Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
So how do you explain this other article? (and if it is so "discredited", and there is nothing wrong here, then why is a high judge intervening?)
"Her ex-husband and her parents, who look after her two other children, insisted they would care for the girl. But, in a second secret hearing, a court ruled that her girl should be removed from her care for adoption by a British family.
"At a county court hearing in Chelmsford in February this year Judge Roderick Newton heard the mother beg that she should not lose her child for ever.
The judge ruled the girl should be placed for adoption – even though he accepted that the mother was well, successfully taking medication and had a job.
He said the mother might stop taking her drugs and the family offers were ‘not a starter’."
Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court, ordered yesterday that further moves towards adoption must be heard before him in the High Court."
??
Are you saying you have no problem with a foreign government just taking the child of a family in a secret court hearing?
.
.
|
The high judge didn't intervene, its a normal course of action in family cases like this, there is nothing unusual in it. The mother has had ALL of her children taken from her at the request of
her own parents in Italy. the father is an illegal in Italy and is looking at deportation, it seems he has nothing to do with the child except for wanting it as a means for staying in Italy.
The woman did not have a panic attack as the Independent reported but was suffering from extreme paranoid delusions and the judge still maintains that the child should not be with the mother for its own safety.
Are you saying that the child has no rights of protection just because it's mother is not British?