Why the hell are authorities threatening to "forcibly remove" this 12-year-old boy "under duress" from his mother's home, and force him to live with an UNNAMED DAD whom he barely knows? He hasn't even seen the man in 4 years! How the hell is this in this child's best interest, especially when the child made it clear that he doesn't want to have anything to do with the man, and will harm himself if he is forced to live with him?
Yet the idiotic authorities don't care about that, nor the serious human rights implications of their decision. They're too busy fretting over the mother's "significant influence" (as if any parent doesn't have influence, and as if "influence" were some sort of crime). Plus, they're too busy getting their panties in a wad about make-believe "emotional harm" from equally make-believe "alienation."
So they're going to inflict REAL emotional harm on a child in order to fight bogus emotional harm based on a throroughly discredited theory of parental alienation? That seems to be the plan.
I pray this child is spared this trauma before he harms himself. Unfortunately, he wouldn't be the first child who killed himself over forced contact with an "alienated" (abusive) father.
And do you think Daddy really gives a damn about his son's welfare in all this? If he did, he'd back off. Nah, he's just happy he's getting his way and screwing the ex. That's all. And if the kid is hurt? That's just collateral damage to these types.
Boy, 12, threatens hunger strike if sent to live with father, court hears
A 12-year-old boy being sent to live with his father against his will has threatened to run away, stop eating and jump out of a moving car, the Court of Appeal heard.
By Caroline Gammell
Published: 7:30AM GMT 17 Mar 2010
The child, who has previously described his father as a “monster”, is due to be taken by force from his mother’s home imminently.
The court has ordered that the boy – known as Child C - move 100 miles from his home in the West Midlands to his father's home near London.
A senior family judge ruled that he would suffer “emotional harm” if his “alienation” from his father continued and all appeals to reverse the decision have failed.
Child C has not seen his father for four years, is adamant that he wants to stay with his mother and claims he was told in his prayers that he should live with her.
He allegedly told social workers his faith has made him determined to rebel against his newly imposed home, claiming that he would try to jump from his father’s car.
As his mother has refused to take her son south, High Court officials – known as tipstaff – have been given the authority to use force if necessary to make him leave his home.
However, lawyers for Child C and his mother argued that being forcibly removed was against his human rights and said he believed the tipstaff were “barbaric”.
They claimed being taken from his mother’s home under duress would breach Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, his right to liberty.
Lorna Meyer QC, representing the mother, said the boy should be placed in interim foster care for a month to adjust to leaving his mother.
Wendy Outhwaite QC, representing Child C’s guardian, said no proper assessment had been made of the boy or the detrimental effect the enforced transfer may have on him.
“The child has already expressed an intention to harm himself, potentially life threatening; in particular his refusal to eat and to throw himself out of the car.
“He has shown has a real intention to carry out his threats. He is a rather intense individual, very calm and not hysterical.
“He has linked his situation to his religious devotion – the answers to his prayers told him that he should not reside with his father.”
Child C, who has said that he “hates” his financial analyst father, has just completed part of his Maths GCSE.
His parents separated in 1997 and he was born the following year.
He has always lived with his mother, but contact with his father was sporadic and came to a virtual stop in 2006.
His father, who married again and has two children, has fought for years to get access to his son.
At an earlier hearing, Judge Clifford Bellamy said he was “not wholly convinced” that the mother, who had “significant influence and power” over the boy, wanted contact with the father to work.
The panel of judges Lord Justice Thorpe, Mrs Justice Baron and Lady Justice Smith are expected to make a ruling about what will happen to the boy on Wednesday.