Showing posts with label domestic violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic violence. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Australian a danger to Baby - so the headline goes

Abduction from Australia to Alabama, US


Recently reported in the Alabama Press-Register is this case of a baby taken from Australia to Alabama, US.

Mom is an American, Susan Elizabeth Beaty and moved to Australia where she had a relationship with an Australian, Gareth Baran and a child was subsequently born.

Mother claims domestic violence, heavy drinking and that dad is a threat to the child.

Dad claims mom abducted the child from Australia to the US and is standing on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the child to the jurisdiction of Australia.

The case is scheduled to be heard by a federal judge sometime later this month and it will be interesting to see the outcome - the attorney for the mother claims that the father gave consent for the removal and that he represents a clear danger to the child.

These things are never clear on the face of them - if Gareth Baran gave consent then Susan Beaty is going to have demonstrate that absolutely - she is the one who has the burden of evidencing her claims here. The issues of domestic violence, I personally think, should be better heard by the court where the evidence is available and that means back in Australia but will the federal court in the US agree ? This is a source of much debate in the US and elsewhere these days and I am concerned that this the thin end of the wedge in slowing proceedings down.

If the issue of "best interests" of one of the parents is to start playing a part in Hague Convention proceedings then it becomes much less sustainable to argue the "best interests of the child" should not also play a part in the process - at this time, the only "best interest" of the child that figures in Hague Convention proceedings is that proceedings should take place in the country of habitual residence and a return shall be effected as quickly as possible - if dad is an alcoholic deadbeat, that is not relevant to a return order under the Hague Convention but it will become relevant for the court of habitual residence just the same as if a mom is medically neglecting a child, placing them up for adoption or endangering them by placing them into contact with a convicted pedophile.

Let's see how this one gets handled by the US judge.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

International Child Abduction and Domestic Violence

Causes of International Child Abductions



I read this this morning in my google alerts:

"
MOTHERS are responsible for seven out of 10 international parental child abductions, an Australian study has found. And the most common reason for the abduction is flight from an abusive relationship.
"


My first reaction was "hello, mens rights at it again" but the article comes from Australia and the study is that of the International Social Science Australia entitled "Learning From The Links Between Domestic Violence And International Parental Child Abduction".

Now I haven't read the paper so I cannot comment on the conclusions but I do believe it will be a fair assumption to say that 70% of the respondents CLAIM domestic violence exists rather than it ACTUALLY being shown to exist - a much smaller proportion will have justifiable domestic violence as an element of the motivation to abduct than in fact.

The issue of domestic violence and international child abductions is difficult to navigate - one jurisdiction/party's justifiable flight from harm is anothers international child abduction.

The Hague Convention deals with issues such as domestic violence through Article 13(b) which allows a presiding judge to exercise discretion (note discretion not requires) to refuse to allow a return of a child that has been wrongfully removed from a country of habitual residence in those circumstances where there is a grave risk of physical and psychological harm to the child which is "intolerable".

By intolerable, consider this analogy that I was given by David Thelen of The Committee for Missing Children - you hold your outstretched palm above a candle, as you slowly bring your hand down you feel the heat of the flame but that is tolerable, as you bring your hand closer it starts to be painful until your hand is so close to the flame that you are actually burning - that is intolerable.

In this instance, The Hague Convention actually should result in the return of children whose mothers claim to be victims of domestic violence as this would for the most part not satisify the extremely high mark of "intolerable". I read a case last year where a mother fleeing from Venezuela after a hit man had been hired to kill her satisfied the test and though she had internationally abducted the children involved they were not returned due to the danger.

In Sheila Kay Fuith-v-Karl Ernest Hindle re ERH (a minor) I argued that Emily Rose should not be sent to Florida on the basis that the adoption attempt/sale of Emily, placing Emily into the care of a convicted child sex offender and medical neglect for her eye condition represented a an intolerable situation for the purposes of Art 13(b) of The Hague Convention. It was rejected as not satisfying the test.

Domestic violence features in the vast majority of international child abduction cases almost as a matter of course, what needs to impressed is that domestic violence only of the highest viciousness is regarded as a justification for international child abduction and by that it means the threat must be against the children and not the mother.

Clearly there is some way to go with the Hague Convention, but the debate that is raging particularly in America, on article 13(b) and interests of the child creeping into the otherwise summary proceedings to return a child, are likely to taint Hague Convention proceedings with procrastination and dogmatic complications on top of those implicit with the international dimension.

Generally, the vast majority of domestic violence allegations, founded or not, are not a proper justification for international child abduction - international child abduction is child abuse not child protection.


Friday, March 02, 2007

Robert Skelton - Father searching for his child taken from Florida

International Child Abduction - My Alter Ego in Florida







Reported in the Daytona Beach Journal - click here for the article



I'll be contacting Robert as I may be able to help him in finding his child but I think that the mirror nature of our cases serves to underlie the difficulties that he is going to face in finding his child, getting access or return of the child to Florida - not because of the allegations of domestic violence and so on, these unfortunately are par for the course.

Robert is going to face tremendous difficulties because he is simply an American and one from Florida at that and he will have to deal with the appallingly bad reputation that has been created by US officials in positions of responsibility that have failed to protect children in the past - in Washington DC and in Florida as well as on your doorstep in DeLand and DeBary.

Emily (my daughter) was taken 4 years ago with the assistance of the US Department of State based on claims I was domestically violent and they also made it a condition I was not to know where Emily was in the US (I have been repeatedly cleared of these claims by the courts and investigations)

2 months after being taken, Emily was put up for sale in WI and into the care of a convicted pedophile.

Emily was born with an eye defect which would render her permanently blind if untreated - she has received no medical treatment in the US and is now permanently blinded despite numerous British and US doctors advising treatment.

Emily has been moved about 40 times through 10 states in the US and was even missing and classified as endangered at one point.

VCSO Captain Osowski has falsified police reports while my PI observed the mother playing patsy with one of his Deputies in order to convince US Immigration I was a threat and a menace to the mother and my child, and was assisted in this by State Department officials in Washington DC who asked for my arrest in 2004 to stop court hearings in DeLand.

Even with a federal court order ordering my attendance in FL in connection with federal proceedings against the US Department of State - I am barred from entering the US for court ordered visitation with Emily (she was 5 yesterday) or from coming to court.

As for DCF....I have files and recordings that show they falsified their files, tapes of them telling me my daughter being given to a pedophile was a protective custody arrangement and that though Emily was treatable for her blindness this is not medical neglect as it is not life threatening.

What is upsetting is that this behaviour has been seen so many many times with European children and parents in the US and that it is causing a backlash - Robert will probably find his child and I will help him, but is he likely to get the child back, depends - and I have dozens of cases where perfectly good US parents lose their children because of poor official behaviour creating a terrible reputation for Americans that they simply do not deserve.

Emily and I will probably never see each other again no matter what Judge Doyle in DeLand rules if he ever has the chance to hear the case.