Posted on 03/14/2005 11:34:07 AM PST by GMMAC
'These are Canada's children'
The international tug-of war over the three England girls stretches into today after a handover to their mother is again put off.
LONDON FREE PRESS
March 14, 2005 - Front Page
PATRICK MALONEY, Free Press Reporter
CHATHAM -- The trans-Atlantic tug-of-war over three Chatham girls has stretched improbably into today, offering their father a new chance to quash their court-ordered return to Britain. Leah, 10, Hannah, 7, and Nicola England, 5, are Canadian-born and have lived here all their lives, except during 2003-04 when their now-estranged parents were working in the United Kingdom.
The girls say they hated life there.
But because that's the year Jonathan and Marla England's marriage broke down, the brewing custody fight must be fought in the U.K., a Chatham judge here ruled last Tuesday, citing an international treaty that's further complicated a battle already involving a family breakdown, a same-sex partnership and the rights of young Canadians.
"These are Canada's children," Sean Moore, a close friend of Jonathan England who's been involved in the fight, said yesterday.
"Canada needs to step up to the plate (and keep them here)."
Marla England, still based in the U.K. with her female partner, was to collect the girls in downtown Chatham yesterday, two days after the original court-ordered exchange went awry when the terrified children refused to leave their SUV.
Yesterday, while more calm, ended the same way -- through a Chatham police go-between, Marla and David England, the girls' uncle, agreed the girls be returned to their father's Chatham home.
As Marla and two others raced out of the Chatham-Kent police station without comment, across town the children exploded with joy at seeing their dad, Jonathan, 41.
"I told you I'd be back daddy," Leah told him in his driveway. "I told you I'd be back today."
In that moment, the girls -- ordered sent to England after Justice Lucy Glenn invoked the 1983 Hague Convention -- got at least another day in Chatham.
Jonathan hopes his lawyer can get Glenn's decision reversed, but concedes there are no guarantees.
"We're looking for somebody to respond and address this and say 'Whoa, whoa wait. These girls are . . . Canadians and they want to remain in Canada."
But that's not so simple, considering Jonathan broke an international law when he refused to take his girls back to the U.K. after a trip to Chatham in September.
The Hague Convention, which Glenn cited in her decision, is aimed at protecting child rights and was signed following a spate of international kidnappings. Its main focus is to ensure the return of children wrongfully taken from a member country.
One immigration observer applauded the judge's decision, noting this is "how countries co-operate." And though the girls will tell anyone they never want to see Britain again, they're too young for legal standing of their own.
Chatham police sergeant Jim Biskey, who volunteered as the go-between yesterday for Marla England and Jonathan's brother, a family therapist, said it's clear both sides want to make the girls happy.
"They were very rational people," he said. "Clearly they all want to act in the best interests of the children."
As the girls were driven to the court-ordered dropoff site at 9 a.m., they were clearly distraught. They wept when Moore, their dad's friend, unloaded their tiny backpacks but never got out of the SUV.
Their father stayed home during the exchange. And with her uncle out of earshot, little Hannah told The Free Press what she was feeling.
"I don't want to go back to England and mommy, she's trying to make us go back," the seven-year-old, bundled up and missing her two front teeth, said. "So now we're really scared."
Within an hour, both sides had decided to postpone the proposed handoff. As church bells rang in the distance, David England told reporters he was overjoyed. "I'm still, I think, shocked," he said. "But I've kind of gone inch by inch for months now, so this is just one more inch.
"Everything about (Leah, Hannah and Nicola) is Canadian and they have sense of a Canadian identity."
No court officials were present at yesterday's aborted dropoff. One Chatham police officer simply shrugged when asked why police were left to handle the exchange alone.
An official at the British High Commission in Ottawa declined comment.
THE HAGUE CONVENTION
- Was agreed upon by countries "desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention."
- Has a main objective -- "to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in a (participating) state."
- Applies "to any child who was habitually resident in a (participating) state immediately before any breach of custody or access rights."
- It applies to children ages 15 and younger.
ENGLAND FAMILY CHRONOLOGY
- 1991: Windsor native Jonathan England marries Marla Richards of Niagara Falls.
- 1994-2000: Daughters Leah, Hannah and Nicola are born and raised in Newmarket, north of Toronto
- September 2003: The family moves to England, where Jonathan finds work as a teacher.
- Sept. 3, 2004: Marla tells Jonathan she's leaving the marriage for another woman.
- Sept. 9, 2004: Jonathan brings his girls to Ontario to visit his ailing mother; says they then revealed their dislike of life in the U.K.
- March 8, 2005: A Chatham judge rules any legal custody battle between Jonathan and Marla must be fought in England -- and the children must be returned there.
- March 11, 2005: The girls, about to be given to their mother in downtown Chatham, scream and cry until they're driven away by family friend, Sean Moore, and uncle, David England.
- March 13: A second attempted exchange is aborted when the girls refuse to leave their car and Marla relents for another day.
- Today: "I don't know where things fall out from this point," David England says.
Copyright © The London Free Press
Pray for these children to be defended against their mother and her embraced perversion.
I find it difficult to conceieve how a woman involved in a DESTRUCTIVE lifestyle is granted any kind of residential custody. Where was the father's expert witness? Where was the testimony as to the damage that being raised by homosexual parents puts on children? I have used a psychological expert for custody cases, so this is not some hypothetical question.
The three girls are Canadian citizens. I presume the 1983 Hague Convention is intended to prevent children from being kidnapped from their home countries, not to prevent them from being taken from a foreign country back to their homes.
If the mother thinks she should have custody, she should return to Canada and argue the matter there, IMHO.
Regretably Canada is determined to do everything upside down: to favor LGBTs before normal people, and to favor other countries before their own. Still, this looks to me to be a twisting of the obvious intention of the Hague Convention.
I grew up in Chatham, went to school with the 2-IC in the police dept. Small (35,000 pop) city at the center of Kent County in the heart of southwestern Ontario farm belt. Strong family attitudes in that town, in many ways more American than Canadian due to its close (50 mile) distance to the Windsor / Detroit border. MOre Tiger fans than Blue Jay fans. Not nearly the political correctness as here in Toronto.
This is where we get to find out if the Hague Convention trumps the Charter of Rights- specifically, the clause in the latter enshrining the right to stay in Canada.
The parents are Canadian, the children are Canadian, the parents were married in Canada ... will someone tell me how England has any say over anything relating to this marriage, divorce, or child custody ?????
Is Canada still a subject of the British empire ?
The only justice I found in Chatham , Kent County , was in front of a visiting judge from Perth County . Her lawyer was a liar and the so called counselors at the Lester Pearson Center were nothing but feminist jerks . The kids grew up , which is something the legal profession has never figured out how to stop , and as adults filled in the blanks for me . Then I got really mad .
These three little girls are doing it right. Raise hell and fight for themselves. Demanding a lawyer to act on their behalf would be a start . One from outside of Chatham.and Kent County.
This woman should be prosecuted for fraud.
Sounds like she lured her husband and children to a foreign country where she had her pervert buddy already waiting... and legally prepared.
These kids are goners. This is Canada , Home of same sex marriage. Adios kids, try to make Momma's life with her Dyke friend a living hell.
When will fathers' rights be given equal treatment in divorce cases? I'm so tired of fathers being given the heave-ho in divorce, no matter the circumstances. When my parents divorced when I was nine (my mother filed), my mother was given primary custody, and I had regular "visitation" with my dad, and I was never given any choice at all. Having a dad who was super-beloved be suddenly relegated to peripheral parenting status makes the heartbreak of divorce doubly awful. I'm so sick of modern society pushing dads out. Dads are so important! Thank goodness that I was able to choose my primary residence when I was twelve, and I moved in with my dad (and probably saved my sanity!). Sounds like this mom hasn't any intention of doing right by her kids. What a shame! Poor little girls - I hope someone starts listening to them soon.
actually I am surprised these kids haven't been referred to the Ministry of Justice Children's Advocate, based in Toronto, one of my best friends is a lawyer there and that is what they do, they represent kids, esp when they need third party rep vs parents, or so I think......
Don't you know, Canada has classified that as "hate speech".
I have to agree with the judge in this case. A parent does not have the right to simply take kids out of the country during a custody battle.
It seems that England is the proper venue for this custody battle.
No, it is meant to prevent one parent from running off to another country with the kids in the middle of a custody dispute. This family was legally residing in the UK at the time of their dispute. It is proper that the dispute be settled there.
This was THE front page story here today in Windsor. I will keep FR informed.
- Sept. 9, 2004: Jonathan brings his girls to Ontario to visit his ailing mother; says they then revealed their dislike of life in the U.K.
Guess what . Mom doesn't own the kids. She left , not Dad and unless Dad signed way his parental rights , he can take them anywhere he wants . In the 6 days between the 6th and 9th of Sept. I'm betting that didn't happen .
Time and time again you'll hear how the courts view both parents as being equal. You'll never hear the truth how Mom is more equal than Dad. .
Like I said in a previous post , kids grow up . And like it or not ladies , you will be judged and held responsible . Equally . Just like Dad .
Sounds like these kids don't want to go . If Mom is smart she'll back off . In less than 10 years , and that really isn't a long time, the kids will decide , not a court of law .
Where are the two partners citizens ? Canada yes ? Why not fight the divorce there ?
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.
And actually, the mother didn't leave. It was the father who decided to take the kids back to Canada without waiting to see the results of the custody dispute. He's lucky not to be facing a kidnapping charge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.