International parental child abductions rise with global migration

February 26, 2013

Source: TheStar.com

As cross-border relationships become more common, so do cases involving kids seized and taken to another country. Left-behind parents want changes to the law.

Stephen Watkins and sons, Alexander and Christopher. Police believe the boys are in Poland.

When a grandfather was found guilty last year of helping his daughter abduct her two boys to Poland, history was made. It was Canada’s first criminal conviction involving international child abduction by a parent.

Outside the Newmarket court where 78-year-old Tadeusz Ustaszewski’s sentencing was taking place, a group of Canadian parents held up signs and photos of their missing children, hoping to draw public attention to the issue of cross-border child abductions by estranged spouses.

Frustrated by legal bureaucracy, countries indifferent to Canadian court orders, and what they say is scant support from the Canadian government, left-behind parents have launched their own advocacy group. They plan to campaign for changes in the law to better detect and prevent child abduction.

“People paint it as a custody matter, but really, these countries have signed the international treaties and do not comply with these treaties.”

STEPHEN WATKINS - FOUNDING MEMBER OF ICHAPEAU

So far, the group involves 13 families and 16 “lost” children. It is part of a growing movement in North America for stronger enforcement of the Hague Child Abduction Convention — a 32-year-old international treaty that deals with the return of children abducted by a non-custodial parent and transferred from one country to another.

“The fact is you have this melting pot of different nationalities. You date people of different nationalities, get married, have children — and they decide to go home,” said Stephen Watkins, a founding member of iCHAPEAU (International Child Harbouring & Abduction Prevention Enforcement Act Under-law).

Related

• The Tales of four left-behind Canadians

“People paint it as a custody matter, but really, these countries have signed the international treaties and do not comply with these treaties.”

With the ease of global travel and explosion of Internet romances, the world has become smaller. Romantic relationships — and breakups — that span national borders have become more common.

These relationship breakdowns, often nasty for adults in the same locale, can be even more complicated when children and multiple government jurisdictions are involved.

A 2012 study by Nigel Lowe and Victoria Stephens at the Cardiff Law School in the United Kingdom found that the global number of Hague Convention applications to retrieve an abducted child had risen by 45 per cent since 2003.

According to a U.S. State Department report, the number of new international parental child abduction cases in the United States alone has doubled since 2006, from 642 to 1,135, with the majority of cases involving children taken to one of the convention’s 89 signatory countries.

But the child return rate is far from satisfactory. In 2009, the report said, only 436 children abducted to or wrongfully retained in other countries were returned to the U.S. Of these children, 324, or 74 per cent, were from a convention country.

“The goal of the convention is to establish clearly defined procedures for the prompt return of children . . . to provide an effective deterrent to parents who contemplate abducting their children,” said the Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention.

“Unfortunately, current trends reflect a steady increase in the number of international parental child abduction cases and highlight the urgency of redoubling efforts to promote compliance with convention obligation and encourage additional nations to join it.”

A left-behind parent can apply through what’s known as the central authority of his or her country to have a wrongfully removed child returned to the place of “habitual residence.”

The parent must provide details of the case in the Hague Convention application, which will then be sent by the central authority to the foreign state to which the child was taken.

Once the application is received, the court in the receiving country must determine if the conditions set out for the child’s return are met and if any exceptions to the return of the child exist.

Canada does not maintain national statistics on the number of Hague Convention applications and number of child returns to the country, said Carole Saindon, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which oversees the central authority administration in Canada.

“It is important to note that a decision by a court not to order the return of a child does not mean that the convention is not being properly applied in that state,” Saindon said in an email.

“While a left-behind parent may not agree with the child leaving Canada, the situation does not necessarily constitute a wrongful removal or retention for the purposes of the Hague Convention.”

In instances where a left-behind parent is dissatisfied with the result, she said, the parent or the Canadian central authority can raise their concerns with the foreign central authority and attempt to resolve any issues.

However, “where a left-behind parent disagrees with the decision of a foreign court not to return his or her child, he or she needs to evaluate the matter in consultation with private legal counsel,” Saindon said.

The issue of international child abduction is not new, but it received global attention in 2008 with the case of Sean Goldman, the child at the centre of an international legal battle between his American father, David Goldman, and the family of his deceased Brazilian ex-wife, Bruna Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro.

After winning his son back in 2009 with a favourable decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court, Sean’s father and his supporters, in the same year, established the Bring Sean Home Foundation, run by volunteers for the campaign to return internationally abducted children.

Most significantly, the foundation has been pushing for the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction, Prevention and Return Act (HR1940) — an inspiration for Watkins, whose sons, Christopher and Alexander, were taken to Poland in 2009 by their mother, Ustaszewski’s daughter, Edyta.

“The biggest reason the convention is largely inefficient is there are no penalties for non-compliance. There are no repercussions for not complying,” said Mark DeAngelis, the foundation’s executive director.

The bill, expected to be introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2013, proposes establishing an Office on International Child Abductions to promote measures to prevent abductions from the U.S., advocate for abducted children and assist left-behind parents in resolving their cases.

Watkins, of iCHAPEAU, said Canada should adopt a similar approach and penalize convention non-compliant nations by delaying or cancelling official visits and scientific and cultural exchanges; withdrawing Canadian development assistance; and restricting travel by their nationals.

“We need to impose sanctions against non-compliant countries,” said Watkins, adding that educating Canadian officials in child welfare and courts to flag at-risk cases is also key to abduction prevention.

Jeffery Morehouse of Bring Abducted Children Home, an advocacy group for American left-behind parents, agrees.

“We need to have an open public discussion of what’s going on,” he said from Washington. “We must step up and be vocal. Enough is enough. We are not going to condone the trafficking of children to a foreign country without recourse.”

More: The tales of four left-behind Canadian parents

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013

German Phone Number: 069 2547 2471

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +44 20 3239 0013

Tommy Hoholm`s kamp for sine bortførte sønner

Kilde: Bortført.no

Hadde jeg visst det jeg vet i dag, hadde jeg ansatt en privat etterforsker for å hente hjem sønnene mine, fortalte Tommy Hoholm til NRK.no 28.06.11.  

I en radiodebatt forteller Justisminister Knut Storberget at han fire ganger, i løpet av det siste året, har hatt samtaler med sin statsrådskollega i Slovakia og har et intensivt opplegg for retur av Hoholm-guttene, som også involverer UD og ambassadene i Wien og Bratislava. Storberget påpeker imidlertid at Slovakiske myndigheter trenerer, og at han kan gjøre lite for å påvirke høyesterett i Bratislava.  Hør hele debatten med Storberget og Hoholm her i Ukeslutt 25. juni.

Silje Schevig og vår sikkerhetsmann Martin Waage fra ABP World Group har også snakket om barnebortføring i radioen. Hør deres uttalelser her i Dagsnytt 23. juni.

Knut Storberget forteller at han har tro på stans av barnebidrag og barnetrygd som middel for å forhindre barnebortføring, og han er fasinert over forslaget om å sette inn barnebidrag på en sperret konto i Norge. Dette kan være en viktig drivkraft til at bortføreren bidrar til at barnet kommer tilbake, mener Storberget. Men understreker samtidig at dette kun er et høringsforslag og at Bortført.no og andres meninger vil bli hørt. Tommy Hoholm har ikke noen tro på en slik ordning, og mener at bortførere kan få en “lottopremie” som belønning for å ha bortført barn.

Les også: Drapstruet far må reise ubeskyttet

 Bortført Fondet

Tommy er snart ved veis ende økonomisk. Dette betyr at han ikke lenger har råd til å kjempe for å få sine barn hjem. Les om bortført-fondet og hjelp Tommy og andre foreldre i samme situasjon.

Bortført-fondet er en ideell forening under Bortført.no med formål å samle inn midler for tilbakeføring av bortførte barn, samt drive aktiv forbygging mot barnebortføring fra Norge.

Hvert år blir om lag 70 norske barn bortført til utlandet. Foreldre henvises til lange, kostbare, og som oftest, håpløse rettsprosser i utlandet. Vi ønsker å gjøre noe aktivt slik at flere bortførte barn returneres til Norge - at norsk lov respekteres  - slik det blir mindre attraktivt å bortføre norske barn.

Vil du hjelpe?

Bankkontonummer DnBNOR: 1503 13 57109

Organisasjonsnummer: 894 664 282

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

Ensidig og misvisende om barnebortføring

Av Ole Texmo, Forum for menn og omsorg 

Så er vi i gang igjen. Med barnebortføringssaker og medieoppslag hvor politikere og byråkrater får uttale seg uimotsagt. SVs Akhtar Chaudry roser politiet etter Brandbu-saken hvor to barn ble kidnappet fra barnevernet. Uttalelsen kommer i en kontekst hvor Gunnar A. Johansen fra justisdepartementet har forsikret at ”det nedlegges betydelig arbeidsinnsats i enkeltsaker i arbeidet med å iverksette og utvikle nye tiltak for å fremme arbeidet med barnebortføringssaker” (Dagsavisen 23.06.11). Hvor mye hold er det i utsagnene fra de to? Chaudry forklarer politiets innsats med at ”det skyldes nettopp at politiet er i stand til å takle disse sakene, og at regjeringens innsats på området virker”.

Brandbu-saken var ingen bortføringssak, skjønt man kunne ha grunn til å frykte at barna ville bli bragt ut av landet. Derfor reagerte man kjapt og varslet interpol. Er det vanlig i ordinære bortføringssaker? Det spesielle med denne saken var at barna ble unndratt barnevernets omsorg. Da reagerer man, med hjemmel i en ny bestemmelse i straffeloven (§ 261, tidligere 216) hvor det er prioritert å reagere mot foreldre som henter tilbake sine barn, men hvor det fremdeles er fritt frem for selvtektsmødre og bortføring over landegrensene. Politiker Chaudry vet neppe hva han snakker om. Regjeringens innsats er det ikke mye å skryte av. Det vet f.eks Tommy Hoholm som har vært i omtrent alle riksmedier og fortalt hvordan han fremdeles savner sine barn 5 år etter at barna ble bortført til Slovakia.

Regjeringen har prioritert saker hvor barnevernet krenkes, media prioriterer tilsvarende saker hvor barnevernansatte utsettes for trusler fra fortvilte foreldre som mister sine barn til et umenneskelig system. Den nye straffelovbestemmelsen viser ingen medynk med foreldre som får unndratt sine barn, samværssabotasje er fremdeles legalisert. Media stikker under stolen at mengder av mødre konstruerer falske trussel- og fiendebilder mot både etnisk norske og mot utenlandske fedre. Mot sistnevnte gruppe taes et nytt moment i bruk: kidnappingsfarer. De av oss som i motsetning til Chaudry og Johansen følger mange saker på nært hold over tid, ser at retten i sjelden grad bryr seg om bevisligheten i påstandene. Trusselbildet omfatter ofte udokumenterte påstander om vold og overgrep.

Retten skjærer noen ganger gjennom, men bidrar samtidig til å hvitvaske reell bortføring og omsorgsunndragelse fra mødrene, ved at partene presses til forlik. Denne tendensen kunne med fordel fagfolk, politikere og media vist oppmerksomhet. For statistikkføringen av barnebortføringssaker er det interessant at mange saker som anses løst, i realiteten er hvitvasket gjennom utfallet i sivilsaker. Uten at regjeringen har løftet en finger for å akte den oppskrytte Haagkonvensjonen . Dagsavisen meldte 14.07.07 med referanse til Justisdepartementets tall at ”stadig flere barn bortføres” og at 80 % av bortføringene begås av mødre. Verstingelandene er ikke land fra Midtøsten men vestlige land som Sverige og Tyskland. Dette bildet har ikke endret seg vesentlig siden 2007.

Likevel velger Dagsavisen å slå stort opp at utenlandske menn fra Midtøsten ”stikker av med barna” (23.06.11). Dette er på grensen til rasisme. I et stort oppslag får krisesentrene komme med sine ideologiske feilslutninger og fiendebilder. Krisesentrene på ingen måter er pålagt å underbygge sine påstander. ”Kidnappingsfaren er en del av kartleggingen ved inntak”, sier leder Inger-Lise Larsen. Uten noen former for dokumentasjon kan en kvinne påstå seg utsatt for vold og kidnappingsfare. Jeg kjenner til flere slike tilfeller hvor det etter hvert viser seg i rettslig behandling at det er ingen begrunnet risiko, men hvor mor allikevel får gevinst ved å sikre seg barnet og dermed favør status quo. Kidnapping av barn fra fedre snues på hodet til et projisert trussel og fiendebilde.

Les hele kronikken her: Forum For Menn Og Omsorg

International Child Abduction / Parental Kidnapping – Recovery Services

International Child Abduction is tragically a global epidemic.

Leading experts believe that due to the rapid growth in multi-national marriages and relationships, the number of children born from parents of different countries will continue to expand. Similar to all relationships, a significant portion of these marriages or partnerships will end in divorce. All too often, one of the separating parents of the child of the relationship will seek to abduct the child to a country other than where the child has lived.

This is called ‘International Parental Child Abduction’, and though there are various civil remedies available to targeted parents who have had their child abducted, the challenges they face are grave, and include first and foremost, locating where the child is located. Unfortunately for the majority of targeted parents, the financial burden for recovery and litigation falls on their shoulders. With tens of thousands of children parentally abducted each year, the reality is too many of these children never come home. ABP World Group is dedicated to assisting parents in need of assistance in locating, rescuing, and safely bringing home your abducted child.

Our intelligence and investigation abilities combined with our ability to dispatch personnel to most locations in the world offer a safe and strategic solution to protecting your most important asset: your child.

Areas of expertise:

Parental abduction

Missing children

Kidnappings

Counter Kidnapping

Anti Kidnapping

Runaway children

Reunification Counseling

Unfortunately in this day and time parental kidnapping happens and we are here to help you trough this difficult period. We are aware parental child abduction can be difficult to resolve, but we use professional operatives with the skills and expertise to help find a resolution.

One key to ABP World Group’s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available including, but not limited to:

Electronic Forensic Foot printing Investigations

Intelligence Gathering

Information Specialists/Skip Tracing

Evidence Procurement

Interview/Evaluation

Surveillance Special Ops

Non-Combatant Evacuation Ops

Domestic Support

International Operations

Maritime/Land/Air transport

Visit our website here: www.abpworld.com

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Parental Abduction – When Parents Kidnap Their Own

By: Carma Haley 

An estimated 355,000 children are abducted from their homes each year, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). These children can go days, weeks, months or even years with no contact from anyone except their abductor. And many of these children are not taken by strangers: They are abducted by their own parents.

There are some who claim kidnapping their own children is the only option they have, but what about the other parent — and what about the child?

Mark Samrodan, spokesman for NCMEC, says parental kidnapping is the practice of a noncustodial parent taking a child from the custodial parent from one state to another without court permission or in violation of court orders obtained through a divorce or custody hearing. The practice of parental kidnapping is forbidden by both federal and state laws in the absence of a provable emergency situation and can result in the noncustodial parent being charged with felony kidnapping. But often this threat does not stop parental kidnapping from occurring.

Who Kidnaps?

Research completed by the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrown-away Children (NISMART), which was founded by the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, states there are many reasons parents may resort to abducting their children. These reasons include using a child as a “pawn” in contentious divorce proceedings, as an extension of battering, to control their spouse or ex-spouse by depriving them of custody or visitation of the child, or to protect the child from abuse. 

“My husband and I obtained legal custody of our granddaughter when it was determined that her mom was unable to take care of her,” says Shirley Sunderland, from Altoona, Pa. “When the baby was 3 months old I was working at the local hospital and often had difficulty finding a sitter for the evening shift. [My daughter] offered to take care of her for that one night. When I got home, the baby was gone and so were some of her belongings. I got a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach and then realized that the baby had been kidnapped by her own mother.”

The Missing Children’s Registry of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada has developed an overall profile of parental abductions. The profile was constructed to assist those whose child has been abducted by a parent and includes facts such as:

• Either parent, mother or father, will abduct his or her own child.
• Mothers tend to abduct children after a court order is completed while fathers do so before the court order.
• Mothers who abduct their children will keep the children for a longer period of time then fathers who abduct.
• The “average” age range for parents who abduct their child is 28 to 40 years of age.
• The fathers who abduct their children are likely to have employment while the mothers who abduct are more likely to be unemployed.
• The majority of children who are abducted by their own parent but kept within the United States are between 3 and 7 years of age, but children who are taken out of the country tend to be 8 years of age or older.
• Both male and female children are abducted equally.
• The majority of children abducted by their own parent are done so from the home and not from areas such as a babysitters, daycare or schoolyard.
• The abductor, both mother and father, typically makes contact within 48 hours of abducting the child to inform the searcing parent of the child’s well being.

The Other Side of the Coin

The typical reasons are not the only reasons a parent may feel they have no alternative but to kidnap their own child. Many believe the justification of parental abduction go beyond any of the reasons listed above as well as beyond the courtroom.”Dispelling typical myths that parents who kidnap their own child are doing so to get even with society and/or hurt their ex-spouse has proven quite difficult,” says Bonnie Russell, advocate for parental abduction prevention and former victim of a parental kidnapping from Solana Beach, Calif. “While some cases of parental abduction are due to this, it is more the exception then the rule. Other reasons include abuse, neglect, endangerment, unjust hearings or simple injustices. Until the underlying reason parents resort to kidnapping is addressed, no one will understand the subject.”

Some parents feel they have been treated inappropriately before, during or after a custody battle and this treatment played a role in losing custody of their children. For some of these parents, taking their child was their only option.

“My husband physically abused me for years,” says Carolyn Hawkins, a mother of two originally from Medina, Ohio. “And even though I reported him to the police numerous times, had a medical record as thick as a dictionay and had left him twice before, he was awarded custody of my children because he had more money and could hire a lawyer where mine was court appointed. The abuse I suffered led me into a depression and that was used against me in court. What else could I do but get my kids away from him?”

Alternatives to Kidnapping

Many services are available to help in the event of a situation that may be dangerous or harmful to a child. Social service departments, health departments and area chapters of Child Abuse Prevention agencies or even a school counselor can all help a parent who fears for their child’s welfare and safety.

In the event of a disputed divorce or custody order, a parent can move up the chain of command to find assistance or to have additional evidence heard, Samrodan says. If a parent is not in a financial situation to afford an attorney, local chapters of Legal Aid or free legal assistance can be found through social service offices.

“There is always something else that should be tried or attempted before a parent resorts to kidnapping their child,” says Samrodan. “Whether a local, state or federal organization, if a parent truly feels they need assistance, then they can and will find it — all they need to do is ask.”

If a parent suspects the noncustodial parent may abduct their child, they should file an order with the court to investigate a possible parental kidnapping which can assist them in getting a visitation order held until the threat has passed. In the event of a continued threat or possible attempts to abduct the child, the custodial parent should file an order with the court to have the noncustodial parent’s visitation revised to prevent an abduction from taking place, Samrodan says.

“It only takes a few minutes and a little bit of effort to et help when a parent fears their child may or will be abducted by their noncustodial parent,” says Samrodan. “If they need assistance, anyone at the courthouse would be happy to help — again, all that needs to be done is to ask.”

The Effects on the Child

Recent research conducted by NISMART states children endure adverse consequences from being abducted. Besides emotional turmoil, children may suffer from inadequate schooling, poor nutrition, unstable lifestyles and neglect. Some are abandoned, only to be discovered living in foster homes. In the most egregious cases, children suffer long-term harm that may leave them scarred for life. The belief that a child is safe with a parent lessens the chance of aggressive investigation by law enforcement, NISMART states. Yet one study reported 49 percent of abductors have previously established criminal histories and 75 percent of abducting fathers have a history of violent behavior.

After the child is located, researchers suggest that the police encourage both the parent and the child to receive a psychological and physical evaluation.

While Samrodan says parents may feel there is no other alternative, parental kidnapping only adds to the problems. He says parents can often avoid the situation if they are willing to work together and through the courts to find what the best schedule or routine that offers the child time with both parents.

“The system is not perfect and may not always offer the perfect solution the first time around,” says Samrodan. “But taking a child away from what they know as home; what they know as friends; and what they know as stability can and will only add to the hurt and trauma of all those involved. There are other ways and there are people to help you find them. Think before you take your child.”

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Storberget og hans kvinneforkjempere

Av: Kjell Schevig, Bortført.no

Aftenposten skrev 01.02.11 at Knut Storberget tar personlig affære for å få de bortførte barna til Tommy Hoholm hjem til Norge. En ny rettsavgjørelse i Slovakia sier at barna skal hjem og departementet har senest denne uken fulgt opp denne saken tett, sier Storberget til Aftenposten.

Storberget unnlater å nevne at Hoholm fikk en rettskraftig Haag-dom i Slovakia, som slo fast at guttene skulle returneres, så tidlig som i august 2009. Fra høsten 2009 til høsten 2010 har Storberget og Justisdepartementet forholdt seg  passive.

Slovakiske myndigheter har bedt om at bidragene til Tommys ekskone stoppes. Pengene fra Norge gjør det mulig å holde barna skjult for  slovakisk politi. Likevel fortsetter Nav å utbetale penger og Storberget gjør ingenting for å stoppe galskapen.  Hvordan kan vi forvente at slovakiske myndigheter skal forholde til så motstridene signaler?

Mon tro om Justisdepartementet egentlig ønsker Hoholmguttene returnert?  Vi vet med stor grad av sikkerhet at mødre i større grad enn fedre kan regne med  støtte ved barnebortføringer. Tommys sak er et godt eksempel på nettopp det. I en masteroppgave avslørte Kjersti Berg Sand, førstekonsulent i Sivilavdelingen, uforvarende hvordan saksbehandlerne har overprøvd norsk rett og handlet etter egne vurderinger. I Tommys sak hvor domstolen hadde avgjort at det er til guttenes beste å flytte hjem til faren, trosset Sivilavdelingen domstolen og mente at barna hadde det bedre hos moren. Da moren ble satt i varetekt etter en internasjonal politietterlysning, uten barna, lot Sivilavdelingen kvinnen slippe fri fordi de mente at barna måtte savne moren. Så følger Nav opp med å betale denne kvinnen for å holde seg i skjul for det slovakiske politiet, slik at barna ikke kan returneres.

Les hele saken  her: Bortført.no

Politiet kan utlevere barna

Av: Karine Østtveit, Aftenposten

Knut Storberget tar personlig affære for å få de bortførte barna til Tommy Hoholm hjem til Norge. En ny retts-avgjørelse i Slovakia sier at barna skal hjem.

- Det er nesten så jeg tør å håpe litt.

Tommy Hoholm smiler. I forrige uke skrev Aftenposten om de to sønnene hans, som ble bortført til Slovakia av moren i 2005. Før helgen kom det en ny rettsavgjørelse fra den slovakiske domstolen, som konkluderte med at barna skulle hjem til Norge. Samtidig har justisminister Knut Storberget (Ap), til tross for at han er i pappapermisjon, engasjert seg i Hoholms sak.

- Departementet har senest denne uken fulgt opp denne saken tett. Jeg har tidligere tatt opp saken med den ansvarlige statssekretæren, sier Storberget.

- Kan du love at barna kommer hjem?

- Jeg kan ikke love noe. Vi kan ikke sende politi og hente dem, vi har ingen jurisdiksjon i Slovakia. Det er mildt sagt hårreisende hvordan myndighetene har trenert denne saken, sier han.

Utrolig glad

For Hoholm er det gode nyheter. Han har den siste uken vært i kontakt med justisministeren.

- Og jeg er utrolig glad for denne støtten. Nå håper jeg at det vil føre frem, sier han.

I forrige uke så han guttene sine for første gang på lenge.

- Det var et veldig sårt øyeblikk. Den eldste gutten skalv da han forklarte seg i retten. Da er det vondt at jeg ikke får muligheten til å snakke med dem eller trøste dem, sier Hoholm.

Les hele artikkelen her: Aftenposten

Drapstruet far må reise ubeskyttet

Justisdepartementet har bedt Tommy Hoholm om å delta i et rettsmøte i den slovakiske byen Liptovsky Mikulas 27. januar. Hoholm er drapstruet i Slovakia, likevel nekter Justisdepartementet å dekke utgiftene til livvakt.

Justisdepartementet har også bestemt at Hoholm ikke lenger skal få fri rettshjelp i sin barnebortføringssak. Jostein Løvoll, seniorrådgiver i Sivilavdelingen, skriver at “man ikke skal få dekket advokatregningen av det offentlige i saker hvor det offentlige selv gir tilstrekkelig veiledning og bistand.” Bistanden fra Sivilavdelingen har imidlertid vært horribel, og det kan synes som at Justisdepartementet nå desperat forsøker å skjule alle tabbene de har gjort ved at de nedprioritere saken, og således forhindre at en ny advokat får innsyn.

Etter at Tommys to sønner ble bortført til Slovakia har han lojalt fulgt rådene norske myndigheter har gitt ham. Resultatet er en 5 år lang juridisk ørkenvandring. Selv om domstolene i både Norge og Slovakia har fattet beslutning om at Timothy og Joachim skal returneres til Norge, er likevel er ikke guttene brakt tilbake. Hva har gått galt?

Norske myndigheter har prøvd å legge press på slovakiske myndigheter og 20.10.10 sendte Knut Storberget en nokså krass telefax til det slovakiske justisdepartementet, hvor han kritiserte saksgangen. Storberget viste til Haagkonvensjonens artikkel 7 som fastsetter at: “Sentralmyndighetene skal samarbeide med hverandre og fremme samarbeidet mellom de kompetente myndigheter i sine respektive stater for å sikre at barn umiddelbart blir levert tilbake og for å nå de øvrige mål som er satt i denne konvensjon.”

Utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre var på statsbesøk i Slovakia sammen med Kongeparet i oktober 2010. Gahr Støre fortalte da til TV2 at han ville ta opp den manglende returen av guttene. Les saken på TV2s nettside 25.10.10

I ettertid viste det seg imidlertid at Jonas Gahr Støre ikke diskuteret bortføringen av Hoholmguttene gjennom  offisielle kanaler. Hoholm fikk vage signaler om at Gahr Støre visstnok hadde uformelle samtaler på gangen, men det finnes ingen  offisielle dokumenter som viser at saken er diskutert. Kan vi stole på Gahr Støre? Finnes politisk vilje til å få hjem Hoholmguttene?

JUSTISDEPARTEMENTETS TABBER I HOHOLMSAKEN

Etter bortføringen har moren, Martina, ikke vist særlig interesse for å ta seg av sønnene sine. Timothy og Joachim har stort sett bodd hos besteforeldre. Martina bor i en annen by. Storfamilien er likevel svært opptatt av å ha guttene i sin besittelse, på grunn av underholdningsbidragene som Tommy må betale. En norsk tusenlapp er uforholdsmessig verdifull i et fattig land som Slovakia, og Martinas foreldre har benyttet anledningen til å førtidspensjonere seg. I perioder hvor familien har følt fare for at politiet skulle hente guttene, har Timothy og Joachim blitt gjemt bort i et munkekloster i fjellene. Guttene har mistet så mye undervisning at de må ta ett skoleår på nytt.

Les hele saken her: Bortført.no

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

 

Hva gjorde Gahr Støre i Slovakia?

Av: Bortført.no

Utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre var på statsbesøk i Slovakia sammen med Kongeparet. I denne forbindelse ville han ta opp saken om de to guttene som ble borført av sin mor til Slovakia med landets myndigheter. Les saken på TV2s nettside 25.10.10

Nå viser det seg imidlertid at Jonas Gahr Støre ikke har tatt opp bortføringen av Hoholmguttene gjennom  offisielle kanaler. Hoholm har fått vage signaler om at Gahr Støre visstnok har diskutert saken på gangen, men det finnes ingen  offisielle dokumenter som viser at saken er diskutert.

Kan vi stole på om Gahr Støre la vekt på å få hjem Hoholmguttene? Vi vet med sikkerhet er at norske myndigheter har holdt Tommy Hoholm for narr flere ganger, samt at utenriksministeren har blitt avslørt etter å ha behandlet sivile saker lettvint tidligere, som for eksempel i Martine-saken.

TV2 hadde en reportasje 14.10.10 med overskriften: “Støre kontaktet aldri Norges mann i Jemen”. Bakgrunnen for saken var at: Norges generalkonsul i Jemen ble aldri bedt om hjelp da Farouk Abdulhak rømte til hjemlandet etter drapet på Martine Vik Magnussen.

VG meldte 28.01.10:“Kravet om en utlevering av drapsettersøkte Farouk Abdulhak kommer etter alt å dømme ikke til å bli tatt opp med Jemen under toppmøtene i London.”

Ut i fra disse erfaringene med med Jonas Gahr Støre, sitter vi igjen med en ekkel fornemmelse av at vår utenriksministeren vår forholder seg nokså likegyldig til slike saker.

Støre tar opp bortføringssaken med slovakiske myndigheter

TV2: Utenriksministeren vil ta opp saken om de to kidnappede guttene med slovakiske myndigheter.

Utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre er på statsbesøk i Slovakia sammen med Kongeparet.

I denne forbindelse vil han ta opp saken om de to guttene som ble borført av sin mor til Slovakia med landets myndigheter.

Les også: Justisministeren kjemper for kidnappede barn

– Trist og vond sak

– Dette er en trist og vond sak, og det er naturlig for meg å ta opp denne saken med slovakiske myndigheter sier Støre til TV 2.

Støre legger også til at domstolen i Slovakia slår fast at barna skal sendes tilbake til Norge.

– Det vil også være en del av de føringene jeg kommer til å gi myndigheten her, sier han til TV 2 på spørsmål om han vil kreve at barna skal bli utlevert.

Les hele sakem her: TV2