'These are Canada's children' (Judge Orders Girls Shipped Off To Gay Mom In UK!)

The London Free Press (Canada) ^ | March 14, 2005 | PATRICK MALONEY

[Modernman]

Where are the two partners citizens ? Canada yes ? Why not fight the divorce there ?

They were both residing in the UK at the time. That gives British courts jurisdiction over the dispute. If they had both agreed to have Canadian courts decide this, that would have been okay, too.

However, one party in a custody dispute cannot unilaterally take the kids to another jurisdiction and then demand that the custody battle be decided there.

The British court might very well end up granting custody to the father. It would seem that the girls have many more ties to Canada than the UK.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I thought Canada was against shipping people to other countries for possible torture?

[Snowyman]

Following that rationale, you should have no problems with a Saudi father taking his daughters to Saudi Arabia and then refusing to bring them back to resolve custody issues.

If the custody issues had been started , or finished for that matter , I'd have a problem with it . Having been through the court on this one , I'd be damn suprised if any legal action took place between the 3rd and 9th of Sept. Until it says otherwise I don't think Dad was avoiding or involved in any dispute. He's within his rights to take his kids where ever .

As for leaving,

- Sept. 3, 2004: Marla tells Jonathan she's leaving the marriage for another woman.

[Modernman]

Until it says otherwise I don't think Dad was avoiding or involved in any dispute. He's within his rights to take his kids where ever .

He did not have full custody of the girls. One parent cannot unilaterally decide to take the kids somewhere. If a parent did that in the US, he could be charged with kidnapping.

Would you be okay with a situation where the father took the kids back to Saudi Arabia?

As for leaving, - Sept. 3, 2004: Marla tells Jonathan she's leaving the marriage for another woman.

True, but she didn't leave the jurisdiction. She was in the process of leaving the marriage. That doesn't give her husband the right to take the kids out of the country.

[GMMAC]

"Would you be okay with a situation where the father took the kids back to Saudi Arabia?"

This is either a foolish or pointlessly argumentative statement on numerous levels since it ignores or reverses numerous aspects of the matter in question including:

Seemingly neither parent gave up their citizenship - the father only went to work for a period of time in the UK - so it's far more like an American family being compelled to proceed under Saudi law because they went there temporarily.

Unlike in your "example", the girls were born in Canada and have lived here for 99.9+% of their lives and, additionally, neither parent apparently has dual citizenship in the UK or anywhere else.

Given that no UK Custody Order was in place, why would "mom" have as much - or even more - right to keep the girls in a foreign land than "dad" would have to bring them home?

Finally, "mom's" abrupt and arbitrary timing, in and of itself, reveals both her deviousness and her ill-purposes and more than calls into question her willingness - if not her ability - to properly place her daughters' best interests above her own. BTW, when was the last time that a U.S. citizen was charged with kidnapping other U.S. citizens and bringing them home to America?

[Snowyman]

Given that no UK Custody Order was in place,

Exactly. There is no such thing as partial rights of custody unless it's written in a specific court order . No where does it say Dad brought his daughters back to their own country , Canada , without Mom knowing about it . She left the marital home, not he. Dad leaving the home with the kids is not the same thing . She had already left . Had Dad fled a court proceeding that would be entirely different . He didn't .

[Former Proud Canadian]

Update:

Kids and dad on the front page again today. The story reports that when the police tried to effect the transfer the girls started crying and screaming for help. The police did not want any part of it. Perhaps the judge will have trouble finding the muscle to back up his order.

[GMMAC]

Thanks - which paper or the related url if you've got it handy.

Re: your comment: "Perhaps the judge will have trouble finding the muscle to back up his order."

As noted in both the article itself and my initial comment: "her" Order.

BTW, IMHO, one of the biggest single problems with Ontario's Judiciary is that Mike Harris and his band of red-Tory frauds spent their years in Office rounding-up every radical feminist lawyer in the Province that Marian Boyd somehow missed and appointing them to the Bench! (as they lacked the political courage to purge the NDP- entrenched commies from the AG's Office - who still remain there)

[Former Proud Canadian]

It was in the Windsor Star today, print edition.

I did not follow Harris's judicial appointments. I was just relieved to get rid of the previous (communist) government. Hopefully the NDP will not come to power in Ontario for at least another generation.

[GMMAC]

In the areas of both civil and criminal justice, the modus operandi of this gang of actually red-Tory ward-healers was to carp loudly about things they couldn't change while doing nothing about those they could. (note: Harnick, Flaherty et al identical in practice)

As examples, for 8 years we heard endless complaints as to the federal Criminal Code in general and the Young Offenders Act in particular while left-wing hacks were habitually appointed to Provincial Judgeships and nothing whatsoever was done to impose proper public accountability on the countless Crown Attorneys who betray the public trust daily by selfishly following their own personal politically correct agendas.

In relation to the matter at hand, it's also why we have arrogant, highly secretive and money-grubbing CAS's and similar bodies making the promotion of radical feminist and homosexual causes far higher priorities than actually protecting the vulnerable children entrusted to their care.

The solution, BTW, is the American one (not that the Yanks couldn't go much further as well): have way more senior civil service "mandarins" either elected or appointed by - and serving only at the pleasure of - the government of the day.

[-YYZ-]

Elected judges and crown attorneys? Uh, no thanks.

Appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the elected government? Better, although that's how we got the current hacks. Appointing judges for life as currently done for the supreme court is a dumb idea, in my opinion - no accountability at all.

[youngtory]

The courts have no respect for the will of the children. They want to live in Canada with their father not with a mother who induces herself in perversion and immorality.

[GMMAC]

Maybe I should have been clearer: electing judges and crown attorneys is a somewhat separate question from cleaning out unaccountable mandarins who don't give a rat's ass what Party is in power since the rightly figure they'll still have their jobs long after it's gone and accordingly - as well as selfishly and undemocratically - go following their own personal politically correct agendas.

However the first item is eventually addressed consider:
Now Justice Leslie Baldwin, while still a Crown arguing on your behalf (!) that Karla Holmulka had some legitimate claim to victimhood based solely upon her gender ...
... and that Rosie Abella - appointed without any public scrutiny or input whatsoever - is now dictating laws that you must live under for the next couple of decades!