What has emerged is that the reasons for severing a child permanently from their mother was:
The European Assembly made the following observations using Croatia as an Example:
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc08/EDOC11742.htm
Doc. 11742
9 October 2008
Human rights and family courts
Motion for a resolution
presented by Mr Rowen and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it
1. The Assembly recognises that the protection of human rights is one of the Council of Europe’s core values. It recognises that children are particularly vulnerable and that systems must be in place to protect those children considered “at risk”.
2. The Assembly believes, however, that those who are tasked with protecting children need to be accountable for their actions and need to operate in a way which protects the human rights of all the people they are dealing with.
3. The Assembly notes the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, X. v. Croatia (Application No. 11223/04) dated 17 July 2008, which held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the applicant’s exclusion from the proceedings which resulted in her daughter being adopted.
4. The Assembly believes that the use of mental incapacity by Croatia to exclude a person from involvement in their children’s future is wrong and not only violates Article 6 (right to a fair trial) but also Article 8 (right to family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
5. The Assembly notes that in the United Kingdom, the 1989 Children’s Act is the main legislation governing child protection and that Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) provides guardians ad litem for children in care cases.
6. The Assembly further notes that since the start of 2008, when Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) became the regulator for Cafcass, it has issued two reports which have criticised the standards used by Cafcass. It said: “Inspectors could not find evidence about how service managers satisfy themselves that family court advisers are reaching sound conclusions in order to make the right recommendations to courts about children’s lives”. It found that “most reports contain recommendations to the court that fail to take account of a key principle of the Children’s Act that there should be minimum state intervention in family life”.
7. The Assembly notes that there are over 100 cases a year in England and Wales in which an organ of the state (the Official Solicitor) displaces a parent in proceedings which may lead to the adoption of their child or children.
8. The Assembly further notes that mothers have had their children removed because they were victims of domestic violence or on the basis of medical evidence for which there had been no second opinion.
9. The Assembly further notes that England habitually gives judgment in family proceedings without the judgment being in public (in conflict with Article 6). This Assembly notes that there can be an argument for anonymity, but not for the reasoning of the court to be kept secret which means that the court’s reasoning is not properly accountable.
10. The Assembly believes that these reports and concerns provide evidence of possible violation by the United Kingdom of Articles 6, 8 and 13.
11. The Assembly notes that Portugal also operates a system of forcible adoption where the parents, having not willingly given up their parental rights, have children forcibly adopted away from them.
12. The Assembly therefore believes that there is sufficient evidence and concern about the operation of family courts in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights in Croatia, Portugal and the United Kingdom to request that an investigation be carried out.
Signed 1:
ROWEN Paul, United Kingdom, ALDE
CHOPE Christopher, United Kingdom, EDG
EÖRSI Mátyás, Hungary, ALDE
HAGBERG Michael, Sweden, SOC
HANCOCK Michael, United Kingdom, ALDE
JIVKOVA Evguenia, Bulgaria, SOC
KOSACHEV Konstantin, Russian Federation, EDG
LAAKSO Jaakko, Finland, UEL
LOUTFI Younal, Bulgaria, ALDE
MARQUET Bernard, Monaco, ALDE
MEMECAN Nursuna, Turkey, ALDE
O'HARA Edward, United Kingdom, SOC
ØSTERGAARD Morten, Denmark, ALDE
POURGOURIDES Christos, Cyprus, EPP/CD
SLUTSKY Leonid, Russian Federation, SOC
WILSHIRE David, United Kingdom, EDG
WOLDSETH Karin S., Norway, EDG
1 EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
SOC: Socialist Group
EDG: European Democratic Group
ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group
Adoption without consent clearly is not the answer to protecting children.
- Diagnosis of mental illness usually, but not limited to: munchausen by proxy, depression and borderline personality disorder usually made by a midwife or social worker from the service. Independent assessments are often rejected and at times barriers to seeking these are put in place by the service.
- History of being abused by a previous partner or as a child. The reasons stated is that they "might" become abusive.
- Being in a domestic violence relationship. The assistance to victims are not provided and she is punished yet again for something she could not possibly control.
- Diagnosis of child illnesses. Again, independent assessments are often rejected and at times barriers to seeking these are put in place by the service.
- Being a young mother. There are many adults who were children of young mothers that are living proof that young mothers can provide a nurturing environment for their child. It is the community beliefs that often disadvantage the children in most cases.
- Low Income. Having a child can lower the income and provide barriers to work. Many mothers have raised their children well in poverty by being resourceful. Some notable resources are toy libraries, community vegetable gardens and habitat for humanity.
The European Assembly made the following observations using Croatia as an Example:
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc08/EDOC11742.htm
Doc. 11742
9 October 2008
Human rights and family courts
Motion for a resolution
presented by Mr Rowen and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it
1. The Assembly recognises that the protection of human rights is one of the Council of Europe’s core values. It recognises that children are particularly vulnerable and that systems must be in place to protect those children considered “at risk”.
2. The Assembly believes, however, that those who are tasked with protecting children need to be accountable for their actions and need to operate in a way which protects the human rights of all the people they are dealing with.
3. The Assembly notes the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, X. v. Croatia (Application No. 11223/04) dated 17 July 2008, which held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the applicant’s exclusion from the proceedings which resulted in her daughter being adopted.
4. The Assembly believes that the use of mental incapacity by Croatia to exclude a person from involvement in their children’s future is wrong and not only violates Article 6 (right to a fair trial) but also Article 8 (right to family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
5. The Assembly notes that in the United Kingdom, the 1989 Children’s Act is the main legislation governing child protection and that Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) provides guardians ad litem for children in care cases.
6. The Assembly further notes that since the start of 2008, when Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) became the regulator for Cafcass, it has issued two reports which have criticised the standards used by Cafcass. It said: “Inspectors could not find evidence about how service managers satisfy themselves that family court advisers are reaching sound conclusions in order to make the right recommendations to courts about children’s lives”. It found that “most reports contain recommendations to the court that fail to take account of a key principle of the Children’s Act that there should be minimum state intervention in family life”.
7. The Assembly notes that there are over 100 cases a year in England and Wales in which an organ of the state (the Official Solicitor) displaces a parent in proceedings which may lead to the adoption of their child or children.
8. The Assembly further notes that mothers have had their children removed because they were victims of domestic violence or on the basis of medical evidence for which there had been no second opinion.
9. The Assembly further notes that England habitually gives judgment in family proceedings without the judgment being in public (in conflict with Article 6). This Assembly notes that there can be an argument for anonymity, but not for the reasoning of the court to be kept secret which means that the court’s reasoning is not properly accountable.
10. The Assembly believes that these reports and concerns provide evidence of possible violation by the United Kingdom of Articles 6, 8 and 13.
11. The Assembly notes that Portugal also operates a system of forcible adoption where the parents, having not willingly given up their parental rights, have children forcibly adopted away from them.
12. The Assembly therefore believes that there is sufficient evidence and concern about the operation of family courts in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights in Croatia, Portugal and the United Kingdom to request that an investigation be carried out.
Signed 1:
ROWEN Paul, United Kingdom, ALDE
CHOPE Christopher, United Kingdom, EDG
EÖRSI Mátyás, Hungary, ALDE
HAGBERG Michael, Sweden, SOC
HANCOCK Michael, United Kingdom, ALDE
JIVKOVA Evguenia, Bulgaria, SOC
KOSACHEV Konstantin, Russian Federation, EDG
LAAKSO Jaakko, Finland, UEL
LOUTFI Younal, Bulgaria, ALDE
MARQUET Bernard, Monaco, ALDE
MEMECAN Nursuna, Turkey, ALDE
O'HARA Edward, United Kingdom, SOC
ØSTERGAARD Morten, Denmark, ALDE
POURGOURIDES Christos, Cyprus, EPP/CD
SLUTSKY Leonid, Russian Federation, SOC
WILSHIRE David, United Kingdom, EDG
WOLDSETH Karin S., Norway, EDG
1 EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
SOC: Socialist Group
EDG: European Democratic Group
ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group
Adoption without consent clearly is not the answer to protecting children.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment