Mom ordered to return girls to violent father who tortures, kills animals (United Kingdom)

I see no evidence offered here that this mother was "mentally ill." Only that she sought to protect her children from their violent father. I suspect, therefore, that this is a crap accusation, used to deflect attention from what is really going on here.

By contrast, notice that evidence does document that the UNNAMED DAD is violent; he ADMITS that he killed animals and apparently tortured some others. So it appears that the mother's assertion, that dad is on "always on the verge of extreme violence" is substantially true. But it doesn't matter. In an age where fathers rights are now supreme--and the rights of mothers and children are being hacked to nothing--the mother is being ordered to return the children to Norway because it would be in their "best interest" to be subjected to the authority of a father who tortures and kills animals. Never mind what this behavior says about his potential (or actual) around human beings. More evidence that the Hague Convention has been totally subverted into a tool to help support criminal fathers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002079/Mentally-ill-mother-return-daughters-violent-father.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Mentally ill mother ordered to return two daughters to father who is 'always on verge of extreme violence'

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:56 PM on 10th June 2011

The woman accepted at the Supreme Court that she had wrongly brought the girls from their Norwegian home.

A mentally ill British woman must return her four-year-old and seven-year-old daughters to Norway so they can be near their 'angry' Norwegian father, the UK's highest court ruled today.

The woman accepted that she had wrongfully brought the girls from their Norwegian home to England last year, said the Supreme Court, sitting in London.

But she alleged that their father was 'always on the verge of extreme violence' and had killed the family cat and a pet rabbit, and sprayed budgies with bleach.

She argued that there was a 'grave risk' of the children - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - being placed in an intolerable situation if returned.

A panel of five Supreme Court justices said the father denied the allegations, although he accepted that he could get angry and had killed the cat and the rabbit.

Judges said international law required children wrongly removed from their country of habitual residence to be returned unless there were exceptional circumstances.

And the panel concluded that returning to Norway would be in the children's best interests.