Removal of Jurisdiction question
Feb 10th 2013, 3:18 pm
#46
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 45
Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
Then I have a long wait before I can be with the man I love
Apr 29th 2013, 3:23 am
#47
Just Joined
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 2
Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
Just a message to all on here who consider moving to another country with their children effectively damaging their relationship with the other parent and in the case of the opening poster splitting up the children... Have you considered the effect this will have on the children? Removal from jurisdiction can be incredibly painful for the children creating a vacuum in their life with the other parent.
I know this because I have just returned from America last week to try and help my teenage daughter. She was whisked away from both her brothers and father via a court endorsed process. It has nearly cost her, her life as she has rcently taken her third overdose in as many years. This is deadly serious.
This is not teenage angst as she has had therapy, it has been found to be the direct consequence of the separation and living thousands of miles away. She moved when she was ten at a critical stage and went from having weekly shared parenting with me to having virtually none. She is an emotional mess.
From what I read on these forums very little thought is given or discussed in regards to how the children both feel or might handle what can be very traumatic situation.
You might want to consider putting your children's interests before your own chase for another lover.
I know this because I have just returned from America last week to try and help my teenage daughter. She was whisked away from both her brothers and father via a court endorsed process. It has nearly cost her, her life as she has rcently taken her third overdose in as many years. This is deadly serious.
This is not teenage angst as she has had therapy, it has been found to be the direct consequence of the separation and living thousands of miles away. She moved when she was ten at a critical stage and went from having weekly shared parenting with me to having virtually none. She is an emotional mess.
From what I read on these forums very little thought is given or discussed in regards to how the children both feel or might handle what can be very traumatic situation.
You might want to consider putting your children's interests before your own chase for another lover.
Last edited by Jazzyboy; Apr 29th 2013 at 3:26 am.
Apr 29th 2013, 3:50 am
#48
Are we there yet?
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: 31 miles from Cool (California)
Posts: 2,467
Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
Just a message to all on here who consider moving to another country with their children effectively damaging their relationship with the other parent and in the case of the opening poster splitting up the children... Have you considered the effect this will have on the children? Removal from jurisdiction can be incredibly painful for the children creating a vacuum in their life with the other parent.
I know this because I have just returned from America last week to try and help my teenage daughter. She was whisked away from both her brothers and father via a court endorsed process. It has nearly cost her, her life as she has rcently taken her third overdose in as many years. This is deadly serious.
This is not teenage angst as she has had therapy, it has been found to be the direct consequence of the separation and living thousands of miles away. She moved when she was ten at a critical stage and went from having weekly shared parenting with me to having virtually none. She is an emotional mess.
From what I read on these forums very little thought is given or discussed in regards to how the children both feel or might handle what can be very traumatic situation.
You might want to consider putting your children's interests before your own chase for another lover.
I know this because I have just returned from America last week to try and help my teenage daughter. She was whisked away from both her brothers and father via a court endorsed process. It has nearly cost her, her life as she has rcently taken her third overdose in as many years. This is deadly serious.
This is not teenage angst as she has had therapy, it has been found to be the direct consequence of the separation and living thousands of miles away. She moved when she was ten at a critical stage and went from having weekly shared parenting with me to having virtually none. She is an emotional mess.
From what I read on these forums very little thought is given or discussed in regards to how the children both feel or might handle what can be very traumatic situation.
You might want to consider putting your children's interests before your own chase for another lover.
In this thread however, the children want to leave, and the "best interests" of the children", and the parental rights of the dad have been discussed with sympathy and empathy.
Apr 29th 2013, 7:32 am
#49
Just Joined
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 2
Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
The 'best interests of the children' is a legal term used by the court systems to allow a warped justification of making ridiculous decisions.
The whole removal from jurisdiction legal process in the UK is a largely based on case precedents of Poel v Poel and Payne v Payne from 40 years ago, the major principle being that if it would make the primary parent (99.9% of the time the mother) unhappy then the Mother not being happy is not in the best interests of the child and therefore to avoid the Mother being unhappy she ought be able to leave, providing a five point welfare checklist has been ticked off. The solicitors and barristers in these cases simply coach/manipulate their clients on this aspect of the case. It's not really the best interests of the children tat count its the best interests of the primary parent.
Ok it's changed a little bit in terms of case law, but I can tell you that very few people in these situations really understand what is going on in a child's head, least of all CAFCASS and the Judges that preside over these cases and the parent who is making the move is more concerned with their own selfish reasons.
A friend of mine is in a situation with his three children particularly his eldest who is now 13 and went with their Mother to live in Canada three years ago
She is having a tough time, he is powerless to help.
The opening poster was more concerned with the paying of airfares and being with the man she loves. What if the dad can't afford the airfares?thats it then if she doesn't want to pay, isn't it? What if she splits up with the man she loves? (Statistically 70% of all second marriages breakdown)
My daughter is torn, she went from having a healthy balanced relationship with her Father and two brothers to being an emotional wreck who at the age of 16 was in a coma for five days and nearly died. Her latest overdose was two weeks ago. She is asking why was she not asked by anyone as to what she wanted? And here's the paradox she was, because she was subtlety pressurised by her Mother about Disneyland and sunny weather etc and then had a three minute chat with a CAFCASS officer who all decided it was in her best interests to go. Well it wasn't and I suspect in real terms in most cases it never is.
The whole legal process is so ridiculous it defies belief.
A child in these situations does not want to side with Mummy or Daddy, they thrive best when they have a balanced relationship with both parents something you cannot do when you live 1000s of miles away.
Apr 29th 2013, 11:16 am
#50
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 316
Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
How do you know the children want to leave? this thread is full of posts from the parent that wants to leave and you are taking their comments at face value.
The 'best interests of the children' is a legal term used by the court systems to allow a warped justification of making ridiculous decisions.
The whole removal from jurisdiction legal process in the UK is a largely based on case precedents of Poel v Poel and Payne v Payne from 40 years ago, the major principle being that if it would make the primary parent (99.9% of the time the mother) unhappy then the Mother not being happy is not in the best interests of the child and therefore to avoid the Mother being unhappy she ought be able to leave, providing a five point welfare checklist has been ticked off. The solicitors and barristers in these cases simply coach/manipulate their clients on this aspect of the case. It's not really the best interests of the children tat count its the best interests of the primary parent.
Ok it's changed a little bit in terms of case law, but I can tell you that very few people in these situations really understand what is going on in a child's head, least of all CAFCASS and the Judges that preside over these cases and the parent who is making the move is more concerned with their own selfish reasons.
A friend of mine is in a situation with his three children particularly his eldest who is now 13 and went with their Mother to live in Canada three years ago
She is having a tough time, he is powerless to help.
The opening poster was more concerned with the paying of airfares and being with the man she loves. What if the dad can't afford the airfares?thats it then if she doesn't want to pay, isn't it? What if she splits up with the man she loves? (Statistically 70% of all second marriages breakdown)
My daughter is torn, she went from having a healthy balanced relationship with her Father and two brothers to being an emotional wreck who at the age of 16 was in a coma for five days and nearly died. Her latest overdose was two weeks ago. She is asking why was she not asked by anyone as to what she wanted? And here's the paradox she was, because she was subtlety pressurised by her Mother about Disneyland and sunny weather etc and then had a three minute chat with a CAFCASS officer who all decided it was in her best interests to go. Well it wasn't and I suspect in real terms in most cases it never is.
The whole legal process is so ridiculous it defies belief.
A child in these situations does not want to side with Mummy or Daddy, they thrive best when they have a balanced relationship with both parents something you cannot do when you live 1000s of miles away.
The 'best interests of the children' is a legal term used by the court systems to allow a warped justification of making ridiculous decisions.
The whole removal from jurisdiction legal process in the UK is a largely based on case precedents of Poel v Poel and Payne v Payne from 40 years ago, the major principle being that if it would make the primary parent (99.9% of the time the mother) unhappy then the Mother not being happy is not in the best interests of the child and therefore to avoid the Mother being unhappy she ought be able to leave, providing a five point welfare checklist has been ticked off. The solicitors and barristers in these cases simply coach/manipulate their clients on this aspect of the case. It's not really the best interests of the children tat count its the best interests of the primary parent.
Ok it's changed a little bit in terms of case law, but I can tell you that very few people in these situations really understand what is going on in a child's head, least of all CAFCASS and the Judges that preside over these cases and the parent who is making the move is more concerned with their own selfish reasons.
A friend of mine is in a situation with his three children particularly his eldest who is now 13 and went with their Mother to live in Canada three years ago
She is having a tough time, he is powerless to help.
The opening poster was more concerned with the paying of airfares and being with the man she loves. What if the dad can't afford the airfares?thats it then if she doesn't want to pay, isn't it? What if she splits up with the man she loves? (Statistically 70% of all second marriages breakdown)
My daughter is torn, she went from having a healthy balanced relationship with her Father and two brothers to being an emotional wreck who at the age of 16 was in a coma for five days and nearly died. Her latest overdose was two weeks ago. She is asking why was she not asked by anyone as to what she wanted? And here's the paradox she was, because she was subtlety pressurised by her Mother about Disneyland and sunny weather etc and then had a three minute chat with a CAFCASS officer who all decided it was in her best interests to go. Well it wasn't and I suspect in real terms in most cases it never is.
The whole legal process is so ridiculous it defies belief.
A child in these situations does not want to side with Mummy or Daddy, they thrive best when they have a balanced relationship with both parents something you cannot do when you live 1000s of miles away.
To paraphrase Larkin" our parents **** US up, they do"
Good luck to all parents and children
Apr 29th 2013, 4:43 pm
#51
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: Removal of Jurisdiction question
With respect, that's just bollocks! For crying out loud... even the Daily Mail agrees!
You seem to have made a false assumption. I've been following this forum and it's predecessor for over 15 years now, and it is clear that most parents who have children are deeply concerned about how the children react when removed from one of the birth parents. Indeed, the topic has been discussed at great length over the years. I believe that most of the long-time members will agree with me on this.
I deeply regret that your daughter is having such a rough time - but you read those posts that supported your feelings and, most likely, dismissed the other side of the argument. It's called the shared focus and the shared denial. We actively seek out those situations that support, and actively dismiss those situations that don't support.
Ian
From what I read on these forums very little thought is given or discussed in regards to how the children both feel or might handle what can be very traumatic situation.
I deeply regret that your daughter is having such a rough time - but you read those posts that supported your feelings and, most likely, dismissed the other side of the argument. It's called the shared focus and the shared denial. We actively seek out those situations that support, and actively dismiss those situations that don't support.
Ian
