So wait. Lord Justice Thorpe, one of the nation's most senior family judges, acknowledges that the mother had broken international law by abducting her but still allows the girl to remain in the UK? So in effect legalizing kidnapping in certain cases. Doesn't anyone else see any thing wrong with that??? I mean it wasn't like the kid was in Iran. And the justification for the illegal act:that Middlesborough is more exciting? Something definitely wrong with that.

I think its all about acknowledging what the child wants for a change, not the parents.Human Rights!

Human rights?? What bollocks! She was in Canada not held prison in some bloody cave in Afghanistan. So going by what you said if the the kid was 10 then she could also choose? The judge was totally irresponsible.

I posted the link initially because I thought it was quite ironic:

So many people posting here state a 'better quality of life' or a 'better life for the children' as being among the reasons for the move and yet here's a senior judge agreeing with a teenager that she's better off in Middlesborough than the prairies.

However, taking a more serious view; I think the judge is right to take into account what's best for the girl and what she wants rather than just focusing on the fact that the mother broke the law to bring her back.

I don't think she got to 'choose' as such, but her wishes were taken into account. This seems fair to me, it is her life after all.

And no, she wasn't in an Afghan cave but she was away from her mother, extended family and friends. I think the judge seems to have used common sense in his judgement.

So why did the dad have custody if everything was so rosy with mum?

If a dad abducts a kid over here there's an amber alert and a manhunt, and the father is treated almost as if he is a sex offender who has kidnapped a child for some nefarious purpose, and can go to jail, no matter what the "wishes" of the child.

And regarding the wishes of the child: you could envisage a situation like this.

Ward of the court, you must choose one of the following:

• Do you want to live with your dad who makes you do homework, clean your room, who makes you read books rather than watch TV, and won't let you date older boys?
  
• Or would you rather live with your mum, who will let you party 'til all hours, who doesn't mind if you watch TV and txt yr frnds all the time, let's you drink, and who kinda fancies the 22 year old chav who is dating you?

Just because a child has picked a situation doesn't mean it's better for her.

However: There's obviously far more to this case than meets the eye, and since a minor is involved everything we can say is conjecture.

Meanwhile, back to the Middlesborough being rosier than the prairies issue:

Oink - OMFG is that the view from your driveway?

On either side of the Atlantic, the only consideration for the Court is what is in the best interest of the child. The opinions of the parents are irrelevant: something that most parents can`t get their heads around.

Triumph guy: fantastic post right on the money!

The judge met the girl and decided that she was mature enough to make the decision about where she wanted to live. Seems perfectly reasonable to me - not sure what reggiedh or tg are complaining about.

At any rate, she shouldn't be punished because of a crime by her mother.

I agree. The poor kid has gone through enough but to make her have to suffer another isolated winter in Canadian prairies would be tantamount to child abuse.

Apparently you can let your dog out and see it for weeks. Or something.

So let's say that there is a better school in London than in Middlesborough and the kid insists on going (and the kid has a friend in London who would take her in) by what you posted what the parents decide is best for the kid is is irrelevant. What a load of crap.

In essence any parent that lives in a nicer area country is liable to lose the kid? Give me a break!

Read what I said, not what you think I said. The best interest of the child is all that matters. If the child is mature enough to make that decision, so be it, if not, a judge will do so.

What the parents want is irrelevant, unless those wants accord with the best interests of the child. Parents do not have "rights" insofar as their children are concerned, they have responsibilities. A child is not a piece of property, despite what most parents believe. I see this every day. Your reference to "losing the kid" suggests that you do believe they are property. If, in the example you gave above, the best interests of the child were represented by the child relocating to London, why is that wrong?

Complaining?

I'm just worried about Oink and what he has to look at every day!

Replace "best interests" for "wishes" in the newspaper articles and the Lords Justice presumably made the right decision. However, the Daily Trite (or whatever newspaper) didn't report it like that, and made it into an issue of Canadian prairies vs Middlesborough, which I think is a far more interesting debate.