonged custody battles have debilitating effects on children. I am sure the government will take a serious look at the issue soon. Signing the Hague Convention would be a good beginning,” says Shanta Sinha, former chairperson, National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights. According to Kumar V. Jahgirdar of Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting, Bangalore, the lack of a consistent policy in India is having a negative impact on foreign court judgements as well. “Foreign courts are now hesitating to allow parents undergoing divorce proceedings to go to India with their children. They fear that they might never return,” he says. Even the US government cautions its citizens visiting India. “Once a child has been abducted to India, there are very few remedies. India does not consider international parental child abduction a crime, and the Indian courts rarely recognise US custody orders, preferring to exert their own jurisdiction in rulings that tend to favour the parent who wants to keep the child in India,” states the US department of state in its advisory on the child abduction law in India. In fact, a law has been in the works since 2007 to deal with all these issues. The Indian Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Bill, 2007, was to come into force once the government signed the Hague Convention. According to Malhotra, the proposed law would create a central authority that would decide on returning children illegally removed by parents from other countries. An official of the ministry of overseas Indian affairs says that the government has been holding consultations with various stakeholders on bringing changes to several laws concerning NRIs. Some of the changes that have been discussed include amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Law Act or the Passport Act. The proposals include the compulsory registration of NRI marriages, taking into account the wishes of a child in case of a custody battle and cancellation of the passport of an offending NRI spouse. With the Supreme Court now agreeing to lay down the guidelines, Anand hopes that NRI children getting caught between warring parents will be a thing of the past. “I hope the Supreme Court will ask the government to consider signing the Hague Convention and in the meanwhile lay down rules that the lower courts can follow,” she says. Original Article:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100407/jsp/opinion/story_12311149.jsp |  |
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Sunday, 24 January 2010 20:09 |
|
Dec 5, 2009 21:41 | Updated Dec 6, 2009 0:01
By RON FRIEDMAN An Israeli mother charged with kidnapping her two young children from their non-Jewish, Swedish father has denounced the Israeli court system.  While Sarit Kassin told The Jerusalem Post last week that she believes Israel is eager to deport her children in order to appease the Europeans, the children's father, who requested his name not be published, claims the mother set up an elaborate trap to get rid of him and keep the children for herself.
Both the family court and the district court have ordered the mother to return the children to Sweden, where the father now lives, as required by the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. She is now appealing to the Supreme Court, hoping that it will overturn the decision.
"For some reason the state has a clear agenda of deporting the children as swiftly as possible. They want to sacrifice them in order to mend their relationship with Sweden," said Ezra Kassin, the children's uncle.
"The same thing that happened in the Holocaust is happening today in Israel of 2009. Two Israeli courts ruled that the Jewish children should be removed from their Jewish mother and be kicked out of the country, left to meet their fate," he said.
What differentiates this kidnapping case from many others is the circumstances under which the alleged kidnapping took place. As opposed to most other cases, where a parent secretly removes the child from his or her country of residence, in this case the family moved from Sweden to Israel together and the abduction allegedly took place when the mother refused to return to Sweden with the two children, ages five and seven.
The Hague Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, stipulates that children must be returned to the country of origin if they were unlawfully removed from it and that a custody trial must take place in the country of permanent residence. The dispute in this case is whether the family moved to Israel in order to immigrate, as the mother claims, or for a prolonged vacation, as the father argues.
The mother's version, as presented in court by attorneys Shmuel Moran and Judith Meisels, states that after living in Sweden for many years, the family decided to immigrate to Israel, in August 2008, to gain a fresh start in a place with better weather and to be closer to the mother's family.
Meanwhile, the father, represented by Varda Efrat, claims the move was only temporary, for the duration of his seven-month parental leave and that they planned to return to Sweden immediately afterwards.
At the end of his leave the father returned to their home in Gothenburg. Several weeks later, when the rest of the family failed to return, he filed charges against the mother for kidnapping.
The overall picture that arises from the court documents is of a family, which in the past has known ups and downs, torn between two opposing versions of the truth.
The father's version paints the mother as manipulative and deceptive. He claims the mother had planned all along for the move to Israel to be a means of removing him from her life and gaining sole custody of the children.
"The knowledge that the mother was not intending to return to Sweden caught my client completely by surprise," said Efrat. "He had agreed for the children to remain in Israel an extra few weeks so that the son could complete first grade, but was completely unprepared for the announcement that the mother was planning on staying for good."
In the trials, the prosecution presented evidence that the family had every intention of returning to Sweden after the parental leave. The prosecution showed that the children were registered for school in Sweden the following year, that the family's landlord was told that they would be returning and that their apartment was left fully furnished, that the father had made no attempts to learn Hebrew or find a job in Israel, and that the mother had retained ownership of her car in Sweden and told her place of work that she was taking a year's leave of absence.
The prosecution argued that the mother had tricked the father into agreeing to live in Israel for the duration of his parental leave and that she had made plans behind his back to immigrate with her children to Israel, pointing to correspondence between the mother and an Israeli legal expert in the area of child law and the fact that she had filled out returning resident forms claiming she was single as proof that it was premeditated.
"She acted as if the father didn't even exist, as if the children were a result of a sperm donor," said Efrat.
The defense presented a completely different picture - of the father as a vindictive bully and the mother as a victim of his whims. The mother argued that all the arrangements in place in Sweden were only a precaution in case things didn't work out in Israel, claiming she wanted to leave behind a "safety net."
The defense also brought witnesses, from both Sweden and Israel, including the mother's family members, who testified that the family had planned a permanent move to Israel.
"We knew we were coming to stay. We came to Israel under the auspices of the Israel@60 events," said the mother.
On November 5, Family Court Judge Varda Ben-Sachar ruled in favor of the father. The judge said she was unconvinced that the father had known about the mother's intentions to remain in Israel after the leave and ruled that the mother had unlawfully removed the children from their regular place of residence.
After an attempted appeal, the district court backed the lower court's ruling and gave the mother two weeks to return the children to Sweden and ordered her to pay the father NIS 20,000 for legal expenses.
The mother's family is outraged, not only by the ruling, which they are appealing to the Supreme Court, but by the way the mother was treated in court and the way the state handled the case.
"We are rapidly losing our faith in the legal system," said Ezra Kassin. "It was not my sister who kidnapped her children; if the court rules against her, it will be the courts that have kidnapped these children from their mother. (Continued from page 1 of 2 )
"Incredibly, the father's legal proceedings are being paid for by the Israeli government, which has hired an Israeli lawyer to represent him," he said. "In contrast, the legal bills my family has incurred in our attempt to keep these children here with their mother are nearing 300,000 shekels, money we do not have. "Even more shocking has been the speed with which the authorities have taken action and the position of the Israeli courts."
He said that the mother, upon notice that the charge had been filed, was given only four days in which to hire a lawyer and present a defense before appearing in court. He also said that the court had done everything in its power to expedite the trial, including scheduling the hearings during the High Holidays recess.
"Even criminal extradition cases take longer. What's the great urgency? Who died?" said the children's grandmother, Aliza Kassin, expressing anger at the prosecution lawyer, who, she claims ,committed character assassination against her daughter.
"They took a good woman, a women who takes care of children and does good deeds and turned her into an abhorrent criminal," she said.
While the mother's side of the family is convinced that the courts are only interested in deporting the children, the mother said she is unable to even ponder the thought of returning to Sweden. She said she is too traumatized by the ordeal to ever go back.
When asked what she would do if the Supreme Court rejected her appeal, she could only shake her head.
"What they did to me here is like Solomon's trial. Sending me back to Sweden is like sending an abuse victim back to her attacker."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
Copyright © 2010 Hague Abductions. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
Who's Online
We have 10 guests and 3 members online
|
