|
International abduction of children by one of the parents
Doc. 9476
3 June 2002
Report
Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Rapporteur: Mr Michael Hancock, United Kingdom, Liberal,
Democratic and Reformers’ Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The number of international abductions of children is a growing
phenomenon. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child, all children have the right to maintain regular
personal relations with both parents. Abduction by a parent
is a denial of this right.
When children are abducted by one parent, that parent often
belittles the other. The children are deprived of one of their
parents and their wider family for a long time –sometimes
permanently – and their sense of security is threatened.
Children are forced to accept a change of country, culture,
schools etc. Even if children are returned, they are marked
by the abduction for the rest of their lives.
A number of measures are put forward by the Assembly: to
make abduction of a child under 16 years of age a crime punished
as such; to provide appropriate training for all people working
in the field (police, lawyers, judges); to give only a small
number of specialised courts jurisdiction to deal with cases
of parental child abduction; to provide future parents with
information about their rights and obligations with regard
to children under the different family law regimes; to ensure
access to free legal aid; to promote family mediation and
to support the relevant non–governmental organisations.
Member states are also invited to set up bilateral mediation
boards to deal with all pending cases of conflict and to promote
the institution of the European mediator both at the European
Union and Council of Europe levels.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly notes with concern the growing number of
abductions of children by one of their parents in cases of
disputes between, or separation of, mixed-nationality couples
and the difficulties and obstacles of every kind encountered
by parents and the competent institutions in tracing these
children and ensuring their return.
2. It points out that, under the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, all children have the right to maintain regular
personal relations with both parents; abduction by a parent
is a denial of the child’s rights; abducted children
are deprived of one of their parents and their wider family;
they are often cut off from their mother tongue and part of
their cultural background; parents are helpless when faced
with complex formalities, different procedures and the cost
of action on their part, and so forth. Even if children are
returned, they are marked by the abduction for the rest of
their lives.
3. The Assembly believes that the member states, united within
the Council of Europe by their attachment to the same values,
ought to be able to overcome their legal, cultural and other
differences, recognise the same concept of the “best
interests of the child” and state that situations in
which children are denied their rights cannot be allowed to
continue.
4. The Assembly therefore urges member states to demonstrate
their political resolve to address this difficult issue
i. by ratifying such relevant legal instruments as they have
not yet ratified, ie: first and foremost the 1980 Hague Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and
the various Council of Europe conventions on the rights of
children;
ii. by speeding up adoption and ratification of the Convention
on Contact concerning Children, which seeks to prevent the
improper removal of children and which is in the final stages
of preparation in the Council of Europe.
5. It urges each Council of Europe member state to:
i. make abduction by a parent of a child under 16 years of
age a crime punished as such;
ii. provide appropriate training for all people working in
this field (police, lawyers, judges) and in particular for
specialists investigating the disappearance of children;
iii. promote family mediation as a means of preventing parental
child abduction and helping to resolve family conflicts;
iv. at national level, give only a small number of specialised
courts, and perhaps only one, jurisdiction to deal with cases
of parental child abduction in order to ensure that such cases
are concentrated and dealt with more rapidly by a smaller
number of well-informed judges and that decisions are consistent;
v. ensure that parents and families have access to free legal
aid to help them meet the high procedural costs;
vi. provide prospective marriage or common-law partners of
different nationalities with information about their rights
and obligations with regard to their children under their
respective family law regimes;
vii. recognise the importance of the role played by non–governmental
organisations in parental support and in their information
and prevention efforts, and give them the financial assistance
needed to achieve these objectives.
6. The Assembly also recommends that member states set up
centres for missing children, at both national and European
level, to keep in close contact with the judicial authorities
and the police.
These centres should have modern research facilities and
the requisite international contact with similar services
within and outside Europe.
7. Within the framework of their bilateral relations and
also with the non-Council of Europe countries concerned, member
states should set up mediation boards or other similar bodies
to deal with all pending cases of conflict involving parental
child abduction as rapidly as possible and propose solutions
in the objective interests of the children concerned.
8. Finally, the Assembly urges member states to endeavour
to increase the European Union Mediator’s powers and
material possibilities of action and consider the possibility
of establishing a Council of Europe mediator to deal with
these child custody issues in Greater Europe.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Hancock
1. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has
been ratified by over 150 countries, states that children
have the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact
with both parents on a regular basis even in cases where they
are separated by borders (see Articles 9, 10 and 11).
Abduction by a member of the family: an infringement of the
rights of the child
2. The separation of a couple is a matter which concerns
the two adults who make up that couple: they are responsible
for the separation and directly involved. Their children are
the victims. The separation of a mixed nationality couple
and the abduction and prolonged detention of a child in a
different country by one of the parents is a complicated and
a painful phenomenon; in such cases the parents’ separation
often becomes a trauma which the child has great difficulty
in overcoming.
3. When children are abducted by one parent, that parent
often belittles the other. The children are deprived of one
of their parents and their wider family for a long time –sometimes
permanently – and their sense of security is threatened.
Such children are forced to accept a change of country, culture
and family relations and often lose their mother tongue and
have to learn another language, change schools, etc. This
constitutes a denial of children’s rights and is a form
of violence, which reduces the child to the status of an object
and is tantamount to ill treatment.
A growing phenomenon
4. The number of instances of child abduction by one parent
is, unfortunately, increasing.
5. By way of example, some 1 500 children are abducted in
France every year. In Canada approximately 200 children were
abducted in 1993, mainly to the United States, while there
were 400 applications concerning the abduction of children
from third countries to Canada. The United States put the
figure for national and international abductions combined
at 350,000. Norway reports 40 cases of child abduction each
year. Slovakia puts the number of children detained outside
the country (in early 2001) at 8. 31 children were abducted
from Sweden in 2000, and 25 were abducted from third countries
to Sweden. Switzerland lodged 69 applications for the return
of a child or protection of the right of access in 2000 and
received 34 applications: the United States, Italy and France
head the list of requested and requesting states.
6. In France, there were some 500 cases being considered
by the Ministry of Justice in 2000, and between 250 and 300
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These figures rise each
year, on the one hand because of the failure to solve problems
concerning child abduction but also on account of the increase
in migration. In the United Kingdom there were 247 child abductions
in 2000 (compared to 132 in 1995); 151 of these cases concerned
countries bound by the Hague Convention, 65 concerned countries
which have not signed the convention (mainly India, Pakistan
and Libya) and in 31 cases it remained unclear to which country
the children had been removed; 222 children were abducted
in 1995, and this number rose to 365 in 2000. Ireland put
the figure at 107 for 2001.
7. In Europe, the increased movement of people – lawful
or unlawful immigration and the movement of students, workers
and businessmen from all countries - means that all nationalities
are concerned by this problem.
8. However, the nationalities concerned differ from one European
country to another depending on their history; in France,
for example, many of the partners in binational couples come
from Maghreb countries; in the United Kingdom, the problem
concerns mainly Asian countries such as India and Pakistan.
In Norway, children are abducted mainly to neighbouring countries,
Sweden and Denmark, but also to the United Kingdom and the
United States. A large number of Germans have Turkish spouses.
New problems are now arising in mixed-nationality couples
where one spouse is from the Middle East, Africa or Eastern
Europe.
9. In 1995 the steady increase in the number of children
abducted prompted the European Parliament to appoint Ms Mary
Banotti (Ireland), a member of the European Parliament, Mediator
for Transnationally Abducted Children. She has no statutory
role but works case by case on the basis of petitions addressed
to the European Parliament by members of parliament or the
parents concerned or their legal representatives. Owing to
lack of resources, her work does not appear to be producing
the results expected.
10. Nevertheless, on 15 March 2001, thanks to her intervention,
the European Parliament for the first time adopted a resolution
under urgent procedure asking the government of Kenya to help
solve a case of parental child abduction by complying with
private international law and the decisions on custody of
three Belgian children handed down by the Belgian courts (B5-0185/2001).
11. In the motion for a resolution presented by Ms Squarcialupi
and others in July 2000 (Doc. 8791), reference was made to
Ms Banotti’s experience and the signatories asked that
within the Council of Europe a mediator be established to
participate both in search activities and negotiations between
parents when the appropriate authorities have not been able
to solve the problem or make progress towards its solution.
12. In her motion for a recommendation on this subject in
October 1999 (Doc. 8573), which gave rise to this report,
Ms Guirado and others proposed that problems relating to child
custody and abduction be catalogued, the role of the relevant
conventions strengthened and child abduction by parents considered
a criminal offence just like kidnapping.
International instruments
The Hague Convention
13. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil
aspects of international child abduction, which has to date
been ratified by 69 states but only 30 of the Council of Europe
member states (NB. no country governed by Islamic law has
ratified this convention), offers a partial solution to these
problems. It is worth to note that today 40 % of all parental
abductions are outside the scope of the Hague Convention.
14. The Convention seeks to ensure the immediate return of
children who have been unlawfully removed or retained in any
of the contracting states and to ensure that rights of custody
and access (particularly transfrontier access) laid down by
the State that has jurisdiction, i.e. the country in which
the child is habitually resident, are effectively respected
in other contracting states. The provisions of this convention
help to ensure that a child is returned to its habitual place
of residence within 30 to 45 days, thus preventing trauma.
The process is, as a rule, clear, speedy and international;
it facilitates and guarantees a cross-border right of access
which is clearly becoming increasingly necessary.
15. However, exceptions may be made if the child’s return
entails a risk of exposing him/her to danger (see Article
13). In order to make exceptions to this rule, some states
interpret the concept of danger for the child “broadly”,
if not in an abusive manner.
16. Most countries bound by this Convention do, however,
comply with it and apply it and it is, as a whole, considered
to be positive.
17. For example, 2000 children were returned to the United
States over the 10 years following ratification of the convention
by the United States in 1988. But some Americans apparently
consider this instrument somewhat outdated. The situation
has changed, as it is no longer only the fathers who kidnap
their children and some countries are reluctant to order that
children abducted by their mother must be returned to their
father’s country of residence. This is, at all events,
the opinion of the United States Congress, which has criticized
the decisions taken in some countries - including Austria
and Sweden - in cases where the mother abducted the children,
claiming that they violate the Convention. Germany is currently
also very often accused of failing to comply with the Convention.
18. Complaints regarding the Convention or the way in which
some states apply it include the inability to locate abducted
children or the time they take to do so, the absence of penalties
for failure to enforce court judgments, the excessive length
of proceedings – which is often to the advantage of the
parent responsible for the kidnapping – the problem of
age where the child’s consent is required, the abusive
interpretation of the concept of danger as a pretext for not
returning the child and also, often at national level, the
many specialized courts that have jurisdiction in such cases,
leading to a lack of consistency in legal interpretation and
in the decisions taken.
The Council of Europe
19. Several of the Council of Europe’s legal instruments
infringe on this problem. One of them is the European Convention
on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody
of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children opened
for signature in Luxembourg on 20 May 1980. This Convention,
which has to date been ratified by 26 member states (most
of the new member states have not yet ratified it), defines
improper removal as the removal of a child across an international
frontier in breach of a decision relating to custody which
has been given in a Contracting State. A draft convention
on contact concerning children is currently being adopted.
This new convention seeks to make up for the shortcomings
in the earlier convention and to increase the protection of
children by ensuring that they cannot be improperly removed.
Despite a number of reservations, the Assembly adopted a favourable
opinion on this draft convention in St Petersbourg in March
2002. The Committee of Ministers has also adopted a number
of recommendations but these have no binding force.
20. Lastly, the European Convention on Human Rights, and
in particular Article 8 on the right to family life, has produced
a body of case law in this field. For example, in the Ignaccolo-Zenide
case the Court ruled in January 2000 that Article 8, which
had been violated, imposed positive obligations on national
authorities to take measures to reunite parents with their
children and that this obligation had to be construed in the
light of the Hague Convention. The case concerned two children
unlawfully removed to Romania by their father; their mother,
a French national, has been able to see them only once, in
1997!
The European Union
21. “Brussels II”, adopted by the 15 member countries
of the European Union on 29 May 2000, is a regulation on the
recognition and execution of divorce proceedings in all of
the member countries of the European Union. The most important
thing about this regulation is that it stipulates which court
has jurisdiction to examine a petition for divorce, i.e. the
court of the couple’s “habitual residence”.
22. A decision handed down by a court in one of the fifteen
member countries of the European Union is valid in the other
member states without any need for other proceedings. This
regulation covers all of the decisions concerning divorces,
child custody and access but does not apply to issues concerning
succession in the event of divorce.
23. Various NGOs place great hope in Brussels II as a means
of satisfactorily resolving problems in mixed marriages between
nationals of two different European Union member states.
Bilateral conventions with non-European states are frequently
a failure
24. In addition to ratifying the Hague Convention, most European
countries have signed bilateral conventions with countries
from which they regularly receive immigrants but this solution
seldom seems to be successful.
25. For example, in the early 1980s, France signed bilateral
conventions with the main countries of origin: Turkey, Morocco
and Egypt. Twenty years later these conventions have failed:
children are rarely returned to France and procedures for
the enforcement of French judgments are never-ending and require
a final divorce ruling in France; it is very difficult to
obtain right of access in the countries concerned. The reasons
for this lie in the law of these Moslem countries, which refuse
dual nationality, give pre-eminence to the father’s rights
and consider emigration to be of a purely temporary nature
and that children belong to the father’s culture. The
only convention to set out a number of modern principles was
that drawn up between France and Algeria in 1988. However,
the troubles in Algeria since 1992 have jeopardized the application
of this model convention, which led to a sudden drop in the
number of child abductions in the early 1990s.
26. It should also be pointed out that bilateral conventions
do not cover children born in Europe to parents who are both
nationals of another country.
27. Moreover, there are many countries with which there are
no bilateral conventions. The European Union and all West
European countries have received a steadily increasing number
of political or economic refugees over the past ten years
or so from a very wide range of countries in Eastern Europe,
the Middle East and Africa. There is an always a risk of children
being abducted to these countries and no legal remedy.
28. All the authorities can do in such cases is to provide
their good offices or mediation - which are often ineffective
- and negotiate makeshift solutions or compromises, for example
the acceptance of an annual visit to avoid a complete separation
from the child. This is what happens in cases involving France
and the Lebanon or the United Kingdom and Libya. Other countries
such as Syria or Iran refuse to make any compromise whatsoever.
Child abduction: the helplessness of the parents concerned
29. In some European countries, the parents concerned have
been obliged to go on hunger strike in order to draw the media’s
attention to the problem (as recently in Germany and France).
30. Parents are helpless, particularly when faced with the
complex nature of the court system and the length of proceedings.
The period following the abduction seems to be a veritable
obstacle course. Parents have to deal with a large number
of ministries, whose work is completely uncoordinated. They
are confronted with both national and foreign legislation,
of which they have absolutely no knowledge. Judges and police
officers, in particular border police, are very poorly informed.
Regulations are not complied with and there are no effective
controls with regard to under-age children crossing borders.
Very little use seems to be made of international arrest warrants.
31. Cultures and family law vary greatly from one country
to the next, even within Europe. In some countries there is
no legislation concerning shared custody (Germany, for example,
introduced such legislation only in 1998). The interpretation
of the concept of the best interests of the child greatly
differs from one country to the other.
32. The problem is particularly acute in countries governed
by Moslem law, under which the child takes the father’s
nationality, which determines the legislation to be applied.
The right of custody is a multi-faceted concept. The child’s
education from a certain age, 7 years for boys and 9 years
for girls, is usually the father’s responsibility. The
“Hadana” must promise that the child will be raised
as a Moslem. Moreover, women still do not have the same status
as men and they are often subject to restrictions, in particular
with regard to freedom of movement. In some countries, for
example, mothers who get remarried to someone who is not a
close relative of the children lose all custody rights.
33. Parents have therefore got together to form self-help
groups and NGOs have been set up, for example, in France,
the Collectif de solidarité aux mères des enfants
enlevées inMeudon (csmee@wanadoo.fr), SOS enlèvement
d'enfants (SEIE) (sosrapt@chez.com) and Missing Children International
in Belgium etc. There are countless Internet sites set up
by NGOs and parents who have been cut off from their children.
NGOS have produced information and prevention kits for parents.
34. REUNITE (International Child Abduction Centre) in the
United Kingdom offers advice, support and information to the
parents of abducted children and has a telephone help line,
which can be contacted every day from Monday to Friday. This
organisation provides specialised advice and training for
legal experts, government departments and other professionals
working in this field. It co-operates closely with the Lord
Chancellor’s Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. It provides a
list of national and international legal experts in custody
disputes and child abduction and runs a European network on
parental child abduction, which was set up to draw attention,
especially that of European MPs, to this problem.
35. In some states, specific governmental structures have
been set up, for example the Lord Chancellor’s Child
Abduction Unit in the United Kingdom; in France the Office
of Mutual Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters is responsible
for such affairs under the aegis of the Ministry of Justice.
In most countries, it is the Ministry of Justice which is
responsible for dealing with such matters, often in conjunction
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
36. Parental child abduction is regarded as a serious crime
in the United States. In Europe it is more often considered
to be a lesser criminal offence, and the penalties are different
and less harsh than for abduction by a third party. Parental
abduction of a child of under 16 years of age is a criminal
offence in Finland and the United Kingdom, for example. In
France the penalty is a 2-year prison sentence, and in Italy
a 1 to 3-year sentence. In Luxembourg, a father or mother
who abducts a child risks between 8 days’ and 2 years’
imprisonment and/or a fine. In Sweden, removing a child under
15 years of age from the person with custody may incur a fine
or a maximum prison sentence of one year.
What can be done to improve the situation? - some conclusions
37. A number of proposals can be made, some of which are
not new and have already been put forward by the Assembly
on several occasions in reports on the rights of children.
38. Member states should be invited to demonstrate their
political resolve to address this difficult issue by ratifying
the relevant legal instruments (ratification by all Council
of Europe member states of the 1980 Hague Convention and full
compliance with its provisions; ratification of the various
relevant Council of Europe conventions on the rights of children,
speedier adoption and ratification of the Convention on Contact
concerning Children, which seeks to prevent the improper removal
of children and which is now in preparation).
39. Council of Europe member states should also be invited
to:
- make abduction of a child under 16 years of age a crime
punished as such;
- provide appropriate training for all people working in
this field (police, lawyers, judges, in particular) and in
particular for specialists investigating the disappearance
of children;
- promote family mediation as a means of preventing parental
child abduction and helping to resolve family conflicts;
- at national level, give only a small number of specialised
courts, and perhaps only one, jurisdiction to deal with cases
of parental child abduction in order to ensure that such cases
are concentrated and dealt with more rapidly by a smaller
number of well-informed judges and that decisions are consistent;
- ensure that parents and families have access to free legal
aid to help them meet the high procedural costs;
- recognise the importance of the role played by NGOs in
parental support and in their information and preventive efforts,
and give them the financial assistance needed to achieve these
objectives.
40. Centres for Missing Children should be set up, at both
national and European level, to keep in close contact with
the judicial authorities, police, etc. These centres should
have modern research facilities and the requisite international
contact with similar services within and outside Europe.
41. Within the framework of their bilateral relations and
also with the third countries concerned, member states should
set up mediation boards or other similar bodies to deal with
all pending cases of conflict involving parental child abduction
as rapidly as possible and propose solutions in the objective
interests of the children concerned.
42. The Rapporteur appeals to everyone, including his parliamentary
colleagues, to ensure that rapid and fair solutions are found
to these tragic cases. As an example, a history case of a
parental abduction, which has taken place in Council of Europe
member State, has been appended to the report.
43. Finally, member states should endeavour to increase the
European Union Mediator’s powers and material possibilities
of action and consider the possibility of establishing a Council
of Europe mediator to deal with issues concerning child custody
in Greater Europe.
Appendix: Case history
Mother: Mrs X
Childs name: A, Date of birth: August 1996 in the United
Kingdom
Date of Abduction / Wrongful Retention: August 1999 (WR)
Abductor’s relationship with child: Father
Country involved: Greece
February 1995: Mrs X married Greek national in UK
February 1995: Moved to Greece
January 1996: Problem within the marriage Mrs X returns to
UK alone
August 1996: Child A – born in UK
June 1997: Mum and child move to Greece
August 1997: Problem within marriage mum and child return
to UK
September 1997: Mum goes to Greece with child
February 1999: Family all move back to the UK
May 1999: Father takes Child A – for a holiday in Greece
– due to return in August 1999.
July 1999: Father informs Mrs X that she will never see child
again, and that they are moving to Brazil.
9 July 1999: Mrs X contacts Lord Chancellor’s Department
(Child Abduction unit).
19 July 1999: Application under Hague Convention forwarded
to Ministry of Justice in Greece.
August 1999: Mrs X travels to Greece to try to see child
A and persuade father to allow child A to return to the UK.
11 August 1999: Mrs X makes application to Greek Court for
interim access.
25 August 1999: Notification from Greece that lawyer has
been appointed.
Custody proceeding adjourned pending outcome of Hague application.
23 September 1999: Hearing of Hague Application in local
Court of First Instance.
30 September 1999: Notified that father and child A have
disappeared, the Police have been informed.
18 October 1999: Judgment given. Summary return ordered.
Father was informed he would be fined and imprisoned for up
to 8 months if he fails to comply with the order of the Court.
29 October 1999: Fax from Greece, unable to locate father
or child.
6 December 1999: Child Abduction Unit contacted by Malicious
Calls Unit (Police UK). Father making abusive telephone calls
to Mrs X.
14 December 1999: Child Abduction Unit faxed Greece with
details of Malicious Calls Unit. Number refers to home of
paternal grandparents details of which were provided in original
abduction.
6 January 2000: Child Abduction Unit faxed Greece requesting
further information, also notifying them of media interest.
30 January 2000: Mrs X travels to Greece with television
documentary team to try to locate child.
1 February 2000: Child Abduction Unit contacted Mrs X (whilst
in Greece) stating that Greece is not co-operating. Confirmed
that Child A is attending school. Father living at address
of paternal grandparents. Greek Lawyer to request criminal
warrant.
4 February 2000: Child Abduction Unit contacted by Mrs X.
Police attended schools but Child A did not attend and father
has disappeared from his address. Requested Child Abduction
Unit to contact President of Supreme Court in Athens. Child
Abduction Unit restricted to discussions with Ministry of
Justice.
1 March 2000: Child Abduction Unit informed that Greek Police
are still making enquiries.
29 March 2000: Child Abduction Unit informed that Appeal
application made by father is rejected – Police still
making enquiries.
9 June 2000: Child Abduction Unit informed by Reunite that
father has been arrested. Mrs X to travel to Greece immediately.
12 June 2000: Child Abduction Unit informed by Reunite that
father has been released 1 June 2001.
21 June 2000: Fax from Greece confirming father had been
arrested on – 1 June 2000 and sentenced to 5 months prison.
Father lodged an appeal and released. Lawyer attended house
on 20 June with Mrs X and bailiff – unable to locate
child A.
27 June 2000: Notification from Greece advising appeal hearing
lodged by father will be heard on 10 November 2000
Child Abduction Unit requests details of appeal and assurances
that return will immediately be enforced should the appeal
fail.
29 June 2000: Information received from Greece with details
of appeal procedure and confirmation that order for return
remains enforceable regardless of pending appeal.
30 June 2000: Copy of appeal lodged by father received from
Greece.
19 July 2000: Child Abduction Unit – fax to Greece explaining
enforcement procedure in jurisdiction of England and Wales
(at request of Greece).
5 September 2000: Child Abduction Unit faxed Greece to inquire
whether father has been arrested.
5 October 2000: Child Abduction Unit faxed Greece for details
of lawyer.
12 October 2000: Greece faxed Child Abduction Unit with details
of lawyer appointed.
31 October 2000: Greek Lawyer representing Mrs X suggested
that the District Attorney is approached with a request that
he/she does everything possible to ensure that father attends
appeal hearing.
10 November 2000: Day of appeal. Mrs X did not attend (as
she could not face coming back to the UK again without child
A).
Greek Lawyer also advised that at this stage it was not
necessary.
- Father did NOT attend Court
- Grandmother attended Court
- Judge to give decision in 40 days.
21 November 2000: Father telephones Mrs X – Very abusive,
but allowed child A to speak with Mrs X – said very little.
8 January 2001: Still awaiting decision of Greek Court
April 2002: No final Greek decision, as the father informed
the mother that if she took no further action through the
court, she could see her son. Now, she has seen him just twice
and the visit took place in Greece
Note:
Throughout this case a number of agencies have been involved
on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. They are as follows:
Lord Chancellor’s Department – Child Abduction
Unit
Reunite International Child Abduction Centre (NGO)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Interpol – London
The Parliamentary All Party Group on Child Abduction
This case has also received a high profile with UK Government
Ministers, who have raised it with the Ministry of Justice,
and Government Ministers in Greece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting committee: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Reference to committee: Doc 8573 and Reference No. 2458 of
4 November 1999
Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on
23 May 2002.
Members of the committee: MrsRagnarsdóttir (Chairman),
Mr Hegyi, Mrs Gatterer, Mr Christodoulides (Vice-Chairmen),
MM. Alís Font, Arnau, Mrs Belohorská, Mr Berzinš,
Mrs Biga-Friganovic, Mr Bilovol, Mrs Björnemalm, Mrs
Bolognesi, MM. Brînzan, Brunhart, Cerrahoglu, Cesário,
Cox, Dees, Dhaille, Evin, Floros, Flynn (alternate: Mr Hancock),
Ms Gamzatova, MM. Giertych, Glesener, Goldberg, Gönül,
Gregory, Gusenbauer (alternate: Mrs Schicker), Gustafsson,
Haack, Herrera, Høie, Hörster, Ms Jäger,
Mrs Jirousová, Baroness Knight, MM. Kontogiannopoulos,
Lomakin-Rumiantsev, Ms Lotz, Ms Luhtanen, MM. Makhachev, Malachowski,
Manukyan, Mrs Markovska, MM. Marmazov, Marty (alternate: Mr
Schmied), Mattei, Mrs Milotinova, MM. Mladenov, Monfils, Ms
Nowiak, MM. Olekas, Ouzký, Padilla, Podobnik, Popa,
Poroshenko, Poty, Provera, Rigoni, Rizzi, Seyidov, Mrs Shakhtakhtinskaya,
MM. Slutsky, Surján, Telek, Ms Tevdoradze, Mrs Troncho,
MM. Truu, Tudor, Vella, Mrs Vermot-Mangold, MM. Vesselbo,
Vis, Vos, Mrs Zafferani, Mr Zidu.
NB : The names of those members present at the meeting are
printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr. Newman, Ms Meunier and
Ms Karanjac
|