Fortier barnebortføring


Kjell Schevig, redaktør i Bortført.no

Les Bortført.no sin kronikk her: Kronikk

Statssekretær Astri Aas-Hansen i Justisdepartementet misliker min kritikk mot norske myndigheters håndtering av barnebortføringssaker. I Dagbladet 23. august skriver hun at jeg skaper unødig usikkerhet. Jeg er imidlertid bare en budbringer som formidler det foreldre med bortførte barn har opplevd. Aas-Hansen burde heller imøtegå innholdet i kritikken fremfor å vise til regjeringens mangeårige innsats, som bare har resultert i flere barnebortføringer.

Dette er jo hele poenget: Statistikken viser 30 bortføringer i 2009, og 29 bortføringer fra januar til og med juni 2010.  Da hjelper det lite å vise til Haag-konvensjonen, og at regjeringen prioriterer, tar problemene på alvor, oppretter nettsted og sender nye forslag ut til høring. Ei heller blir flere barn returnert. Aas-Hansen vil ikke legge vekt på fakta; hun forlanger i stedet å bli vurdert etter gode intensjoner og antall møter ekspertutvalget hennes holder.

I tillegg har Regjeringsadvokat Ida Thue på oppdrag av Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet aktivt forhindret innsyn i statistikken over barnebortføringer (Oslo Tingrett 22.09.09). Årsaken er at NAV Utland påviselig bedriver kjønnsdiskriminering i slike saker: Fedre må betale bidrag til kvinner i utlandet, mens mødre slipper.  Regjeringens egentlige motiver synes dermed å være at offentligheten ikke skal vite. For hvordan kan myndighetene leve med at de selv bryter et kjønnsnøytralt bidragslovverk?

I Dagbladet 14. juli fortalte Aas-Hansen at politiet skal ta imot alle anmeldelser ved barnebortføring.  Likevel blir foreldre stadig avvist fordi politiet regner barnebortføring som et privatrettslig anliggende, men dette betyr bare at departementet har unnlatt å gi politiet klare instrukser – kanskje med overlegg?


Det er underlig at Astri Aas-Hansen synes det er ”alvorlig” og at det ”skaper unødig usikkerhet” å fortelle om disse forholdene.  Selv synes jeg det er mer alvorlig å fortie det.

Haagkonvensjonen, virker den?


Av: Kjell Schevig,  Bortført.no

Hvor mange bortførte barn er returnert til Norge som følge av Haagkonvensjonen? Justisdepartementet nekter å svare på spørsmålet. Men departementet har en liste med 24 advokater med særlig kompetanse på barnebortføring, så vi spurte like godt alle advokatene. (Advokaten på bildet er ikke en av de 24 ekspertene).

De 24 advokatene har til sammen en suksessrate på – 6 saker – der barn er returnert til Norge som følge av konvensjonsavgjørelser. Når vi vet at om lag 350 barn er bortført siden 2000, så er ikke seks vinnersaker mye å juble over. Så hvorfor mener justisminister Knut Storberget at konvensjonen er norske myndigheters viktigste redskap i kampen mot barnebortføring?

Når man, som som far eller mor, har sittet i en utenlandsk domstol og observert dommeren himle med øynene og le av Haagkonvensjonen, er det vanskelig å forstå norske byråkraters kjærlige forhold til  konvensjonen.

Hvorfor har Justisdepartementet lagt sin elsk på en konvensjon som ikke virker? Har justisdepartementets saksbehandlere noen gang vært tilsdede i en konvensjonssak i utlandet?

I tillegg til de seks sakene hvor barn er tilbakeført, finnes det 3 saker hvor domstolen har avgjort at barna skal returneres – uten at barna har blitt returnert. Noen land spekulerer nemlig i et dobbelspill hvor man på papiret følger konvensjonen, samtidig som politiet nedprioriterer tilbakesendingen.

Svært ulik erfaringsbakgrunn

På departementenes nettside spesifiseres det at de 24 utvalgte advokatene har “særlig kompetanse på og kjennskap til barnebortføring.” En håndfull av disse advokatene har ført mange saker og har således særlig kompetanse, noen har moderat praktisk erfaring, mens 9 av advokatene har liten eller ingen erfaring med barnebortføringssaker. Det Justisdepartementet har valgt å kalle særlig kompetanse er i realiteten et heldagsseminar om barnebortføring.

Her er advokatene med erfaring: Ole A. Rasmussen, Elisabet Brodtkorb, Maria Amundsen, Morten Engesbak, Elisabet Grøndal, Marius Sandvig, Hanne Bredal, Kristine Schilling, Sigurd Rønningen, Ellen Sraum, Kjersti Gjellesvik, Kristine Hånes, Roe Lauvås, Harald hetland og Janet Riise.

Det finnes tilfeller der advokatene har lyktes med å få returnere barn til Norge ved forliksavtaler. Men forlikene kan ikke uten videre godskrives Haagkonvensjonen, fordi forliksavtaler er også oppnådd i land som ikke er tilsluttet konvensjonen.

Ved bortføring til utlandet, vil den norske advokaten bare kunne opptre som en støttespiller. Advokater må nemlig være autorisert i henhold til det aktuelle lands prosessregler. Om barnet for eksempel befinner seg i Frankrike, så må en fransk advokat prosedere saken, og den norske advokaten er således bare en støttespiller.

Advokatene på listen hatt større suksess med å sende barn ut av Norge, enn de har hatt med å returnere barn til Norge. Dette skyldes muligens at våre domstoler har større respekt for internasjonale konvensjoner enn det man opplever i andre land. Det er typisk norsk å være snillest i klassen.  Advokatenes erfaringer med Haagkonvensjonen er likevel nyttig, uansett om de har fulgt i rettsprosesser i utlandet eller ført saker i Norge.

Les hele saken her: Bortført.no

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com

Profiles of Parents At Risk for Abducting Their Children


“You’ll never see your child again!” When
are these words an idle threat spoken in
anger and frustration and when are they
a warning that a parent intends to abduct
his or her child, depriving the child and
the other parent of future contact?

By: U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Profile 1: When There Has Been a Prior threat of or Actual Abduction
When a parent has made credible threats to abduct a child
or has a history of hiding the child, withholding visitation, or
snatching the child from the other parent, there is great distrust
between the parents and a heightened risk of further
custody violation. This risk profile is usually combined with
one or more of the other profiles. In these cases, the underlying
psychological and social dynamics that motivate the
abduction need to be understood and addressed. When other
risk factors are present, one or more of the following are general
indicators of an imminent threat of flight with the child:
-The parent is unemployed, homeless, and without emotional
or financial ties to the area.
– The parent has divulged plans to abduct the child and has
the resources or the support of extended family and/or
friends and underground dissident networks needed to
survive in hiding.
– The parent has liquidated assets, made maximum withdrawals
of funds against credit cards, or borrowed money
from other sources.

Profile 2: When a Parent Suspects or Believes
Abuse Has Occurred and Friends and Family
Members Support These Concerns
Many parents abduct their child because they believe that the
other parent is abusing, molesting, or neglecting the child.
These abducting parents feel that the authorities have not
taken them seriously or properly investigated the allegations.
Repeated allegations increase the hostility and distrust
between the parents. Parents who have the fixed belief
that abuse has occurred—and will continue to occur—then
“rescue” the child, often with the help of supporters who concur
with their beliefs, justify their actions, and often help with
the abduction and concealment. Supporters might include
family members, friends, or underground networks (usually
women) that help “protective” parents (usually women) obtain
new identities and find safe locations.
In a large number of cases, the child has been previously
exposed to neglectful, endangering, or violent environments
(e.g., domestic violence or substance abuse). In
these cases, the courts and child protective services may
have failed to protect the child and the concerned parent or
family member. They may have trivialized the allegations,
dismissing them as invalid or the product of a contentious
divorce. Often, however, the allegation of sexual abuse by a
father or stepfather that motivates a mother to abduct her
child is unsubstantiated. In these cases, the abduction can
psychologically harm the child and the other parent, possibly
leaving their relationship in serious need of repair.

Profile 3: When a Parent Is Paranoid Delusional
Although only a small percentage of parents fit this profile,
these parents present the greatest risk of physical harm or
death to the child, regardless of whether an abduction occurs.
Parents who fit the paranoid profile hold markedly irrational
or psychotic delusions that the other parent will definitely
harm them and/or the child. Believing themselves to
be betrayed and exploited by their former partner, these
parents urgently take what they consider to be necessary
measures to protect themselves and the child.
Psychotic parents do not perceive the child as a separate
person. Rather, they perceive the child as part of
themselves—that is, as a victim (in which case they take
unilateral measures to rescue the child)—or they perceive
the child as part of the hated other parent (in which case
they may precipitously abandon or even kill the child). Marital
separation and/or the instigation of the custody dispute
generally triggers an acute phase of danger for these psychotic
individuals. The result can be not only parental abduction,
but also murder and suicide.

Profile 4: When a Parent Is Severely Sociopathic
Sociopathic parents are characterized by a long history of
flagrant violations of the law and contempt for any authority—
including that of the legal system. Their relationships withother people are self-serving, exploitive, and highly manipulative.
These people are also likely to hold exaggerated
beliefs about their own superiority and entitlement
and are highly gratified by their ability to exert power and
control over others. As with paranoid and delusional parents,
sociopathic parents are unable to perceive their children
as having separate needs or rights. Consequently,
they often use their children as instruments of revenge or
punishment or as trophies in their fight with the former
partner. Sociopathic parents have no qualms about continuing
coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior or abducting
their child, nor do they believe that they should be
punished for their actions. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of
severe sociopathy is rare.

Profile 5: When a Parent Who Is a Citizen of
Another Country Ends a Mixed-Culture Marriage
Parents who are citizens of another country (or who have
dual citizenship with the United States) and have strong
ties to their extended family in their country of origin have
long been recognized as potential abductors. The risk of
abduction is especially acute at the time of parental separation
and divorce, when these parents may feel cast adrift
from their mixed-culture marriage and may need to return
to their ethnic or religious roots to find emotional support
and reconstitute a shaken self-identity. Often in reaction to
being rendered helpless or feeling rejected and discarded
by the former spouse, such parents may try to take unilateral
action by returning with the child to their family of origin.
This is a way of insisting that the abducting parent’s
cultural identity be given preeminent status in the child’s
upbringing.

Profile 6: When Parents Feel Alienated From the
Legal System and Have Family/Social Support
in Another Community
Many subgroups of potential abductors feel alienated from
the judicial system. Listed below are five such subgroups.

1. Parents who are indigent and poorly educated
lack knowledge about custody and abduction laws and cannot
afford the legal representation or psychological counseling that
would help them resolve their disputes. Those parents who
have extended family or other social, emotional, and economic
support in another geographical community may be at risk for
abducting their children.
Subgroup

2. Many parents cannot afford and are unaware of
the need to access the court system. In addition, those who
have had prior negative experiences with civil or criminal
courts do not expect family courts to be responsive to their
values or their plight.
Subgroup

3. Parents who belong to certain ethnic, religious,
or cultural groups may hold views about childrearing that
are contrary to the prevailing custody laws that emphasize
gender neutrality and the rights of both parents. These
parents instead turn to their own social networks for support
and use informal self-help measures rather than the courts
in disputes over the children.
Subgroup

4. A mother who has a transient, unmarried relationship
with her child’s father often views the child as her
property, and her extended family supports this belief. Many
of the women in this subgroup assume they have sole custody
of their child and are genuinely surprised when they are
informed that the father—by law in California and most other
States—has joint rights to the child.
Subgroup

5. Parents who are victims of domestic violence
are at risk of abducting their child, especially when the courts
and community have failed to take the necessary steps to protect
them from abuse or to hold the abuser accountable. Joint
custody, mediated agreements, and visitation orders often
leave victims vulnerable to ongoing violence, despite separation
from the abuser. When such victims abduct their child, the
violent partners may successfully obscure the facts about the
abuse and activate the abduction laws to regain control of their
victims.

Read the entire report here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/185026.pdf

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our website at: www.abpworld.com

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook