This is a phenomenon we see worldwide. The authorities have no apparent interest in investigating abuse claims or protecting children. Their major interest is in promoting the father's "right" to unhindered access to his child/victim and bashing mothers who won't consent to having their children abused.
This case involves an UNNAMED DAD who was apparently never married to the child's mother, but was still able to get visitation when the baby was only 6 months old. And because this mother dared to exert her right to freedom of movement, dared to protect her child from sexual abuse, the Canadian cops busted in and took the screaming child. A "social worker" flew him back to Britain. And all this engineered by "safeguarding professionals" who are intent on labeling this child a liar and not considering his abuse claims as serious enough to warrant intervention. In fact--typically of hired gun shrinks--the mother is the one who is now labeled "emotionally abusive" for showing normal, protective maternal behavior. The same behavior any normal human mother would show under the same circumstances. Or any normal primate or mamallian mother for that matter. For doing what any normal mother would do, this mom could get two years in prison.
A question: do you think the system gets this much in a huff over deposed dictators, known torturers and human rights violators who flee to other countries to avoid prosecution? Obviously not. What are the priorities here? You tell me.
And who is acting in a truly abusive fashion here? Looking at the evidence, who has done the most to traumatize this child? It's clearly all these "professionals"--acting as proxies for the father. But hardly anybody in the mainstream media has the courage to call them out on their actual deeds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8086394/Mother-claims-she-fled-with-son-to-Canada-because-of-abuse-fears.html
Mother claims she fled with son to Canada because of 'abuse fears'
A mother abducted her own son and took him to Canada over fears he was being abused by his father, a court heard.
By Nigel Bunyan
Published: 7:30AM BST 26 Oct 2010
The woman fled with the seven year-old boy on the day before social services were due to recommend that he be taken into care.
She returned three months later and told police she had no option but to carry out the “crime” if she was to protect her only child.
By then the boy had been seized by the Canadian authorities and flown back to Britain with a social worker.
At the Courts of Justice in Douglas, Isle of Man, his mother invoked the rarely-used defence of necessity as she pleaded not guilty to a charge of abducting her own child.
Her solicitor and supporters on the island fear that if convicted she faces a prison term of up to two years.
The prosecution alleges that the abduction could only have been justified had her son faced the threat of either death or serious injury.
Their case is that she took her son out of Britain simply to avoid an interim care order that she feared would be put in place 24 hours later. In doing so she breached the court order of a High Court judge.
The mother, known only as Miss A to protect her son’s identity, sat silently in the dock as the seven jurors listened to the statement she handed to detectives upon her return to the island in October last year.
The document detailed her fears of sexual abuse against her son and concluded with a recollection of her son’s reaction when Canadian police officers arrived at their door.
She wrote: “He was screaming ‘Please don’t send me back to Daddy – he hurts me’.”
The court heard how her son, known as Boy A, had long been the subject of disputes between his parents about access.
When he was six months old a county court granted parental rights to his father, but the following year his mother secured the consent of her ex-partner to take him to the Isle of Man.
The father continued to have access to his son, but late in 2007, Miss A wrote to her GP to express concerns about his behaviour.
The jury heard that the “landscape” of the case was totally changed in January 2008, when Miss A told a social worker about a conversation she allegedly had with her son.
She claimed the child had told her his father had taken off his pants, cuddled him, and then exposed himself.
The boy was interviewed in a police video suite, and said beforehand that “he did not want to see his Daddy, that he did not like him and that he had not been told to say that by his Mummy or Grandad.”
During the interview, the child said the most that had happened was touching on the side of the buttocks and detectives decided that no criminal proceedings should be brought.
But his mother said after the police interview, her son had told her he had been sexually assaulted.
The case proceeded to the Family Court and in January 2009, Deemster Corlett made a “finding of fact” that the allegations of sexual abuse by the father were unproved.
Safeguarding professionals began to express concerns about the impact of the situation on Boy A and he was put on the child protection register.
Four months later a clinical psychologist alleged the child was suffering “emotional abusive treatment” at the hands of his mother and her family.
An interim care order was applied for that would put the child with temporary foster parents, but when his mother’s lawyer was served with the application in June she was taken ill and had to go to hospital.
The following day Deemster Corlett made an order banning the child’s removal from the island.
Miss A’s confinement in hospital meant the application could not be served upon her until she attended a case meeting on June 25.
In the meantime she bought plane tickets for them both and flew to Canada with her son the next day.
The mother said she had only intended to take him on a relaxing holiday, but when they reached Canada he loved it so much she decided to buy a holiday home there.
“Throughout the time we were in Canada I believed and I still believe that I had done nothing wrong.”
The case continues.