Til Barnets Beste – TV2 Dokumentaren som forsvant


Julie Murens tre barn ble bortført fra Jersey av sin norske far. Julie flyttet etter barna sine til Norge, men norsk rett fratok henne normale rettigheter som mor. Hun fikk bare se barna sine i noen timer med tilsyn, de samme smulene av familieliv som rusmissbrukere og voldsdømte kan bli tilkjent.

Journalist Odd Isungset kontaktet Julie, og hennes historie skulle vises i Dokument 2 “Til barnets beste?”  5. oktober. En knapp time før dokumentaren ble send fikk Julie beskjed om at hun var var klippet ut av programmetNå har imidlertid den ukuttede versjonen av “Til barnets beste?” dukket opp på YouTube. Du kan se den her.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

 

TV2-dokumentaren som forsvant. Julie Muren`s kamp for sine barn


cuttingKilde: Bortført.no

Julie Murens tre barn ble bortført fra Jersey av sin norske far. Julie flyttet etter barna sine til Norge, men norsk rettfratok henne normale rettigheter som mor. Hun fikk bare se barna sine i noen timer med tilsyn, de samme smulene av familieliv som rusmissbrukere og voldsdømte kan bli tilkjent.

Journalist Odd Isungset kontaktet Julie, og hennes historie skulle vises i Dokument 2 “Til barnets beste?”  5. oktober. En knapp time før dokumentaren ble send fikk Julie beskjed om at hun var var klippet ut av programmetNå har imidlertid den ukuttede versjonen av “Til barnets beste?” dukket opp på YouTube. Du kan se den her.

Julie Muren forstår ikke hvorfor hun ble klippet ut av Dokument 2. Den offisielle unnskyldningen om “presseetiske årsaker” synes hun virker ulogisk. Redaksjonen i Dokument 2 fikk innsyn i alle saksdokumentene og hadde lange samtaler med min advokat på forhånd. Om det hadde vært noe presseetisk tvilsomt med min sak så kunne de ha avdekket dette lenge før han gjorde opptakene, forteller Julie.

julie

Etter å ha sett den nedklippede versjonen av TV2-dokumentaren, sitter Julie igjen med inntrykket av at hennes sak ville ha stilt uttalelsene fra Justisdepartementet i et helt annet lys. Justisminister Knut Storbegert snakker kritisk om andre lands manglende respekt for Hagkonvensjonen, og gir inntrykk av at vi håndterer barnebortføringssaker bedre i Norge. Julie forteller at behandlingen hun har fått i Norge viser at Storberget ikke snakker sant. Og hvem vet hvor mange tilsvarende saker som finnes?
Knut Storberget sier at det er uheldig at Hoholm må betale bidrag, men forsikrer at regjeringen skal diskutere ordningen med bidrag for bortførte i 2012.Knut Storberget har imidlertid sagt at bidrag for bortførte barn er en uting i alle de seks årene han har sittet som justisminister, men han har aldri gjort noe konkret for å løse problemet, og regjeringen har stemt ned forslag fra opposisjonen på Stortinget om å fjerne bidragene.

En erfaren journalist som Isungset burde ha konfrontert Storberget med selvmotsigelsene om bidrag. Storberget burde også blitt spurt om hvorfor NAV bruker bidraglovgivningen selektivt, slik at det er bare fedre som betaler bidrag for bortførte barn. Hvordan kan justisministeren rettferdiggjøre en praksis hvor alle fedre tvinges til å betale bidrag, og mødrene slipper, så lenge bidragslovgivningen og konvensjonene er kjønnsnøytrale? (Les mer her).

Dokument 2 skaper avmakt

Sosialpornografien rendyrkes i Dokument 2 sin serie om barnebortføring. Man fokuserer ensidig på foreldrenes lidelse og håpløse kamp. Og Storberget tillates å fremstå som den empatiske, rettskafne ministeren som har gjort alt i sin makt for å hjelpe disse foreldrene. Således maler redaksjonen i Dokument 2 et helt uriktig bilde av situasjonen, skaper avmakt og resignasjon, og et inntrykk av at det ingenting som kan gjøres i slike saker. Dette er feil.

ksOm regjeringen hadde holdt sine løfter om å avskaffe bidragsordningen for mange år siden, så ville færre norske barn ha blitt bortført. Regjeringen har unnlatt å ta de viktigste grepene for å forhindre nye bortføringer. Det er for eksempel takket være veldokumenterte forsømmelser fra Justisdepartementet at Hoholm-guttene ikke er tilbake Alsvsåg i dag. Justisdepartementet hadde en mulighet til å løse saken allerede i 2009, da Hoholms ekskone ble tatt i forvaring av britisk politi. Storbergets medarbeidere valgte imidlertid å la barnebortføreren slippe unna (les mer her) .

Norske myndigheter troverdighet i internasjonale bortføringssaker kunne også ha vært langt bedre dersom vi hadde gitt utenlandske borgere den samme respekten som vi forventer at nordmenn skal bli møtt med i utlandet.

Julie Murens sak avslører at Knut Storberget ikke har noen grunn til å være selvtilfreds med våre myndigheters behandling av utenlandske foreldre med barn bortført til Norge.

Mon tro om Julies pirking i selvgodheten. og eksponeringen av Justisdepartementets unnlatelsessynder som er årsaken til at Julie ble redigert ut av programmet?

Se den uklipte versjonen av Dokument 2 her. 

 Les mer om Julies sak her 

Se systemkritikken som redaksjonen i Dokument 2 har oversett: “De bortførte barna” Dagbladet 19.08.10

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

Er det greit å bortføre egne barn til Norge? Julie`s historie


Kilde: Bortført.no

ABP World Group`s Kommentar: Julies historie skulle sendes på TV2 Onsdag 5 Oktober, men på grunn av TV2`s feighet og system servilitet,utgikk hennes historie fra dokumentaren. Vi tar avstand fra TV2`s beslutning.

a-mag7sJulie Murens tre barn, 10, 9 and 5 år gamle, ble bortført fra Jersey til Norge i 2005 av sin norske far. Juliess ublide møte med norske myndigheter skildres i A-magasinets artikkel ”Dømt til å tape”  11.03.11.

Etter borføringen valgte Julie å flytte til Norge for å være nær barna. Henne ubeskjedne ønske om 50 % omsorg for barna ble avslått av norsk rettsvesen, og domstolen valgte i stedet å gi henne noen usle timers samvær under rigid tilsyn av farens venner, av frykt for at moren skulle ta med seg barna tilbake til Jersey. Barnebortføreren fikk altså rettens beskyttelse, mens moren som ble frarøvet barna ble straffet. Gerard Baudains, tidligere parlamentariker i House of Lords, sier til Aftenposten:”Det norske rettsystemet er like korrupt som et hvilket som helst land i den tredje verden.”    Foto: Marie Von Krogh

I norske domstoler blir familiesaker hemmeligholdt som om rikets sikkerhet skulle stå på spill. Angivelig er årsaken at individet skal skjermes, men når man ser hvilke represalier mennesker som prøver å eksponere domstolene blir utsatt for, synes det som om det egentlige målet er å beskytte domstolene.

Når britiske parlamentarikere sammenligner det norske rettsystemet med tilstander man finner i Uganda, maner det til ettertanke. For eksempel er det uforståelig for briter at norske domstoler ikke benytter stenografer eller lydopptak. Like ubegripelig er det at sakkyndige psykologer skriver lange rapporter med bombastiske konklusjoner etter kun å ha snakket med et menneske i 45 minutter. Der er også problematisk at den samme gjengen sakkyndige begår liknende overgrep i sak etter sak. I Storbritannia og andre vestlige land finnes det standardiserte rutiner for bruk av sakkyndige, men altså ikke i annerledeslandet Norge.

am4
Julie Muren flyttet etter de bortførte barna sine, og norsk rett straffet henne med en samværsordning som ikke kan kalles noe annet enn nedverdigende og en belastende for både mor og barn. Aftenpostens journalist Karine Østtveit beskriver det slik: “Det er denne typen samvær foreldre i tunge barnevernssaker får; de samme smulene av familieliv som rusmissbrukere og voldsdømte kan bli tilkjent. I Julies tilfelle var det aldri snakk om rus eller vold. Dommerens frykt for at hun skulle ta med barna ut av landet, førte til at hun mistet både foreldreansvaret og normalt helgesamvær. – En vanlig ressurssterk norsk mor ville aldri fått så lite samvær. Det er ingen tvil om det, mener advokat Tone  Linn Thingvold.”

Norsk rettsvesen like korrupt som i Uganda?

passJersey er en kronbesittelse av Storbritannia, og innbyggerne har britiske pass. Selv om Jersey har sitt eget innenriksstyre, styres utenrikspolitikken fra London. Jersey er en av De Britiske Øyer og Storbritannia har tiltrådt Haagkonvensjonen, slik at det ville være naturlig om norske myndigheter betraktet disse tre barna som britiske statsborgere (hvilket de er) og returnere dem i samsvar konvensjonen. I stedet har Justisdepartementet og domstolene, Høyesterett inkludert, drevet juridisk flisespikkeri og definert Jersey utenfor britisk konvensjonsområde, uten å begrunne hvorfor – et trekk som gjerne deles med land vi helst ikke liker å sammenlikne oss med.

Julie forteller at barnas farfar, som foretok selve bortføringen sammen med sønnen, er en innflytelsesrik mann pensjonert fra ledende stilling i Statoil. Det er også påfallende at farens prosesskriv var forfattet, og at barna var registrert i Folkeregisteret, med morens forfalskede underskrift, i god tid før bortføringen fant sted. Barnebortførerne hadde også drevet lobbyvirksomhet hos Justisdepartementet.

baudainsDen britiske parlamentarikeren Gerard Baudains (bildet) sendte en diplomatisk note til Justisdepartementet hvor han anmodet om at departementet anerkjente kjennelsen fra britisk rett som slår fast at Julie er tilkjent daglig omsorg, og at barna derfor ble ulovlig bortført fra britisk territorium. Justisdepartementet avslo anmodningen. Og som det ikke det var nok ble Baudains nektet å vitne da saken ble behandlet i domstolen!

Justisdepartementets stassekretær Astri Aas-Hansen understreker ovenfor Aftenposten at Julies sak ikke er en konvensjonssak, og at det derfor er opp til norske domstoler å avgjøre saken.  Slik unngår hun selve kardinalspørsmålet, nemlig hvordan Justisdepartementet makter å definere barn med fullt britisk statsborgerskap som ikke tilhørende Haagkonvensjonen.

Tradisjonen tro begrunner ikke Aas-Hansen sin tolkning, men andre gjør: Statsadvokaten på Jersey informerte Justisdepartementet allerede i 2005 at ”Jersey er en av De Britiske Øyer og at Hennes Majestets Regjering i Storbritannia representerer Jersey i utenriksspørsmål”.  Heller ikke finner norsk Høyesterett eller Justisdepartementet det interessant at morens signatur til Folkeregisteret var forfalsket, igjen et trekk som gjerne assosieres med U-land, og ikke siviliserte rettsstater.

Kjell Schevig

Les også Christines egen beskrivelse: “ABDUCTED TO 
NORWAY”
Les også Aftenpostens artikkel: Fortvilte foreldre ber om hjelp 

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

TV2 – Til barnets beste


Kilde: Bortført.no

Sarah levde 13 år på flukt med pappa i USA, og fant ut at hun var savnet da hun så bilde av seg selv på en melkekartong. Dette er en av de tre sakene som blir presentert i Dokument 2 “Til barnets beste” 5. okt. 21:40.

41 år gamle Sarah Finkelstein var fire år gammel da hun ble bortført av faren. I dag arbeider hun aktivt mot barnebortføring og i sine studier er hun opptatt av begrepet “til barnets beste”. Hvem er det som egentlig avgjør hva som er til barnets beste?

Julie Muren, fra Jersey, har fått føle på kroppen at også norske domstoler har favorisert nordmenn som bortført barn til Norge. Tommy Hoholm, en av de to grunnleggerne av Bortført.no, mener at fellesnevneren  i disse sakene er at barnebortføreren blir belønnet.

Det siste året ble 64 barn bortført fra Norge til utlandet. 30 barn ble bortført til Norge. Les mer om Dokument 2 “Til barnets beste” på TV2 sin hjemmeside.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

Police seek Holland-area mother, Wendi Carpenter, on parental kidnapping charge


By Staff reports
Holland police are looking for a local woman they say left the state with her two children after she failed to show up on Tuesday for a scheduled transfer of the children to their father.
Wendi Carpenter had the two young children for visitation during the summer but had to transfer the children to their father because of a court order, according to a news release from Holland police. After she didn’t show up to the Holland Department of Public Safety for the transfer, police started an investigation.Based on that investigation, police now believe Carpenter has fled the state with the two children, Luke Carpenter and Cambria Carpenter. Wendi Carpenter is wanted on a warrant for custodial interference authorized by the Ottawa County Prosecutor.She is listed as a practicing psychologist with two different nonprofit counseling groups, Healing Waters and Lakeshore Pure Freedom, both in Zeeland. Police did not release the father’s name.

The mother and children were last known to be in Holland, in the 300 block of Pine Avenue,  around 8 a.m. on Tuesday, police said. The mother and children left in her vehicle, a 2006 Toyota Highlander, police said, but that vehicle has since been located in western Missouri. They might have left that area in a dark-colored SUV.

The Holland Department of Public Safety is asking anyone with information as to the possible location of the mother or children to call the Holland Department of Public Safety Detective Bureau at (616) 355-1150 or Silent Observer at (888) 88-SILENT.

Published by: ABP World Group  Executive Protection
Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL ABDUCTIONS A GROWING PROBLEM


Source:Weinman & Associates

Of the 1,500 children who were victims of international parental abductions in 2010, less than 600 were recovered and brought back to the United States. The State Department estimates one-third of those children were taken to Mexico by way of border states like Texas.

The government reports a startling number of children abducted by their parents in the last decade – nearly 7,000 between 2000 and 2009. Many of the children are taken during scheduled non-custodial parent visitations and whisked away to a foreign-born parent’s native homeland.

On September 1, Texas will enact a new law making child abductions a state felony, but lawmakers and watchdog groups say it is still too easy for absconding parents with children to get away. Border officials have no nationwide child custody database and airlines are too time-crunched to check passengers carefully.

One former criminal prosecutor and judge said if a child is not intercepted before leaving the country, the chances for the child’s return to the U.S. become slim.

Mexico is one of more than 70 countries that have agreed to abide by Hague Convention’s child abduction rules, insisting that children who are illegally relocated out of a country be returned to their homes. However, legal professionals say international courts get bogged down or distracted by internal conflicts, like the drug war in Mexico, and put child custody matters aside.

Parents caught running with children to a foreign land in violation of custody rules can be imprisoned for three years. Congressional leaders have introduced the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, which could potentially threaten various forms of U.S. assistance to countries that have poor records of helping to retrieve abducted children. Hopefully the government will be able to come up with an effective way to locate and return abducted children to the United States.

We can bring them home

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

What happens if your ex abducts your child?


By STEWART M. POWELL HOUSTON CHRONICLE  – July 4, 2011, 7:19AM

International parental abductions are on the rise, and many of the children never return

WASHINGTON — For nine gut-wrenching years, Texan Greg Allen has been trying to track down his daughter after her mother absconded to Mexico with the 4-year-old during a rare unsupervised visit after the couple’s contentious divorce.

“When it first happened, I was unable to function,” recalls Allen, 42, an electrical engineer and sonar expert doing doctoral research at the University of Texas’ applied research laboratories in Austin. “I went from being a single parent whose whole life revolved around raising my daughter to being a left-behind parent whose purpose in life was gone.”

Last year, at least 1,500 children were unlawfully taken to foreign countries by a parent who had been living in the United States, including children who were taken even while a parent was serving in the U.S. armed forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. Only 578 abducted children were returned to the United States.

Many of the children – roughly one-third – ended up in Mexico because of the parent’s ties to extended family or Mexico’s proximity.

International parental abductions are “sharply on the rise,” cautions the State Department’s top official on the issue, Ambassador Susan Jacobs. “When an international border is involved, an already tragic situation for the children and left-behind parents is infinitely compounded.”

Congress’ investigative Government Accountability Office has documented at least 6,966 cases of international parental abduction over the decade ending in 2009, most by foreign-born parents returning to their country of birth.

Yet, as Allen learned only too late, chronic ambiguities routinely enable parents to abduct their children and get away with it. Local police rarely take missing child reports arising from custody disputes. Customs and Border Protection agents do not check departing parents or children at airports or border crossings. Fully half of left-behind parents surveyed by the American Bar Association, for example, said ex-partners abducted their children during routine court-approved visits.

No national database

Federal authorities do not maintain a national database of child custody orders from local courts that might help suspicious immigration officers determine the status of a departing child.

Even if the paperwork were available, international airlines routinely have no more than 30 minutes to match a passenger manifest against a missing child report or a court order barring departure.

Abducting parents can face up to three years in prison for taking their child to a foreign country “with the intent to obstruct a parent’s custodial rights.”

A Texas law taking effect Sept. 1 makes the abduction a state felony, as well.

“The reality is, once an abducting parent gets a kid to the departure gate, they’re gone,” says Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, a former criminal court judge and prosecutor who has been working for more than five years to help Houston resident Marty Pate recover his daughter Nicole from Brazil. “Once a child leaves the United States, it’s very, very difficult to get them back.”

Allen miraculously spied his daughter Sabrina in Mexico City in 2003 and subsequently visited her school to talk with her teacher. But the girl and her mother, Dara Marie Llorens, fled and have not been seen since.

Even in the 71 nations such as Mexico that have signed the 1980 Hague Convention on child abduction, local court proceedings can drag on. The accord is designed to speed repatriation of abducted children under the age of 16 to their “country of habitual residence” to resume court-ordered child custody arrangements.

But court proceedings often get sidetracked, particularly in Mexican states engulfed by the drug wars such as San Luis Potosí and Tamaulipas.

“We have judges who are afraid to do anything,” says attorney Pamela Brown of Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid in Weslaco, who handles about 20 international child abduction cases a year to and from Mexico. “Judges are terrified that the taking parent might have ties to the cartels so they won’t step in.”

Adds Allen: “With a civil war going on down there, child abduction is just not a high priority.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7638140.html#ixzz1R96U7CM5

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Dads warned to look out for signs of parental child abduction


30 JUNE 2011 – Fatherhoodinstitute.org

Dads are being advised on how to prevent their children’s mothers abducting them and taking them abroad.

According to a new Government campaign,  every other day a British child is abducted by a parent to a country which has not signed the 1980 Hague Convention on international parental child abduction*.

The latest figures represent a ten per cent increase in new cases handled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2010/2011 and have been released to mark the launch of the FCO’s child abduction prevention campaign.

Evidence shows that many cases occur around school holidays when a parent refuses to return a child following a visit to the parent’s home country. In most cases these abductions are perpetrated by mothers.

Last year the FCO handled cases in 97 ‘non Hague’ countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. These are countries which have not signed up to the 1980 Hague convention on international parental child abduction and with whom negotiating the return of children to the UK can be extremely complex as there are no international agreements on returning children.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Jeremy Browne said the campaign will help people become more aware of what they could do if they think their child may be at risk.

“We are very concerned that we continue to see an increase in the number of cases of international parental child abduction. The latest figures suggest the problem affects people from all walks of life and not just certain types of families or particular countries. Finding a solution can be especially difficult if a child has been taken to a non-Hague country as there are no international systems in place to help you. This is why prevention is so important. The FCO will do whatever we can to provide advice and support but our role is limited, not least because we cannot interfere in the laws of another country.”

Sharon Cooke, Advice Line Manager for Reunite International Child Abduction Centre, welcomed the latest advice and said while sometimes there were no warning signs, there are things people could look for which may indicate their child was at risk.

“The most obvious warning sign is a break down in a relationship but other signs may include a sudden interest in getting a passport or copy birth certificate for the child; a parent expressing a wish to holiday alone with the child; a change in circumstances such as leaving employment or redundancy, selling a house or giving up tenancy. There may also be a sudden change in contact arrangements or constant difficulty in being able to see the child,” she said.

“For many people the issue of parental child abduction is something with which they may not have had direct personal contact. There’s often a perception – fuelled by a number of high profile cases – that it’s about fathers abducting their children, however statistics show it is mainly mothers – either intentionally or unintentionally.

Sharon says, “The latest figures show just how widespread this problem has become. Our statistics for January to May 2011 show a 21% increase in the number of abductions to non-Hague States states compared to the same period last year. We have also seen a 21% per cent increase in the number of parents requesting advice on prevention of abduction. This demonstrates there is a need for information on preventative steps that a parent can take and it is essential that we continue to raise awareness of parental child abduction, after all it could happen to anyone.”

“The psychological impact on children can be traumatic and for the left-behind parent, the shock and loss are unbearable, particularly if they don’t know where their child is. Even after they have been found, the fear and pain of not knowing if they will return home is unimaginable.”

“If you are worried your child might be at risk, or if your child has been abducted you can call the Child Abduction Section at the Foreign Office on 0207 008 0878 or http://www.fco.gov.uk or reunite on 0116 2556 234.

*”The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multi-lateral international treaty the aim of which is the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained away from the country where he or she normally lives, so that issues of residence (which parent a child should live with), relocation (which country a child should live in) and contact (access) can be decided by the courts of that country. “All cases that come under the Hague Convention are dealt with by one of the three Central Authorities in the UK (the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit covers England and Wales and there are two separate bodies for Scotland and Northern Ireland). To find out which countries are part of this Convention, visit http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24

**Top 5 non-Hague countries with the largest number of new parental child abductions in 2010/11

Country 2009/2010 2010/2011

All non-Hague countries 146 161

Pakistan 24 21

Thailand 13 13

India 14 9

Algeria 0 9

Malaysia 6 7

Further information on parental child abduction can be found at: www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/when-things-go-wrong/child-abduction.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Parental Child Abduction – A Mother`s story


Published by: Bortført.no

My story

Foto: Marie von Krogh

ABDUCTED TO NORWAY

During a visit to Jersey UK where I lived with my three children for whom I had custody, I made the fatal mistake of letting my Norwegian ex husband take them to school on day. They never arrived. Instead they were abducted by him and his father and smuggled off the Island by private boat to France some 10 miles away by sea, where the grandfather had cunningly placed his Norwegian registered car ready to travel through Europe up to Denmark where they would all take the ferry to Norway the next evening. The children had no passports or ID, and my ex husband admitted that he had planned it all. He had also forged my signature to register the children in the Folk register in Norway. He did not submit the Court Order or the true documents.

The Jersey Court immediately issued an Order for the return of the children with an attached Arrest Warrant, which was faxed to the Police after Kristiansand Port Authority had confirmed they had arrived in Norway.

A false petition made by his Norwegian lawyer was also submitted to the Court prior to their arrival in Norway, and this petition was completely untrue, false in everyway, made with the sole intention to deceive the Court. Attached to it were the illegal registration forms from the Folk register and a forged letter that he claimed I had signed to give him custody of my children. Again, he did not mention or submit the valid Court Order or the Agreement he signed. He knew he would not have been able to register the children if he had.

The British Embassy in Oslo, UK Foreign Affairs Office and the Jersey Royal Court requested Norway to respect my Court Order and return the children. Norway dismissed this. The Attorney General in Jersey contacted the Justice Department in Norway requesting it take into account that the Hague Convention on child abduction in Jersey was about to be ratified, again all requests were rejected. When his next letter asked for the case to be resolved through “Judicial comity”, an action between countries to try to resolve disputes in diplomatic ways, this request did not even receive a reply.

During a hearing in the District Court, the judge concluded that there was no reason to return the children to Jersey, and no evidence or documents suggesting they should be. It was clear the judge failed to read the requests, Court Order and all other evidence, but it is my view that this was all deliberately ignored.

During a hearing in the Court some months later, his Norwegian lawyer stated that she knew of my ex husband’s intention to abduct the children and had drawn up the petition with him prior to him leaving Norway. He himself also stated that he had planned it all for a long period with the help of his lawyer and the Norwegian Consul in Jersey, and he had also had taken advice from the Norwegian Ministry, whom he stated all advised him that the best way to get custody of the children was to ensure he got them to Norway as quick as possible and applied for custody there as he would be favored.

Evidence of the statements they made were submitted to another Court later, which further showed the extent of the Norwegian Consul’s involvement, and proved that my ex and his father had kept the Consul fully informed of the progress of the abduction as they headed to Norway after abducting, and further to inform him they arrived in Norway, and again months later, to inform him of the progress.

The Consul, who was fully aware that there was an existing High Court Order in Jersey for which my ex husband had no rights of custody and no right to remove the children from my care, did nothing. He alerted no police and no authorities Instead, he chose state to my lawyers that although he was informed during many meetings with my ex husband that he wanted to abduct them, and he said he was in Jersey to help Norwegians, not Jersey people. Even after being told of the abduction and knowing my ex husband’s whereabouts, he failed to advise the Police who could have detained him and my children at that point, and prevented them traveling further.

In Court he also lied at first stating quite strongly that he was annoyed his name had been mentioned as he did not know who my ex husband or his father were. He said he had ever had any contact with either of them and had actually never heard of them…. Until however, when confronted with transcripts of his own written evidence by way of letter to me, and also in documents submitted by my Jersey lawyers, his memory returned very quickly and precise.

The judge however, even being aware of all the lies told in Court from my ex’s side, against all the extensive evidence proving my case, against the Court Orders, and also after hearing my ex husband’s own statement of how he had carefully planned the abduction with the help of his lawyer and the Norwegian Consul, took my children and dismissed me as the children’s Mother.

He gave me only 4 hours a week visitation under strict supervision, stating that the FATHER had to be safeguarded against me taking my children home!

And so began a 6 year battle in the Norwegian Courts at all levels, judges who persistently refused to take into account any evidence or background of my children’s lives before Norway. Judges who continuously deprived not only me but my children of their Mother, and made it impossible for me and my children to have any real relationship like we once had or any decent contact for that matter, against all the evidence of what my ex husband did. They did not care he forged my signature, prevented my access, or how he used the children for his own gain, the law was “irrelevant” to him.

My children were happy children. There has never been any history of abuse, alcoholism, drugs or anything untoward in our family. My children had a nice home, a close family, many friends, they were settled in school and most of all, they had a Mother who loved them but all of this accounted for nothing in the Norwegian Courts.


In Norway, it’s okay to abduct children – as long as you are Norwegian”. You can forge documents and give them to authorities because its “irrelevant” or “not valid for the question”. There is no law for Norwegians. The Norwegian authorities actually help their citizens abduct children from abroad, regardless of circumstances or other countries Court Orders.

For 6 years I have been treated like a criminal and subjected to horrific injustice. Many Christmas’s and birthdays with gifts only exchanged in front of impersonal visitors and mostly behind a locked door, never alone. No cuddling or talking with my children as this was seen as me manipulating my children with love. The emotional stress of hearing your child whisper in your ear “take me home Mummy”.

The Court said this was how it had to be as there was a risk I would take my children home to Jersey. Yet I never abducted my children to Norway. He did. But as I was not Norwegian, I was put under strict and extreme conditions, the type of interaction I was allowed with my children is the same given to parents in severe child welfare cases, incest, molestation, family violence, alcoholism and drug addicts, murderers. And all because I had legal custody of my children and we lived in Jersey, but the father wanted them to live in Norway.

I was convicted on assumptions and presumptions by the Courts, penalized by so called “experts” named psychologists and child welfare services who did not have a clue about the situation at all, all who said my children’s lives were “irrelevant” before they got to Norway, and all  who sided with my ex husband and his lies. They all wiped out my children’s previous life. All that mattered was Norway. Their background was unimportant, not relevant they all said. Anything and everything was used against me, yet nothing was said about him or what he did or how he was manipulating the children to his advantage with extreme Parental Alienation… Nothing was either mentioned about his lies. The Court said he did nothing wrong in abducting my children against a Court Order. They looked for ways to praise him instead of seeing him for the calculating lying manipulative abductor that he was.

Legal witnesses were dismissed as irrelevant with judges stating that I had been given too much advice, was focused on the law instead of the fact my children were in Norway, referring to me being the abductor for taking my children home after my marriage failed, having spent only some 200 days in Norway during a temporary reconciliation of marriage period, all despite the fact that I had rights of custody and legal agreements in place.

I moved to Norway to be near my children after they were abducted. Even then I never got a fair hearing. There has been no equality in the law for me.

What is very clear however is that if you’re Norwegian it’s accepted by the Courts, the Norwegian Ministry, the authorities, the psychologists, everywhere you look, it’s accepted for you to go to other countries and abduct your children against your spouse’s custody rights and Court Orders without any fear of repercussion in the Norwegian Courts for doing it. And we only have to look at the Skah case to see this.

Sadly for me, there were no Jersey Elite Soldiers with ties to the UK Intelligence Service to smuggle my children out of Norway back to Jersey on a sailboat. I took the legal route and abided by the law… did it help me?… NO!

Norway took my children regardless of the law. They ripped a Mother out of the lives of three small children whom they had lived with all their life, a happy life full of love and security. They gave them to their abductor on a silver plate after a well planned and calculated abduction by their Norwegian father and grandfather!

This is how Norway treats foreign parents.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

 

Er det greit å bortføre egne barn til Norge?


Kilde: Bortført.no

Britiske Christines tre barn, 10, 9 and 5 år gamle, ble bortført fra Jersey til Norge i 2005 av sin norske far. Christines ublide møte med norske myndigheter skildres i A-magasinets artikkel ”Dømt til å tape” 11.03.11.


Etter borføringen valgte Christine å flytte til Norge for å være nær barna. Henne ubeskjedne ønske om 50 % omsorg for barna ble avslått av norsk rettsvesen, og domstolen valgte i stedet å gi henne noen usle timers samvær under rigid tilsyn av farens venner, av frykt for at moren skulle ta med seg barna tilbake til Jersey. Barnebortføreren fikk altså rettens beskyttelse, mens moren som ble frarøvet barna ble straffet. Gerard Baudains, tidligere parlamentariker i House of Lords, sier til Aftenposten: ”Det norske rettsystemet er like korrupt som et hvilket som helst land i den tredje verden.” Foto: Marie Von Krogh

I norske domstoler blir familiesaker hemmeligholdt som om rikets sikkerhet skulle stå på spill. Angivelig er årsaken at individet skal skjermes, men når man ser hvilke represalier mennesker som prøver å eksponere domstolene blir utsatt for,synes det som om det egentlige målet er å beskytte domstolene.

Når britiske parlamentarikere sammenligner det norske rettsystemet med tilstander man finner i Uganda, maner det til ettertanke. For eksempel er det uforståelig for briter at norske domstoler ikke benytter stenografer eller lydopptak. Like ubegripelig er det at sakkyndige psykologer skriver lange rapporter med bombastiske konklusjoner etter kun å ha snakket med et menneske i 45 minutter. Der er også problematisk at den samme gjengen sakkyndige begår liknende overgrep i sak etter sak. I Storbritannia og andre vestlige land finnes det standardiserte rutiner for bruk av sakkyndige, men altså ikke i annerledeslandet Norge.


Christine flyttet etter de bortførte barna sine, og norsk rett straffet henne med en samværsordning som ikke kan kalle noe annet enn nedverdigende og en belastende for både mor og barn. Aftenpostens journalist Karine Østtveit beskriver det slik: “Det er denne typen samvær foreldre i tunge barnevernssaker får; de samme smulene av familieliv som rusmissbrukere og voldsdømte kan bli tilkjent. I Christines tilfelle var det aldri snakk om rus eller vold. Dommerens frykt for at hun skulle ta med barna ut av landet, førte til at hun mistet både foreldreansvaret og normalt helgesamvær. – En vanlig ressurssterk norsk mor ville aldri fått så lite samvær . Det er ingen tvil om det, mener advokat Tone  Linn Thingvold.”

Norsk rettsvesen like korrupt som i Uganda?

Jersey er en kronbesittelse av Storbritannia, og innbyggerne har britiske pass. Selv om Jersey har sitt eget innenriksstyre, styres utenrikspolitikken fra London. Jersey er en av De Britiske Øyer og Storbritannia har tiltrådt Haagkonvensjonen, slik at det ville være naturlig om norske myndigheter betraktet disse tre barna som britiske statsborgere (hvilket de er) og returnere dem i samsvar konvensjonen. I stedet har Justisdepartementet og domstolen drevet juridisk flisespikkeri og definert Jersey utenfor britisk konvensjonsområde, uten å begrunne hvorfor – et trekk som gjerne deles med land vi helst ikke liker å sammenlikne oss med.

Christine forteller at barnas farfar, som foretok selve bortføringen sammen med sønnen, er en innflytelsesrik mann pensjonert fra ledende stilling i Statoil. Det er også påfallende at farens prosesskriv var forfattet, og at barna var registrert i Folkeregisteret, med morens forfalskede underskrift, i god tid før bortføringen fant sted. Barnebortførerne hadde også drevet lobbyvirksomhet hos Justisdepartementet.

Den britiske parlamentarikeren Gerard Baudains (bildet) sendte en diplomatisk note til Justisdepartementet hvor han anmodet om at departementet anerkjente kjennelsen fra britisk rett som slår fast at Christines er tilkjent daglig omsorg, og at barna derfor ble ulovlig bortført fra britisk territorium. Justisdepartementet avslo anmodningen. Og som det ikke det var nok ble Baudains nektet å vitne da saken ble behandlet i domstolen!

Justisdepartementets stassekretær Astri Aas-Hansen understreker ovenfor Aftenposten at Christines sak ikke er en konvensjonssak, og at det derfor er opp til norske domstoler å avgjøre saken.  Slik unngår hun selve kardinalspørsmålet, nemlig hvordan Justisdepartementet makter å definere barn med fullt britisk statsborgerskap som ikke tilhørende Haagkonvensjonen.

Tradisjonen tro begrunner ikke Aas-Hansen sin tolkning, men andre gjør: Statsadvokaten på Jersey informerte Justisdepartementet allerede i 2005 at ”Jersey er en av De Britiske Øyer og at Hennes Majestets Regjering i Storbritannia representerer Jersey i utenriksspørsmål”.  Heller ikke finner norsk Høyesterett eller Justisdepartementet det interessant at morens signatur til Folkeregisteret var forfalsket, igjen et trekk som gjerne assosieres med U-land, og ikke siviliserte rettsstater.

Kjell Schevig

Les også Christines egen beskrivelse: “ABDUCTED TO
NORWAY”

Les også Aftenpostens artikkel: Fortvilte foreldre ber om hjelp


Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook