There is “insufficient cross-border cooperation,” the letter by the Latvian government states, “in relation to the UK’s national procedure of placing Latvian citizens up for adoption without parental consent”.
For Russian speakers, www.savethefamily.eu will be a relief. For non-Russian speakers, know that the site was set up by Tatjana Zdanoka MEP’s assistant Lubova Hennuy who is now co-ordinating the event we are co-creating in the EU Parliament – to be watched from wherever you are: Children Screaming to be Heard – Bridging Incompatible Legal Systems across the European Economic Area – in the beginning of May.
The remarkable precedence was set by the Slovakian Government that was joined to the proceedings of the two Boor boys who were liberated shortly before their forced adoption, after 920 days in ‘care’. They are still traumatised — “in the best interest of the children”…
At the time, Sir James Munby made a significant judgement referring to another Slovak boy:
Brussels II as BIIR – which decides which country has jurisdiction:
Assuming that the court does have jurisdiction, the judge in every care case with a European dimension will need to consider whether to exercise the court’s powers under Article 15 to request the court of another member State to assume jurisdiction where (a) the child has a particular connection (as defined in Article 15(3)) with that other State, (b) the other court would be better placed to hear the case, and (c) this is in the best interests of the child.
“to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments; …”
Please note that the Prague conference re-affirmed what the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had formulated in 2012 as Resolution 1908 on Family courts and human rights: the implementation of
the EU Convention on Human Rights
and of the UN Convention on Child Rights.
John Hemming MP writes on his blog that such a conference would not be possible in the UK, as it would be ‘contempt of court’ to talk about individual cases!
Laila reported about her latest efforts in the Royal Courts of Justice on her Facebook page.
She was in Court 40 to get four applications dealt with:
I am asking the court for the transfer of the case to Latvia. This means that I am asking the court to allow the Latvian Authorities to intervene in the proceedings.
I am asking the court to grant a Contact order until the case is concluded.
Application for Adoption Order by potential adopters.
I am opposing the application for adoption.
Even though Mrs Justice Parker proudly announced on 23 Mary 2014 in her Court that family court proceedings can now be open if the families concerned are happy with that, the signs on the door were clear: PRIVATE. NO PRESS.
John Hemming is the only MP who consistently criticises what is going on in UK family courts and the Court of Protection which both end up with secret prisoners.
The agent for Slovakia convened the conference in Prague that, as John Hemming MP writes, would be in ‘contempt of court’ in the UK, as it talks about individual cases: you are supposed to suffer, silently, certainly not scream – no matter whether you are a child or a parent or grandparent…
Anti-Juvenile Justice Agency is a multi-lingual European non-governmental organisation (NGO) countering the outlandish concept of ‘juvenile justice’: to allow the taking of children from their parents to hand them to a ‘third party’. I can’t find which paedophile dreamt that up, but fortunately there are supporters who oppose such Draconian intrusions into parent-child bonding.
re individual petitions: petitions to be kept open. Letters would be sent to the municipal and national authorities in the Member States involved to invite them to give their reactions to the allegations made by the petitioners and to explain their actions. A letter would be sent to Commissioner Reding to urge the Commission to act and to study ways in which it could approach cases as had been brought to the attention of the Committee in the petitions and to propose legislation accordingly.
re collective petition: petition to be kept open. Letters would be sent to the relevant national and local authorities in the UK, as above, to invite them to give their reactions to the allegations made by the petitioner and to explain their actions. The Members’ request for a fact finding visit to the UK and a public hearingwould be referred to the coordinators.
The Guardian writes about the Latvian case that was presented together with our petition about the Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK:
Laila Brice 