Abusive, alcoholic dad gets custody of 5-year-old boy after getting help from Mexican police, U.S. State Department in tracking down mom (Knox County, Tennessee)

Judge Varlan is a woman-hating idiot who is either willfully ignorant about domestic violence or just doesn't give a sh**. 'Cause he just knows the mother is lying about the father's alcohol abuse and physical violence, cause, well he just knows. Misogynists always "know" that it's the woman who is lying.

Actually, Mom is very credible. If she wanted to sound more "convincing," she could have said the father abused the boy as well. In reality, it is not uncommon (at least in the early stages) for the father to abuse the mother but not (directly) abuse the children. (Emotionally, however,  he is abusing them by diminishing their caregiver.) That the mother was dependent on him for financial assistance is also reality, and that she tried to let the abuser see the boy is also common. Battered moms really do try to be nice and accommodating. They really do. But apparently Mom couldn't take it anymore so she ran. At a terrible sacrifice to herself. This is not a decision that mothers make lightly.

And of course, because abusers are control freaks, he chased her down with the help of the Mexican police AND the U.S. State Department. Gosh, we don't have any drug dealing murderous gangs to worry about anymore? No other international issues of pressing importance? Who knew? Two governments magically cooperate and collaborate to help the batterer track down a battered woman like she was a rabid dog so he reclaim his child/property.

So now, the child is actually at very high risk. Daddy has to take on the responsibility of full-time caregiver, when he is a short-tempered abuser with a traumatized child. And, of course, he wants to punish mom in the worst possible way.

This is partly what happens when you give never married fathers "rights" over women and children. Sickening. And when you turn the Hague Convention into little more than a "slave catching" operation to benefit abusive men.

Dad is identified as EUGENIO GARDUNO GUEVARA.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/crime-courts/judge-orders-boy-5-returned-to-mexico-in-international-custody-battle-30d9edd3-7f6b-1e42-e053-010000-376272141.html

Judge orders boy, 5, returned to Mexico in international custody battle

April 19, 2016

By Jamie Satterfield of the Knoxville News Sentinel

In the first ruling of its kind in East Tennessee, a federal judge is ordering the return to Mexico of a 5-year-old boy at the center of an international custody battle.

Chief U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan is siding with Mexican father Eugenio Garduno Guevara in a rare case brought under The Hague Convention of 1980 International Child Abduction Remedies Act in a fight over the boy Guevara fathered out of wedlock with Mexican mother Alma Soto Soto.

Soto spirited the boy away from Mexico and into the U.S. illegally in 2013 after the couple, who had been living together and sharing custody, split up. Guevara spent two years tracking down mother and child, using the Mexican police, The Hague Convention treaty, the U.S. State Department and Facebook, before finding the pair living in Knoxville.

The case ultimately landed in front of Varlan, the first time the federal court system here had been tapped to decide under the treaty which country — Mexico or the U.S. — had authority to decide custody.

In his ruling, Varlan noted the treaty did not authorize him to decide which of the two parents was the fittest but rather was designed to prevent parents from court-shopping among foreign nations.

"One of the main purposes of the ICARA is to prevent parents from removing children from the country of their habitual residence to a more sympathetic court in order to have a 'home court advantage' in custody determinations," Varlan wrote.

It will be up to a Mexican court now to decide the boy's custodial fate.

Guevara and Soto had the boy out of wedlock in Mexico in 2010 but lived together with him until March 2013 when Guevara moved out. A month later, the boy and his mother disappeared. Guevara eventually found mother and son via a photograph posted on Facebook, showing Soto and the boy at the Wichita Falls Park in Wichita Falls, Texas. But she disappeared with the boy again. The pair resurfaced in late May 2015 in Knoxville when she sought custody through Knox County Juvenile Court.

Although Varlan did not weigh in on which of the two was most worthy of custody, the nature of the case did require him to consider allegations typically aired in a domestic courtroom. He first had to decide if Guevara had visited and supported his son after he and Soto split.

"In the three-week period of separation when the child was in Mexico, (the father) visited with the child on four occasions, including one overnight visit," Varlan wrote. "(He) also provided (Soto) and the child with some degree of money and food support."

Varlan also had to sort out conflicting claims between the pair. Soto, via attorney Scott Saidak, claimed Guevara was a mean drunk, and the boy would not be safe in Mexico. He denied that.

Varlan didn't buy it.

"While (Soto) submits that (Guevara) had an alcohol problem and abused her in the past, she does not allege that (the father) abused the child," Varlan wrote. "(She) also allowed (him) to visit with the child multiple times when they were separated, and testified that (he) supported the child with food and money during the period of separation, both of which tend to show that plaintiff would not subject the child to serious abuse or neglect if the child were returned to Mexico."

A second case under the treaty is now pending in U.S. District Court. That one involves a father living in London and a Bangladeshi mother living in Knoxville with the couple's twin babies.

Dad "legally" abducts kids, takes them to Kuwait, divorces Mom, and gets full custody; mom had no say, but Canada recognizes divorce anyway (Ottawa, Canada)

The fathers' right crowd complains bitterly and unrelentlessly about Japan, one of the few countries that still favors mothers. But they are utterly silent about the countries of the mideast, where fathers rights are completely and totally institutionalized. Countries that are typically authoritarian regimes where mothers have virtually no rights. Countries where torturous abuse by violent, controlling custodial fathers is rampant.

My heart goes out to this mom. How horrible that so-called progressive countries in the west buy into and support this total lack of justice. In reality, we see that so-called progressive countries in the west are nearly as invested in fathers' rights as the middle eastern countries.

This is typical of how these things play out. Fathers of children "abducted" by their mothers get government officials and the media behind them. In the U.S., MARK GOLDMAN had his congressman and the State Department aggressively taking up his case. He had the U.S. media paying for a chartered plane trip to Brazil.

But mothers get squat. Just a lot of official hand-wringing and excuses.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Ottawa+mother+fights+children+legally+abducted+husband/7287340/story.html

Ottawa mother fights for children legally ‘abducted’ by husband in Kuwait
BY KAREN CHEN, OTTAWA CITIZEN

SEPTEMBER 23, 2012

OTTAWA — Zinab Alfawzi had prepared the perfect party for her son’s eighth birthday on Aug. 16. She specially ordered a cake featuring her son’s favourite superhero, Spiderman. She strung up streamers and balloons, lit all the candles and gathered friends to sing Happy Birthday.

The only thing missing was her son, Ahmad, who was nearly 10,000 kilometres away in Kuwait with his father. He wasn’t answering the phone.

“Happy Birthday son. I wish next year we could be together. I love you,” she says in Arabic in a cellphone recording of the celebration, the phone in Kuwait ringing and ringing as the candles grow shorter and shorter. A few months ago, the same thing happened except with a Dora the Explorer themed cake for her nine-year-old daughter, Rawan.

Alfawzi hasn’t seen her children for three years. They live in Kuwait with her husband, Salem Khalef Rashid and his new wife. Kuwaiti courts granted him a divorce and awarded him full custody of the children without ever giving Alfawzi a say in the matter.

The divorce is recognized by Canada, even though she never signed her name agreeing to it.

Cases like Alfawzi’s fall between the cracks of international customs and the courts of different countries, said Mona Pare, a civil law professor at the University of Ottawa with a background in human rights and child rights. There simply does not exist any agreement or legal process that could force the father to bring the children back to Canada, even though Alfawzi never had a say in their custody.

“In cases that are related to immigration and family and religion ... there are so many different combinations possible that make it really complex,” said Pare.

Weeks after her son’s birthday, Alfawzi sits in her east end apartment, deflated balloons scattered on the floor and tears in her eyes. Because the divorce and custody orders occurred under Islamic law in Kuwaiti courts, Alfawzi has no legal claim to her children in that country, and unless her Rashid decides to set foot in Canada, Alfawzi has no opportunity to argue for the custody of her children in Canada. She is stuck, without her children and without viable options.

Alfawzi arrived in Ottawa as an Iraqi refugee in 2002 and moved in with Rashid’s family. Their families were acquaintances in Iraq and the Rashids agreed to house her. She and Rashid fell in love and married under Islamic Sharia law and registered to have it recognized in Ontario. In the following years, she gave birth to her daughter and son, seldom leaving the house and never learning English.

In 2006, her husband announced they would visit Kuwait for a family vacation. When they arrived, he told her they were moving there permanently.

Rashid waited for Alfawzi’s Kuwaiti visa and Canadian permanent resident documents to expire and then kicked her out of the house in 2009, announcing he had divorced her and that he was keeping the kids.

It might sound like a case of international child abduction, but it wasn’t. It is completely legal. With Islamic law, the husband rarely needs the wife’s permission for a divorce and the divorce can be instant.

Shocked and eventually destitute, Alfawzi had no choice but to return to her native Iraq, leaving her children behind. The Canadian consulate could offer no help.

In Canada, those custody orders would never be recognized, Pare said, because Alfawzi had not participated in them. The divorce can be carried over legally, even though she could probably fight them. Custody, however, is a separate issue and undecided in Canada. But, even if she were to pursue justice here where courts would likely award different custody arrangements, she cannot get her children back unless her ex-husband and children, who are Canadian citizens, enter Canada.

That would seem unlikely. They can easily renew their passports at the Canadian consulate in Kuwait and notice of an Ontario custody proceeding may further discourage Rashid from coming back to Canada.

“Now she’s faced with, ‘Well there’s a legal system that can be used, but of course what she cares about are her kids, not just getting a paper from the courts that says ‘you’re right’,” Pare said.

Alfawzi could use the Canadian legal system, but it would not help her be reunited with her children. International agreements like The Hague Convention don’t apply because the case is not considered an abduction and even if it were, Kuwait hasn’t signed the agreement.

Pare said it can be difficult to generalize on trends or numbers for how common cases like Alfawzi’s are because each case is so different.

“Imagine how vulnerable you are as a woman refugee and you don’t speak the language and how somebody can just take advantage of you,” Pare said.

Alfawzi eventually was able to return to Canada. She had to learn English before she could ask for help.

She is now a permanent resident and has a file of spouse harassment with the Ottawa police. She also has a separate fraud case against Rashid, who allegedly forged her signature to take money from her account. Police connected with the Canadian consulate in Kuwait to arrange phone calls between Alfawzi and her children and once visited the children to write a report. The report noted the kids were healthy and treated well, but calls are often difficult, Alfawzi said.

“I say ‘Hi son,’ and he says ‘Hi Zinab,” she said. The children no longer call her ‘mom’ and often ask if she loves them, telling her their father said she hated them. “Of course I love them, I am the mother,” she said.

Alfawzi last spoke with her children on July 5. Alfawzi likes dates, memorizing each day, month and year she interacts with her children and using them as passwords. Alfawzi said she feels physically ill when she thinks about her children, seldom eating when she returns to her small apartment where she is surrounded by their pictures, but completely alone. A physician said her diet has caused stomach and nutrition problems, but Alfawzi remains energetic, running between the kitchen and the couch, making dolmah — stuffed grape seed leaves — for the first time in months while organizing stacks of court documents and police reports.

“I don’t want to stop my life: I grow up, I work, I speak English, I write English, I have a home. When my children come back to me I want them to see I have things for them,” she said.

Alfawzi worked at a restaurant for several months, but was forced to quit when her stomach condition worsened.

She loves Ottawa. She loves the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill where she made a wish after copying others tossing coins.

After consulting with Pare, Alfawzi has been in touch with a human rights attorney in Kuwait who said he would start to work on her case there while she tried her best in Canada. No Ottawa attorneys have taken her case, but legal action is not what she needs. She needs her children back.

“My friends say I am strong woman, I don’t cry when I’m with people,” she said. “But when I go home and listen to (my children’s) call and look at their picture, I cry, cry, cry, cry.”

DASTARDLY DADS FROM THE ARCHIVES (Norfolk, England - 2010)

We haven't run an archives story in years. Just keeping up with the current crop of dastardly dads is time consuming enough! But a friend of mine sent me this link to a story from 2010, and it's too important to pass up. The dad is identified as THIERRY GIRARDEAU.

The Sunday Times

30/12/2010

Mum, Come Save me

Samantha Raw battled for two years to win back her two boys after they were snatched by their father. Then came a secret message from one of the boys.

John-Paul Flintoff
Published: 26 December 2010

Two weeks ago, Samantha Raw was eating dinner with her daughter Camille when her phone rang. It was her friend Kevin. "We think you should come and see something," he said.

Read the rest here.

Custodial dad with history of sexual abuse shuts off all contact with mother (Berlin, Germany)

This story is about a Mom who has been denied all contact with her children since 2007. Today is her son's birthday. Her children were given to a father who is a sexual predator, and who filed for custody using fraud. This is an international matter, and we are asking all American citizens to call the United States Embassy and help this mom bring her kids home. The mom in this case has been denied all contact with her children since the fraudulent order in 2007- this mom has not heard her children's voices in years, and has no way of knowing if they are alright. Please take a moment to contact the US embassy in Berlin and ask them to assist this mom.

http://kufnertinakids.blogspot.com/

Girls go into hiding to avoid going back to abusive dad (Queensland, Australia)

I'm starting to think that the Hague Convention is basically an updated version of the U.S.'s 1850 Fugitive Slave Act--it's a way to force battered mothers and children to return to their owner/husband, even after they had escaped the slave-holding (i.e. fathers rights controlled) jurisdiction. These is the brave new world the fathers rights movement has created--a lot like the bad old days, where you were either the ruling aristocracy or chattel property with all the rights of dirt. UNNAMED DAD in this case.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/girls-in-hiding-from-dad/story-e6frf7l6-1226355335757

Aussie girls in hiding to avoid going to Italy with father despite Family Court order

by: By Tuck Thompson
From: The Courier-Mail
May 15, 2012 12:00AM

•Relative vows to protect girls amid court order
•"I will go to jail and wear orange if that's what it takes"
•Siblings have said they're afraid of their dad

FOUR Queensland sisters are on the run today, desperate to avoid going back to Italy with a father who they claim physically abused them and their mother for years.

A relative whisked the girls away to an undisclosed location yesterday as state bureaucrats accelerated the handover following intense media scrutiny.

"I will go to jail and wear orange if that's what it takes to protect those kids," the relative told family members before disappearing with the girls after picking them up from school.

The girls all told The Courier-Mail they were afraid of their father's violent temper and beatings and wanted to stay in Queensland with their mother, 32, who said she fled Italy two years ago with the help of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Australian Embassy.

It also was revealed the father received legal assistance as he pursued his case to remove the girls, who are dual Australian-Italian citizens.

Their mother, who said losing her daughters would be "akin to death", asked Premier Campbell Newman to intervene.

"Everyone is being so supportive, they understand what this is doing to us," she said.

The distraught mother said she went to Italian police four times to report violent incidents but they discouraged her from pressing charges because her children would be ostracised as being from a "bad family".

She said he had struck her at least 10 times and repeatedly hit his daughters, who confirmed the violent incidents to The Courier-Mail.

The eldest sister said her finger was broken during a beating and another sister said she was beaten with a wooden spoon.

The father is currently in Brisbane being represented by a solicitor who refused to comment on the allegations and refused to disclose the whereabouts of his client.

The eldest sister had planned to meet with her father for the first time since 2010 yesterday to urge him to return to Italy and leave her sisters and mother alone. But the Department of Communities instead contacted the mother's solicitor demanding an immediate handover of the children before that meeting.

"That decision arises, I understand, from media coverage," the solicitor told the mother.

A veteran Family Law practitioner has accused the Government of blindly "ticking the boxes" to follow Hague Convention rules meant to protect children without applying common sense.

"What is the bloody psychological impact on these kids?" he said. "It's completely out of order for the girls to have no say in their future. They are old enough to have a voice."

The girls said they would have to be handcuffed, sedated and carried on to the plane.

The Family Court ruling rejected the mother's appeal of an earlier decision holding that she didn't have the father's consent to take the children from Italy.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

AUSTRALIA is a signatory to The Hague Convention anti-child abduction treaty.

Designed to return children who had been abducted by a parent who moved to another country, the treaty can take priority over other legal protections especially if cases are not properly investigated.

The four Sunshine Coast girls have uniformly protested their removal from Australia into the hands of a man they fear, and who they say has abused them in the past.

The National Child Protection Alliance says the rights of the children are not being protected.

Pedo dad gets custody of 5-year-old son (Norway)

Dad is identified as KURT BERGSETH. Notice that not only does Dad get custody of the younger son, but Mom has been stripped of her parental rights. This is how it works these days. It's okay to be a daddy pedo; it won't affect your rights at all. But heaven help you if you are a protective mother trying to save your child from sexual abuse. 'Cause you will lose EVERYTHING.

Notice that the Norwegian judge didn't even examine the evidence provided by investigators. They don't even pretend to be objective anymore.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20120417/172869798.html

Norwegian Court Gives Child to Alleged Pedophile Father

11:46 17/04/2012

MOSCOW, April 17 (RIA Novosti)

A Norwegian court has ruled to deprive Russian national Irina Bergseth of her parental rights and give her five-year-old son to her Norwegian ex-husband who had allegedly sexually abused the boy, Russian TV channel Rossiya 24 reported on Tuesday.

Last year Irina, a mother of two boys, 5 and 13 years, accused her ex-husband of molestation after her younger son complained about pains in his genitals, saying that it had been his father, Kurt Bergseth, to blame. The woman reported to the Norwegian police but policemen have found no evidence of abuse and gave both children to foster families.

In August 2011, the woman attempted to bring her elder son, who has Russian citizenship, to Russia but they were detained in Poland. Russian child’s ombudsman Pavel Astakhov helped return the boy to Russia. The elder boy also confessed to being sexually molestated by his father.

The court ruled on Tuesday to deprive Bergseth of her parental rights for the younger son and awarded the father custody. The judges also dismissed materials provided by the Russian investigators that show evidence against the father.

“Now I have the right to meet with my child once a year under police supervision, and I’ll have to pay for each meeting 300,000 rubles ($10,000),” Irina told the Russian tabloid Life News. She also said she would have to spend 1.5 million rubles ($50, 000) for appeals procedures in court.

“Termination of her parental rights and refusal to listen to her lawyer is an unjustified and ungrounded violation of her rights,” Astakhov said, adding that investigators should continue to probe into her former husband’s actions.

The official also said that Irina’s case was complicated because the younger son did not have Russian citizenship.

In late March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia may ease the procedure for obtaining Russian citizenship for children from marriages between a Russian citizen and a foreigner.

Several scandals over the citizenship of children whose parents divorced have taken place in Russia over the last few years.

A diplomatic row arose in 2009 when Finish national Paavo Salonen was charged for illegally taking his five-year-old son Anton from his Russian mother Rimma to Finland with the help of a Finnish diplomat, who crossed the Russian-Finnish border with the boy in the trunk of his vehicle.

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.

Girl abducted, abused by dad returned to mom in Indiana (Petaling Jaya, Malaysia)

Fascinating. Remember when you couldn't turn on the TV without hearing about poor MARK GOLDMAN and how his ex-wife had "kidnapped" their child and "alienated" the child against him? (Now Goldman and his lawyers have blocked the Brazilian grandparents from any contact with the child, but it's okay when daddies shut off all the access, right?)

Contrast Goldman with this case which involves an UNNAMED DAD who abducted his daughter and took her to Malaysia away from her American mother. Have you heard of this case before? Nope, neither have I. And I track these things. Do you see any mention of the Indiana congressional representatives going to bat for this mom? Or any Indiana senators? Or the State Department? How about the U.S. television networks. No?

Should I mention to you that I found this item in an ASIAN media outlet operating out of Singapore and not in the U.S.? What does that tell you? And notice that the alarm was NOT raised by the American government or any of its representatives but by Malaysian social service agencies, NGO's, and parents and teachers at the girl's school. THEY were the ones who noticed and acted upon the fact that this girl was constantly hungry with bruising on her arms and back. It was ONLY after the matter went to court that the U.S. Embassy flew the mother to Malaysia.

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20110311-267489.html

'Abused' American girl, 11, reunited with mum
New Straits Times
Fri, Mar 11, 2011

PETALING JAYA - An 11-year-old American girl, who claimed she was constantly abused by her Malaysian father, was yesterday reunited with her mother and is set to begin a new life in Indiana, United States.

The girl and her mother, a 28-year-old restaurant worker in Indiana, cried uncontrollably outside the Court for Children here when they were reunited after six years yesterday.

The mother was flown in here by the US embassy after the plight of the girl reached the courts last week.

For the past six years, the mother had been under the notion that she would never be able to see her child again. The girl was listed as "abducted" in the US.

It was alleged that the girl's father had abducted the girl after falsifying her documents and bringing her here six years ago.

The mother was contacted by the embassy here last week after the girl came to the attention of welfare authorities here and arrangements were made for the child to be reunited with her mother.

The mother has re-married and has two other children, a boy aged 7 and a 5-year-old girl.

Yesterday, after magistrate Nor Afidah Idris ordered that the girl be placed in her mother's custody, mother and daughter hugged each other tightly and cried.

The girl's father, who was present with several relatives, stood by and watched. He was later seen in a discussion with his lawyer.

Also present in court were representatives from the embassy, non-governmental organisations and several parents and teachers from the girl's school.

Counsel representing the mother and daughter, Pramodini Nair, said the girl's father was present during the closed-door proceedings.

"He did not deny he had abused his daughter. There were also several reports lodged against him over the abuses," Nair said.

The father, a computer technician who is currently unemployed, has also remarried and has four children from his second marriage.

The girl had told her teachers that she had studied in three schools in the past five years. At her last school, parents of other children started taking notice of her when they saw her eating leftovers at the canteen.

She was also seen stealing money from other children to buy food.

The school authorities were informed and after questioning the girl, they learnt that she had been abused. Marks and bruises on her arms and back convinced the school authorities that her story was true.

The school and the parent-teacher association lodged a police report before sending her for a medical examination. They also informed the Welfare Department which then got a court order last week to place the girl in a "safe house" before she could be reunited with her mother.

Mothers make case against Hague Treaty (Japan)

I am so happy to see that Japanese moms are speaking out on this issue. Until now, the fathers rights people have dominated all the debate on the Hague treaty and international kidnapping. Anyone else has been drowned out. When ABC recently did a show on "kidnapping parents" (mothers), they ONLY addressed Japan--one of the few countries (if not the only only country) that still respects "tender years" doctrine (i.e. that barring any other complicating factors, children should be in the care of their mothers). They neatly ignored all the middle eastern countries that blatantly favor fathers custody, or all the other western countries where mothers these days only have custody by default (i.e. custody only if the father doesn't object and/or fight them in court). As a result, you see Congressional leaders, the State Department, and the mainstream media cater to dads like MARK GOLDMAN (who even got a free plane ride to Brazil to pick up his son--courtesy of a U.S. television network.) Meanwhile, I find lots of stories about mothers subjected to international kidnapping where the story NEVER breaks outside the local media market, and where nobody from the State Department is charging in to help them in the slightest.

Please go here for additional information from the Hague Domestic Violence Project:

http://www.haguedv.org/

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110310a2.html

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Mothers make case against Hague treaty

By MASAMI ITO
Staff writer

Three Japanese mothers who took their children from the United States to Japan after failed international marriages urged the government Wednesday not to sign the Hague Treaty, which is aimed at preventing cross-border parental kidnapping.

The women, whose names have been withheld for privacy reasons, participated in a high-level government panel discussion on whether to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

According to the participants, the women talked about their reasons for returning to Japan, and brought their children with them, claiming they made the move because of domestic violence.

After the meeting, one woman told reporters she began to find inexplicable bruises on her child after her ex-spouse's visitations. She said her child asked to be taken to Japan.

"If Japan were to sign the Hague Convention . . . (my child would) be forced to live with an abusive father and be exposed to violence again," the woman said. "And I will become a (declared) criminal."

The Hague Convention aims to promptly return children illegally taken out of their country of "habitual residence" by a parent. In U.S. divorce cases, for example, courts grant custody of children to a parent and spell out the other ex-spouse's visitation rights. But removal of an offspring from the country of residence thus also violates those legally mandated visitation rights.

The panel is holding a series of hearings involving experts and related parties and is expected to field opinions from proponents of the Hague Treaty on Thursday.

Japan has faced international pressure to sign the treaty but there are also strong voices against such action, many citing concerns that this would result in children being forced back to an abusive environment.

During the latter part of Wednesday's meeting, lawyers from the Japan Bar Association submitted a statement that points out legal aspects that need to be considered during the discussions, including the establishment of a domestic law that would prevent children from being forcefully returned to an abusive home.

Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Tetsuro Fukuyama, who heads the government panel, said the JBA statement is worth referring to if Japan decides to draft legislation.

Court rules that mother must return child to abusive father in Italy (Northern Ireland)

This is exactly the kind of case that the Hague Convention has made far worse. Studies in the U.S. have shown that most Hague petitions are in fact filed by abusive fathers trying to solidify their control over mothers and children attempting to flee across international borders in order to escape the father's violence:

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/12/international-law-permits-abusive.html

In fact, this case is is very similar to a recent case in Canada, where Judge Helene Le Bel disbelieved the mother's allegations of domestic violence, and--citing the Hague Convention--ordered the children returned to their father in Texas. Later, the father "allegedly" murdered the son and severely wounded the daughter:

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/12/welfare-of-children-should-come-first.html

And now we see an unnamed judge in Northern Ireland doing the same thing to this mother and daughter. Disgusting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12059402

Court rules NI mother must return child to Italy

A Northern Ireland woman has been ordered to return her daughter to Italy following a legal battle with the child's father.

Her claims that bringing the four-year-old back would expose her to grave risk of intolerable harm was rejected by a High Court judge.

Proceedings were launched following the break-down of the parent's relationship.

The court heard the couple had lived together in Italy from 2000, where the woman worked as an English teacher.

The child who was given the pseudonym Maria to protect her identity, travelled to Northern Ireland for a holiday in July with her mother but did not return as expected.

Instead, the mother began wardship moves without her ex-partner's knowledge.

Mr Justice Stephens said it became clear to the father, an Italian national, that she had no intention of returning to Italy with Maria.

Wrongfully detained

The child's father, who agrees that her mother is the primary carer as long as he has good regular contact, then applied for a court order.

It was argued - and accepted by the woman's lawyer - that Maria was wrongfully detained in Northern Ireland.

Counsel for the child's mother claimed that taking her back would involve a grave risk of the girl being exposed to physical or psychological harm, or place her in an intolerable position.

The woman claimed to have suffered 10 years of domestic abuse by Maria's father, and also that he made a sexually inappropriate remark.

However, the judge held that the "sweeping allegation of domestic abuse... is in the main unparticularised".

Mr Justice Stephens also said there was no corroboration of the physical abuse claims.

In his ruling, delivered last month but only now published by the Court Service, he said: "There is evidence in this case of harm but I do not consider it to amount to clear and compelling evidence that a return would create a grave risk of intolerable harm to Maria."

The judge based his conclusion on a number of factors, including the lack of specific evidence, the father's denials, and a series of undertakings given by him.

He pointed out that the woman can apply to the courts in Italy for protective orders if required.

Mr Justice Stephens ordered that Maria was to have been returned to Italy on or before 6 December, on the proviso that her father formally signs his undertakings and provides a sworn affidavit.

He added: "I also direct that all the papers in this case be made available to the courts in Italy together with a transcript of this ruling."

Welfare of the children should come first: Don't ship them out of the country to live with an abusive father (Montreal, Canada)

As editorials go, this is a mixed bag.

First, the negatives: It's very easy (as this editorial does) to fall into a "false balance" trap--that somehow both parties in a so-called grievance must be equally guilty in some way. Actually, this is a very big presumption, and should not be taken for granted unless the evidence actually backs that up. I have seen nothing about this case to suggest that both parents were somehow at fault in this matter, that both were "at war" with the children merely being "part of a battlefield." I think that assumption really trivializes what was at stake in this case--and unfortunately, the evidence (too late to save the son's life) has backed up the mother's story entirely. And that is that dad PREDRAG PIRISIC really was an abusive, controlling, and violent man. And that the children needed to be protected from him.

And here are the positives: I absolutely agree that Judge Helene Le Bel failed these children miserably. The "best of interest of the child" was totally ignored in this case. These children--who were far from toddlers and really not that "relatively young"--made it absolutely clear that they wanted to stay with their mother and that they did not feel "safe" with their father in Texas. And this judge chose to totally ignored past evidence of abuse by discounting the testimony of the mother and children. Instead, the killer dad is lauded as a "good father." And we now see the results of the judge's fathers rights sympathies: One child dead, the other hospitalized with eight gunshot wounds.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Welfare+children+should+always+come+first/3990591/story.html

Welfare of the children should always come first

Deyan Perisic is dead at age 10 and his 12-year-old sister, Danyela, lies injured in a Texas hospital. No one, in the face of these facts, can pretend that the best interests of these two children prevailed once the state was forced to get involved in their lives.

The Gazette December 17, 2010

Brought up, by some accounts, by parents who were essentially at war with one another, the children had been part of the battlefield for some time. Their father, Predrag Perisic, 55, was insisting they live with him in Texas. Their mother, Vera Vucerakovich, 46, wanted them back in Montreal, where they had been born and raised.

Perisic, a Canadian citizen now charged in the death of his son and the attempted murder of his daughter, moved to Texas in 2007, hoping to find work. Vucerakovich and the two children joined him there, staying with him from August of last year until Jan. 1 this year.

The couple's attempt to salvage their marriage and their family life foundered after 137 days, according to Jonathan Shulak, the Montreal lawyer for Vucerakovich.

The children's fate ultimately hinged on that detail: that they spent 137 days in Texas with their father before their mother took them back to Quebec.

When the courts -and other state agencies such as police forces and protection agencies -come up against the often intractable problems of family breakdown and custody battles, the doctrine of "best interests of the child" is supposed to prevail.

Simple-sounding in theory, the doctrine is not always easy to apply. Testifying before Quebec Superior Court Judge Helene Le Bel, the children said that they did not want to return to Texas. They said their preference was to remain in Quebec, with their mother. They did not feel "safe" in Texas, they said.

But Le Bel's April 16 ruling says that from all the testimony she received she found that while Perisic might not be perfect, he was a good father with love and concern for the children and that there was no evidence of violence or abuse.

She ruled that, under the terms of The Hague Conventions governing international custody cases, the children were to be returned to Texas because that was their most recent place of residence.

But surely their stated wishes, even at their relatively young age, could have been taken into greater account. The point of a convention like The Hague is to require through its myriad clauses that the courts carefully assess the situation and the needs of the children involved in an international custody dispute. It seems unlikely the The Hague Conventions were designed to impose rigid solutions on highly fluid situations.

"In the best interests of the child" is not an empty phrase. It is meant to remind the courts, police and parents that children are not pawns or packages. If they wanted to stay in Quebec, with their mother, that should have counted for more than it did.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Welfare+children+should+always+come+first/3990591/story.html#ixzz18OEJeKJ1\

Still more information on dad charged with murdering son, wounding daughter in "custody dispute" (Coldspring, Texas)

Still more information on the fathers rights corruption that allowed dad PREDRAG PIRISIC to obtain custody of his kids--and ultimately murder his son. The daughter--miraculously--has survived eight gunshot wounds.

Notice the pattern here that's consistent with nearly all these cases. The mother is accused of "exaggerating" or lying about the father's abuse. The authorities reflexively defend the father and his rights while condemning the mother and disregarding the children's wishes (the kids weren't even allowed to speak in court). And then despite all the fathers rights rhetoric about "sharing," the violent daddy cut off all maternal contact once he had possession. Of all the cases I have see here at Dastardly Dads, there is virtually no exception to this rule. Admonitions to "share" only apply to mothers.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montrealer+charged+with+murdering/3979842/story.html

Ex-Montrealer charged with killing son in Texas

Daughter shot 8 times, but somehow survives fusillade

By JAN RAVENSBERGEN, Montreal Gazette December 15, 2010 10:31 AM

A former Montrealer has been arrested in Texas after two of his children were shot, one fatally, as officers tried to serve an arrest warrant at his Coldspring home Monday afternoon. Predrag Perisic, 54, is charged with murder in San Jacinto County and interference with child custody in Harris County, law enforcement officials said. Bond on the murder charge was set at $1 million. No bond was set on the interference charge.

MONTREAL – In late April, 10-year-old Deyan Perisic and his 12-year-old sister Danyela “were crying and begging” not to be uprooted from the home they shared from childhood with their mother and grandmother to move – on one day’s notice – to live with their father in Texas, their cousin Vicky Pololis said Tuesday night.

But a Quebec Superior Court judge, citing The Hague Convention, had just ordered the two youngsters taken to Texas immediately.

Danyela was yanked from Gardenview Elementary School, missing the Grade 6 graduation ceremony for which she’d already bought her dress.

Deyan’s body now lies in a Texas morgue – and his father, 55-year-old Predrag Perisic, formerly of Montreal, had been charged with the boy’s Monday-evening murder near Houston.

Danyela remains hospitalized “with eight bullet wounds,” Pololis said:

“I know she got out of surgery at 5:30 this (Tuesday) morning, and that she was in surgery for at least eight hours.”

Vera Vucerakovich, the 46-year-old mother of the two, flew to the bedside of what is now her only child, arriving in mid-afternoon Tuesday.

Montreal police had showed up about 9:30 p.m. Monday at the front door of the family home to inform them that Deyan “was deceased.”

The police “had no (other) information for us, they did not even know what had happened,” Pololis added. Officers delivered what news they could in person, at the request of Texas police, and stayed for several hours as family members filled them in on a custody struggle that led to Deyan’s death.

And Pololis, 23, who grew up “like brother and sister” with the two youngsters above her in their three-generations-together family duplex in St. Laurent, spoke through a veil of grief combined with anger:

“Why did they get sent back to Texas? These are Canadian children.”

The close-knit family is “in pieces,” she added: “There are no words.”

Vucerakovich fought hard since April to get her children back, through legal channels.

By late October, she was granted full temporary custody of her youngsters in Quebec Superior Court – but Perisic went missing with them Oct. 26.

Perisic, Deyan and Danyela were found Monday about 5 p.m., after police heard gunshots when they arrived at a home in Coldspring, Tex., near Houston, to serve an arrest warrant on Perisic for child custody interference.

After Vucerakovich was granted full temporary custody, “she was never able to contact him, never able to find him,” Pololis recounted of the estranged spouse: “From that day on, she was never able to see or speak to the children.”

During the six weeks since, “nobody wanted to help us,” Pololis said: “Not the RCMP. Not the FBI. They refused to put out an Amber Alert because they said the kids were with their father, and that they were not in danger.

“Just because children are with a parent, it doesn’t mean an Amber Alert should not be put out.”
“I believe that maybe if an Amber Alert was put out, it could have helped us find them” earlier, without death or injuries.

“The Canadian police didn’t do anything because they were abducted in Texas.

“The FBI didn’t do anything because they were Canadian citizens. And they didn’t believe they were in Texas anymore, they believed they had fled Texas.

When Vucerakovich “told them, four weeks ago, that she knew where they were, that she knew whose house they were in, but she didn’t know exactly where it was, they did nothing to find the children.

“Everybody believed we were over-exaggerating.

“We tried so hard to explain to all of them that he was really a danger. And they said that maybe we were over-dramatizing the situation.

“But we lived in this house with him for quite a few years. And we saw who he was. We knew he was a dangerous person. And nobody – not the Montreal police, not the Texas police, not the RCMP and not the FBI – took us seriously.

“Missing Children was the only one to put up the poster.”

The children and their mother had moved to La Porte, Tex., also near Houston, in August 2009, to live with Perisic, after he and Vucerakovich had been “living separately for years,” Pololis said.

“Over the years,” she explained, “he kept begging her, please, please come, I don’t want a divorce, let’s try and be a family again.”

The attempt at reconciliation was punctuated by frequent fights and occasional intervention by local police. In early January, Vucerakovich and the children returned to St. Laurent.

Dean and Danyela re-enrolled at Gardenview, into Grade 4 and Grade 6 respectively.

The court-ordered return to Texas in April – the last time she ever saw Deyan alive – was heartbreaking, Pololis recalled:

“When they were leaving, they were crying and begging for us not to send them back.

“They were scared, they didn’t want to live there. And once they were back there, their father never allowed us communication with them.... They would get in trouble when we spoke to them.”

“The one and only time I spoke” since with Danyela, “maybe for 30 seconds,” to wish her a happy birthday, her father “called me back and told me: ‘Don’t you ever call her back.’ ”

“After they moved down there, he wanted them to eliminate us from their lives completely,”

At the April hearing that sent the children back, “the judge did not allow them to speak in court,” said Pololis, who said she was also excluded from the proceedings and stayed with the children in the courthouse corridor. The children’s interests were represented by a lawyer.

“My aunt said that she ran (with the children last January, returning to St. Laurent) because she feared for her life and the lives of her children.

“The judge said this was not a custody case, this is an international law” and ruled that the youngsters were permanent residents of Texas.

“We said, ‘What permanent residents? These are citizens of Canada.’

“She said no, that the kids must be with their father. Take them home, pack them a bag, and take them back.”

At Gardenview, the news of the tragedy hit hard.

“We are all in shock,” said Tina Lavranos, the school’s principal.

“Both children were with us since kindergarten.

“They were lovely in every aspect – model students with many friends.

“I met with my staff after school and we are all in mourning.”

A trauma team from the English Montreal School Board will be at the Gardenview Wednesday, to assist students and teachers.

It will also likely be at the LaurenHill Academy Junior Campus, said Angela Mancini, the board’s chair, because many of Danyela’s friends and former classmates are in their first year there.

“On behalf of the entire school board, I wish to express our deepest sympathies to the family,” Mancini said.

“We wish Danyela well. Our prayers are with her.”

Both were “really good kids,” Pololis said:

“Polite. Kind-hearted. Good students. Very active. Very joyful. Deyan played soccer, he loved sports. He was always very active out front with his friends”

Danyela “likes to read. She is much more studious. She was always into reading and drawing, things like that.”

janr@montrealgazette.com

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montrealer+charged+with+killing+Texas/3978412/story.html#ixzz18CR7sUCa

Killer dad did not act alone--he was aided by the Quebec courts, RCMP, FBI (Coldspring, Texas)

Be very careful before you wring your hands and get too caught up in the "tragic" aspects of a father murdering his kids. Often there is a back story where the authorities have dirty hands in the affair as well. In other words, it's often not just Daddy--even if he's the one who actually pulled the trigger. And it appears the governmental authorities in both Canada and the U.S. were sucking up to killer dad PREDRAG PIRISIC every step of the way--clear up until the mother was (finally) granted TEMPORARY custody in late October.

Too late. Daddy had already gone missing with the children by October 26.

Notice that Daddy gained possession of the kids back in April, after an unnamed Quebec Superior Court judge ordered the kids be yanked from their mother's home in Montreal so they could move in with their father in Texas--and on only one day's notice. And notice that the Hague Convention was cited, which was presumably designed to support mothers in these situations. Now research has shown that abusive, violent fathers have been amazingly effective in using the Hague Convention to solidify their control over their former partners and children. Sure looks like it in this case. These kids were Canadian citizens--why were they ordered to go to Texas?

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/12/international-law-permits-abusive.html

And notice the list of agencies that failed this mother and children by supporting Pirisic and his "fathers rights": The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Amber Alert system. Not a lot of evidence that daddies are oppressed here, is there?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montrealer+charged+with+murdering/3979842/story.html


Ex-Montrealer charged with murdering son, 10

Daughter shot 8 times but survives fusillade

By JAN RAVENSBERGEN, The Gazette; khou.com contributed to this report December 15, 2010

In late April, 10-year-old Deyan Perisic and his 12-year-old sister Danyela "were crying and begging" not to be uprooted from the home they shared with their mother and grandmother to move -on one day's notice -to live with their father in Texas, their cousin Vicky Pololis said yesterday.

But a Quebec Superior Court judge, citing The Hague Convention, ordered the two youngsters to leave for Texas immediately. Danyela was yanked from Gardenview Elementary School, missing her graduation ceremony.

Dean's body now lies in a Texas morgue -while his father, 55-year-old Predrag Perisic, formerly of Montreal, had been charged with the boy's murder Monday evening near Houston.

Danyela remains hospitalized "with eight bullet wounds," Pololis said: "I know she got out of surgery at 5:30 (yesterday) morning, and that she was in surgery for at least eight hours."

Vera Vuceralovich, the 46-year-old mother of the two, flew to the bedside of what is now her only child, arriving mid-afternoon yesterday.

Pololis, 23, who grew up "like brother and sister" with the two youngsters directly above her in their three-generation family duplex in St. Laurent, spoke through a veil of grief and anger: "Why did they get sent back to Texas? These are Canadian children."

In late October, Vuceralovich was granted full temporary custody of her youngsters by Quebec Superior Court -but Perisic went missing with them Oct. 26.

Perisic, Deyan and Danyela were found Monday about 5 p.m., after police heard gunshots when they arrived at a home in Coldspring, Tex., to serve an arrest warrant on Perisic for child custody interference.

For the past six weeks, Pololis said, "nobody wanted to help us -not the RCMP. Not the FBI. They refused to put out an Amber Alert because they said the kids were with their father, and that they were not in danger.

"Just because children are with a parent, it doesn't mean an Amber Alert should not be put out."

"Missing Children was the only one to put up the poster."

The children and their mother had moved to La Porte, Tex., in August 2009, in an unsuccessful attempt to live as a family. That ended last January. They returned to Montreal, and Gardenview.

Both were "really good kids," Pololis said: "Polite. Kind-hearted. Good students. Very active. Very joyful. Deyan ... loved sports. He was always very active, playing soccer, baseball, out front with his friends."

Danyela "likes to read, she is much more studious. She was always into reading and drawing, things like that."

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montrealer+charged+with+murdering/3979842/story.html#ixzz18CGZUvnf

International Law Permits Abusive Fathers Custody of Children

A must read for any mom contemplating a move out of the U.S. And any mothers currently living elsewhere and hoping to return to the U.S. The more you learn abou the Hague Convention, the less there is to like.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/international-law-permits-abusive-fathers-custody-of-children

International Law Permits Abusive Fathers Custody of Children
Released: 12/7/2010 9:00 AM EST
Source: University of Washington

Newswise — A new survey of court cases against battered women living abroad shows that when the women left their abusive partners and returned with their children to the United States, half of the time, U.S. courts sent the children back, usually to their fathers.

The survey, co-authored by a University of Washington researcher, also shows that almost a third of these estranged husbands filed criminal kidnapping charges against their wives.

Released in time for Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the survey is intended to help to establish domestic violence as a factor in whether courts send children back to their fathers. And the authors of the report hope their website serves as a resource for women and lawyers faced with Hague petitions.

The children’s return is in accordance with an international treaty, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which affects thousands of children each year.

The Hague Convention does not explicitly factor in domestic violence in deciding whether to send children back to the country where they lived. But since the treaty was created 30 years ago, social science research has demonstrated that a child’s exposure to domestic violence is just as harmful as direct abuse. Children who witness domestic violence are at higher risk for emotional problems, and later in life, they have a greater risk for violence in adult interpersonal relationships.

Now social scientists say that it’s time for the law to catch up with science, especially as these cases are likely to dramatically increase as more binational families form and countries such as India and Japan consider adopting the treaty in the next few years.

“The law is not paying attention to the effects domestic violence have on women and their children,” said Taryn Lindhorst, co-author of the report and a UW associate professor of social work. “This is like a tip of an iceberg: we’ve only seen some of the cases.” Lindhorst is an expert in the effects of domestic abuse on women.

The report is the first effort in the United States to interview mothers and attorneys about their experiences with the Hague Convention, in hopes of better preparing mothers and their lawyers for court proceedings in these cases.

The 404-page report, funded and published by the U.S. National Institute of Justice, includes analysis and excerpts of interviews with 22 mothers and 23 lawyers who represented mothers and fathers in Hague lawsuits and an analysis of court decisions on previous Hague cases involving domestic violence.

Most of the mothers had been living with their husbands in Europe, the Middle East or Latin America. They had moved abroad when their marriages were more stable or they had been tricked into moving.

In the report, the co-authors describe frequent, life-threatening domestic abuse endured by the women: beatings, threats with guns, ice picks and other weapons and – in a few cases – rape. Since most of the women were not citizens of the country where they were living, they were usually unable to obtain resources available to domestic violence victims in that country.

Moving back to the United States became the best option.

None of the women in the study knew about the Hague Convention before returning to the United States, Lindhorst said. Many of them learned about it when federal agents arrived at their homes to take their children into custody. Some mothers were required to be in court within a matter of hours. Scrambling for a lawyer, most could not find a lawyer experienced with the Hague Convention.

The court decisions were grim for the women. In almost half, 12 of 22, the court sent the children back to the country they had fled from with their mothers. In seven of those cases, the fathers gained custody. Seven women – a third of the sample – also faced criminal kidnapping charges in foreign courts.

Ironically, when the Hague Convention Treaty was created in 1980, it was intended to protect women and children. Lawmakers wanted to expedite the return of children taken by a parent – usually the father – who was unsatisfied by a child custody decision.

But, as it turns out, the law has been used primarily by fathers. Nearly 70 percent of Hague petitions are filed by fathers, said Jeffrey Edleson, co-author and professor of social work at the University of Minnesota.

“In many cases, filing a Hague petition is an attempt by the abusive father to use the court to extend control over mother and child,” said Edleson, an expert on children’s exposure to domestic violence in the home.

In the Hague Convention cases examined in the report, courts tended not to consider domestic violence toward the mother when assessing whether the children should be returned to their father. In cases where the children are returned and end up in the fathers’ care, it’s because the judges see the mother as a kidnapper, Edleson said.

Once returned to the father, the children may be exposed to more violence. Typically, the mothers move back too to be closer to their children and some were abused again. Sometimes the fathers would physically abuse their children.

The report is part of the HagueDV Project on international child abduction and domestic violence, led by Lindhorst and Edleson. On Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the group will hold a free event in Minneapolis of actors reading the battered mothers’ stories interspersed with commentary by law and social science experts. The event will also be available by webcast. For more information and to register, go to: http://www.haguedv.org/

Mums reunited with stolen children--but they have no chance in getting custody (United Kingdom)

Most of the time, the media and international diplomats focus on cases involving fathers like MARK GOLDMAN or CHRISTOPHER SAVOIE, who claim their children were "kidnapped" by their mothers. Both managed to get major media financial and governmental support. Goldman even got a U.S TV network to fly him to Brazil to "save" his son. Both have managed to get the U.S. State Department and US Congressman to actively help them.

Contrast that with these UK mothers, where the governmental authorities take a very ho-hum attitude about their plight. We hear nothing but endless complaints about countries like Japan for favoring moms. We hear nothing at all about al the countries like Libya or others where fathers are catered to. Where's the State Department outrage about that?

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/World/2010/11/05/UK_mums_reunited_with_stolen_children_535486.html

UK mums reunited with 'stolen children'
Friday, November 05, 2010 » 04:08pm

Sky News has been given unprecedented access to travel to Libya with a group of mothers being reunited with their children after their fathers took them abroad.

In most cases the children were abducted. But in all cases the mothers have virtually no chance of getting them back.

The trip was organised by the UK charity Children and Families Across Borders.

The idea was for the mothers to get two weeks' organised access to their children at a holiday camp in the Libyan capitol Tripoli.

The project has the backing of Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi.

We set off for Tripoli with a group of mothers and grandparents from across the UK and Europe.

Anita Lewis from Norwich was married to a Libyan who snatched her five children 10 years ago.

She told us how her life changed forever when her ex-husband came to pick up their children one day and never brought them back.

'He hired a couple - a husband and wife - with a passport with 10 children on it which was used to smuggle my children out as their children,' she said.

'It was all very well organised. When the news comes that they are in Libya I guess you're supposed to be relieved that at least they are alive.

'But for me it was my worst fear realised - knowing I wouldn't be able to get them back.'

Anita travelled to Libya with her two youngest children from another relationship.

On the steps of the holiday village, she was reunited with her two oldest boys Hamza, 15, and Ali, 17.

Waiting inside were her daughters Rumaysa, 21, Safiya, 19, and Aisha, 12.

They were forbidden by their father from being greeted by their mother in front of our cameras.
Their father, Azzedin Elgirnazi, stood in reception watching everything.

He had also checked into the holiday village to keep watch over his ex-wife for her entire two-week stay.

Azzedin is still wanted by Interpol for five counts of child abduction.

In the past year, there has been a 39% increase in the number of British children abducted and taken to countries not signed up to the Hague Convention - an international protocol to help parents get their children back.

Few countries outside Europe observe the convention.

Marek Ganther from Children and Families Across Borders said: 'In Libya and most of the Arabic world it's virtually impossible to get your child back.

'There just aren't the legal mechanisms as there are with countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention on the international aspects of child abduction which does provide a speedy mechanism for the return and the resolution of these problems.

'I think we need the world to recognise that these days there are many more trans-cultural marriages and relationships and there is much more movement across borders and so these problems are only likely to increase.

'I think that some of the fathers feel that they can do whatever they want here.'

House condemns Japan on custody rights; since when do the FRs control the state department?

Why is Japan being singled out for attention? Kids are held in countries all over the world by one parent or another, while the other parent sits in the U.S. And most of the time, the U.S. government can't be bothered. Well, they come out and say it. Japan is "tilted towards fathers." No wasted space here on American moms who can't get their kids out of the middle east. Nope. It's pretty clear here what leverage the FR movement has when they can command the attention of the top U.S. diplomat of East Asia and the U.S. Secretary of State in this ridiculous attempt to alienate a major U.S. ally--all because their culture still values mothers as primary caretakers. Of all the horrible things going on in the world, these two top American officials are supposed to drop everything to address 121 children living with their Japanese mothers? This is not only ridiculous from a mother's rights standpoint, but a ridiculous waste of government time.

We've also reported on dad CHRISTOPHER SAVOIE before, whose past is far more checkered than is let on here. See our earlier posts on this case by searching under Japan.

http://www.thestate.com/2010/09/29/1489144/house-condemns-japan-on-custody.html

Wednesday, Sep. 29, 2010
House condemns Japan on custody rights
By FOSTER KLUG - Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — The House turned up the pressure Wednesday on close ally Japan, strongly urging Tokyo to return immediately half-Japanese children that lawmakers say have been kidnapped from their American parents.

The House voted overwhelmingly for a nonbinding resolution that "condemns the abduction and retention" of children held in Japan "in violation of their human rights and United States and international law."

The resolution, which passed 416-1, also calls for Japan to allow Americans to visit their children and for the Japanese government to join a 1980 international convention on child abduction that would allow for the quick return of the children to America.

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., told reporters that the resolution sends a strong signal to Japan that Congress "is watching and expecting action."

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said, "Americans are fed up with our friend and ally Japan and their pattern of noncooperation."

The Japanese Embassy said in a statement that Japan is sympathetic to the plight of children caught in custody battles between Japanese and American citizens and "is continuing to make sincere efforts to deal with this issue from the standpoint that the welfare of the child should be of the utmost importance."

The United States often calls Japan its lynchpin ally in Asia, and tens of thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in Japan. But Japan's stance on custody rights has been a source of friction. U.S. lawmakers say at least 121 American children currently are being held in Japan.

Japanese law allows only one parent to have custody in cases of divorce, usually the mother. Activists say the court system in Japan is tilted against fathers and foreigners.

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, the top U.S. diplomat for East Asia, told lawmakers at a hearing Wednesday that the issue is a priority, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton raising it in meetings with her Japanese counterpart.

Campbell said he also would raise the matter when he travels to Tokyo next week and that Japan should act urgently.

Christopher Savoie, a father who was arrested last year after going to Japan in a failed attempt to reclaim his two children who were taken from Franklin, Tenn., by his Japanese ex-wife, joined lawmakers and other fathers at a news conference before the House vote.

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2010/09/29/1489144/house-condemns-japan-on-custody.html#ixzz1125tMw1s

Jewish boy to remain in Israel, despite "kidnapping" (Tel Aviv, Israel)

This is another case where a father with a history of domestic violence managed to get custody under the Hague Convention after the mother and child fled the country (in this case, the US) and moved to Israel. The mother was never even married to this guy (identified only as DAVID.) Once in Israel (where she had grown up), Mom used the same name and made no effort to hide. Daddy made no real effort to retrieve the boy--didn't hire a private detective or any of that. Mom was subsequently caught in a routine traffic incident, and was jailed for 2 days (this, of course, being the non-abusive parent who is jailed. Not the one with the history of domestic violence). The poor child went into foster care.

The courts have now ruled that although this was "technically" a kidnapping, the child is acclimated to Israel, and the father had made little effort to see or interact with his son--even after Mom was arrested. So it was disruptive to send the child back to the US.

For Daddy's part: Can we just admit that this was a classic control move (a specialty among batterers) and that "love" or "concern" for his son played no part? The only difference between this guy and some other recent cases, is that the Dad wasn't slick enough to play the role of "aggrieved" father in a convincing manner.

Unmarried mothers should have full custody rights. Period. Especially when the unmarried father has a history of abuse. This should never have been allowed to become an international incident.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137671

Jewish Boy to Remain in Israel, Despite "Kidnapping"

by Hillel Fendel

In a rare, precedent-setting decision, the Tel Aviv Family Court has ruled that a Jewish child need not be returned to his Chinese-American father, despite his apparent “kidnapping” by his mother.

Judge Varda Plaut ruled that the case is governed by the exceptions to the rule set down by the International Court of Justice regarding the kidnapping of a child from one country to another. The general ruling is that the child must be returned "immediately," even if might not be in his/her best interest to do so. The Tel Aviv court found that in the current case, in which the "immediacy" clause can no longer be implemented, the father made few efforts to seek out his son, and showed little interest in him even when he was found.

The case involves L, an Israeli who moved to the U.S. as a young girl, and a Chinese-American man, D. The two were never married, but had a son born to them in October 2001. The relationship between the two continued along a rocky path, in which the mother endured physical, sexual, and emotional abuse for which she participated in 27 sessions at a local sex-abuse help center. Finally, in July 2005, the two separated for good, agreeing that the mother would keep the child, with visitation rights for the father.

Some six months later, L. arrived in Israel with the boy, without David's knowledge. In July 2006, the father filed for the boy’s return under the Hague charter - but L., whereabouts unknown, did not respond, and the court ruled in the father’s favor.

Though L. did not change her name or otherwise hide, the boy's father did not hire a private investigator to find her, and remained unaware of his son’s whereabouts.

In early 2009, the mother was stopped for a routine traffic inspection, and her name came up on the police computer as wanted for kidnapping. She was held for two days in jail, and her son was taken from her and placed with a Chabad foster family that he knew. With help from her lawyer, attorney Nechama Tzivin, L. was freed from prison and her child returned to her, and her request to overturn the original ruling and re-try the case was accepted.

The final ruling has now been handed down: Though L. technically did kidnap her child, for which a warrant for her arrest was issued and is extant in the United States, her son is now so acclimated to his surroundings in Israel and to his mother, and his father is so removed from the case, that it would be cruel to send him back to the U.S.

Judge Plaut ruled that the issue is not whether the father initiated proceedings within the Hague-set limit of a year of the kidnapping, which he did, but whether he tried actively to seek out his boy’s return. She noted these facts: He waited for nearly two and a half years before his son’s mother was caught “by accident;” in the ensuing months, he did not make efforts to visit his son; when he had the chance to make weekly phone calls to his son, he did so only 7 out of 24 times.

“All these together,” Judge Plaut ruled, “lead to no conclusion other than that the father has already made peace” with the fact that his son will live in Israel with his mother.

In addition, the judge noted that the boy refused to even look at his father during a session with the court-appointed psychologist; that he spent nearly the entire hour clinging in fear to his mother, relaxing only when asked about his friends and school in Israel; and that the father had previously voluntarily given up another one of his children for adoption.

The boy will therefore remain in Israel with her mother - they currently live in a kibbutz, and he attends a public-religious day school - and D. was ordered to pay Lily 25,000 shekels plus VAT in legal costs. .

Family Court rulings may be appealed in a District Court within 15 days, and an appeal was in fact filed a day after the ruling was issued. (IsraelNationalNews.com)

Family Court: Send kids back to convicted abuser dad in New Zealand (Sydney, Australia)

Still more evidence that the Australian family courts have been completely overrun with pedophile, abuser, and fathers rights sympathizers.

Now it's time to add Judge Stewart Austin of the Sydney, Australia Family Court to our Judical Wall of Shame. Not sure where we're going to hang his picture though; the wall is getting crowded.

Judge Austin has ordered a 19-year-old woman to return her two children to New Zealand where their UNNAMED DAD lives. The father is a CONVICTED batterer, who previously "whacked" this woman in front of her children and on other occasions as well.

This father also began a sexual relationship with this woman when she was only 13-years-old (statutory rape anyone?). And though the Judge admits there is a "power imbalance in the relationship" it made no difference in the decision. Neither does the fact that the father is 7 years older, relatively well-to-do (he apparently owns a lot of property in the area), and the mother has no friends in New Zealand who would support her.

Instead, this judge buys erroneous, disproven ideas, like an abusive partner will not be abusive to the children, so the children are not at risk. So he figures the Hague Convention applies.

The Hague Convention does NOT apply in this case, because there is a clear "risk of harm" to this mother and her children. The father has been convicted of violence. Like most men with a history of abuse, he continues to deny his own behavior and attempts to deflect blame onto the victim. That in itself is a big red flag that the abuse will continue. There is little chance given the father's age and social and financial position that this woman will be able to protect her family in New Zealand. As for the children not being abused...well, maybe not YET.

Let's get one thing straight. It is COMPLETE AND TOTAL MYTH that abusers somehow limit their violence to just their partner, while the children somehow live in a blissful vacuum of total peace and tranquility. Doesn't happen. This is nothing but a nutty fantasy. In addition, it doesn't even begin to address the question of the psychological damage that's done to children when their mother, their primary caretaker, is assaulted.

The following is from the Leadership Council and their list of myths that put children at risk during custody lititation:

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/cust_myths.html

MYTH: A history of battering has nothing to do with child abuse.

Parents who have been abused by a spouse often fear for the safety of their children --especially after separation when they are not present to mediate for the child. Some have suggested that this fear is baseless by claiming there is no significant correlation between wife battering and various forms of child abuse. Abundant research, however, fails to support this position finding that the power dynamics that lead to domestic violence may also result in abuse of a child. As a report by the American Psychological Association pointed out, fathers who batter their children's mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children too (APA, 1996).
To date, over 30 studies that have examined the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse found a large overlap. Overall, both forms of violence were found in 40% of families studied with the range in the majority of studies varying from 30% to 60% of families (Appel & Holden, 1998, Edleson, 1999).
Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from a nationally representative survey of 3,363 American parents. Marital violence was found to be a statistically significant predictor of physical child abuse; the greater the amount of violence against a spouse, the greater the probability of physical child abuse by the physically aggressive spouse. This relationship is stronger for husbands than for wives. The probability of child abuse by a violent husband increases from 5% with one act of marital violence to nearly 100% with 50 or more acts of marital violence. The predicted probability of child abuse by a violent wife increases from 5% with one act of marital violence to 30% with 50 or more acts of marital violence.
Although less research has been done on overlap between domestic violence and child sexual abuse, the available evidence indicates reason to be concerned. Pavesa (1988) performed a careful case-controlled study of 34 families in which father-daughter incest occurred and compared these families with 68 control families. Daughters of batterers were 6.5 times more likely than other girls to be victims of father-daughter incest.
Evidence of an overlap between domestic violence and child sexual abuse has also been uncovered in surveys of children. For instance, Roy (1988) interviewed 146 children aged 11 to 17 who had been exposed to domestic violence. Almost of third of the girls (31%) either reported that they had been sexually abused by their fathers and/or had documentation of sexual abuse in their case files. A survey of 313 college women , showed a similar trend. Nine percent of the women reported having witnessed some type of physical conflict between their parents. Witnessing marital violence was associated with having experienced childhood physical and/or sexual abuse (Feerick & Haugaard, 1999).
Still, a child doesn't have to be physically or sexually abused to be harmed by domestic violence. Research on children’s exposure to domestic violence has consistently identified a range of negative outcomes for these children (Kernic et al., 2003; Wolfe et al., 2003). In fact, children exposed to domestic violence may show comparable levels of emotional and behavioral problems to children who were the direct victims of physical or sexual abuse (Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990)
For more information see:

American Psychological Association. (1996). Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family , Washington, D.C.: Author.
Appel, A. E. & G. W. Holden (1998). The Co-occurrence of Spouse and Physical Child Abuse: A Review and Appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4): 578-599.
Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. (2003). The Batterer as Parent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. (2002). Assessing risk to children from batterers. (http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/articles_sub/JAFFE.htm)
Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 134-154. (Pdf: http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_overlap.pdf)
Feerick, M. M., & Haugaard, J.L. (1999). Long-term Effects of Witnessing Marital Violence for Women: The Contribution of Childhood Physical and Sexual Abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 377-398.
Kernic, M. A ., Wolf, M. E ., Holt, V. L ., McKnight, B ., Huebner, C. E ., & Rivara, F. P. (2003). Behavioral problems among children whose mothers are abused by an intimate partner. Abuse & Neglect, 27(11), 1231-46.
Jaffe, P. G.,Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of battered women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Paveza, G. (1988). Risk factors in father-daughter child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3 (3), 290-306.
Ross, S. M. (1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(7), 589-98.
Roy , M. (1988). Children in the crossfire: Violence in the home - how does it affect our children? Deerfield Beach , FL : Health Communications.
Straus, M. A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife beating: What do they have in common? In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 213-234). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wolfe, D. W. Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of exposure to domestic violence on children: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171-187.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/children-sent-back-to-violent-father-in-nz/story-e6frg6nf-1225841576535

Children sent back to violent father in NZ

Caroline Overington From: The Australian March 17, 2010 12:00AM Increase

A 19-YEAR-OLD Maori woman who abducted her two children from New Zealand has lost her bid to keep them in Australia after the Family Court rejected her claim that the children are at "grave risk" from their violent father.

The woman, who cannot be named, told Australian authorities the father had started a sexual relationship with her when she was 13, and that she had begun living with him a year later.

She fled to Sydney last June after a violent assault in front of one of the children. Her biological father lives in Sydney and she has been staying with him.

But judge Stewart Austin, in the Sydney branch of the Family Court, ruled that the woman must return the children to New Zealand, saying it would be "presumptuous and offensive to the extreme" to assume New Zealand did not have a court and welfare system able to support her.

The father made his application to have the children returned under the Hague Convention on international child abductions, which provides for the rapid return of children from one signatory country to another, except where there is risk of harm.

The mother, known in court documents as Ms Morton, argued that she and the children were at "grave risk if forced to return to New Zealand" because her relationship had been "punctuated by domestic violence".

In May last year, there was a "violent incident" in the home in front of the children. The father was convicted and sentenced to 50 hours of community service. In June, the mother fled on one-way tickets purchased by a friend.

She told Justice Austin she was "particularly vulnerable" to the man because he had been having sex with her since she was a child and because she had whanau (friends) but no family in the small town where they lived.

The judge agreed there was "an imbalance of power" in the relationship, since the father is seven years older and owns property in the area.

But the mother had been able to "muster the courage to sever her relationship with the father" when she fled from New Zealand, and she was "beginning to realise that a relationship at that age (13) was inappropriate". With that knowledge, she might be able to resist slipping back into the relationship.

The judge said the father must agree not to "assault, molest, harass or otherwise interfere" with the mother, or come within 100m of her home.

The father did not deny assaulting the woman, telling welfare agencies he had "whacked her in front of the children", but he said the mother was violent towards him, and that they "willingly engaged in heated arguments and intimidated one another".

Justice Austin agreed there was "little doubt" the children had been exposed to domestic violence between their parents, but said the children "were never physically assaulted" by the father.

"I therefore conclude there is little or no risk of the children being exposed to physical harm if they return to New Zealand."

Hague, Schmague. Does it really protect families and children? NO!

Over the past few months, as dad DAVID GOLDMAN managed to get his custody case turned into an International Incident involving the U.S. State Department and full Big Media coverage, we've been hearing a lot about the Hague Convention. Just what the heck is the Hague Convention and what does it say about international child custody issues?

There are many Hague Conventions, but the one we're talking about here is the third of the modern Hague Conventions. Its full title is Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. It is much broader in scope than the first two conventions, covering a wide range of civil measures of protection concerning children, from orders concerning parental responsibility and contact to public measures of protection or care, and from matters of representation to the protection of children’s property.

In theory, the Convention provides uniform rules determining which country’s authorities are competent to take the necessary measures of protection The Convention determines which country’s laws are to be applied, and it provides for the recognition and enforcement of measures taken in one Contracting State in all other Contracting States. The co-operation provisions of the Convention provide the basic framework for the exchange of information and for the necessary degree of collaboration between administrative authorities in the Contracting States.

In reality, the whole thing has been plagued with political problems from the beginning. It seems to work very well for wealthy countries (like the U.S.) and politically well-connected parents (typically fathers). It does not work so well for mothers and children trying to live in safety. That's one reason why countries like Japan have rejected the Hague Convention, because it does not provide protection for Japanese wives married to abusive foreign men.

Yet somehow, the Hague Convention has suddenly become Holy Writ, impervious to criticism. Strip away all the incense and prayer beads and it's just another piece of legal agreement that's being subverted by the powerful, while endangering the lives of women and children.

So there is nothing necessarily sacred, noble, or just about the Hague Convention. As it's being applied, it's starting to look like an international variation of the old U.S. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required that authorities in the free states (under threat of substantial penalty) return runaway slaves to their masters in the slave states. Only now we're told that the laws, values, and protections of the host country don't matter, and that women and children are the sole subjects of the country of origin--despite the corruption and dangers there.

This is not idle speculation. My buddy Annie found the case below from last May, where the judge's "interpretation" of the Hague Convention actually lead to the death of a young mother at the hands of her children's father, HAJRUDIN HASANOVIC.

http://www.brisbane%20times.com.%20au/world/%20young-mother-%20fled-to-sydney-%20to-save-her-%20life-20090501-%20aq5z.html

Young mother fled to Sydney to save her life
PAOLA TOTARO HERALD CORRESPONDENT IN LONDON
May 2, 2009

Cassandra Hasonovic... convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.

CASSANDRA HASANOVIC was convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband but her pleas for help - in Australia and Britain - fell on deaf ears.

"He said he was going to chop me up in little pieces and post me piece by piece to my family," she told police more than a year before her death.

The nightmare tale of the mother, 24, who was dragged out of a car and stabbed to death by her husband in front of her mother and two young sons in July, neared its climax in a British court yesterday.

Mrs Hasanovic died hours after begging British police to drive her to a safe house: "I live in fear for my safety. I am so scared of him."

Her story was recounted this week during the trial of Hajrudin Hasanovic, 33, who was last night found guilty of murder and sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in jail.

The jury learned how he was to have been deported to his native Serbia after losing custody of his children, following his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.

They heard a damning story of a woman whose fears were ignored by authorities in two hemispheres for more than 12 months.

The five-year marriage ended in May 2007 after the sexual assault and Mrs Hasanovic fled to Australia, where she had relatives. She lived in the safety of Sydney's western suburbs in the fervent hope of seeking custody of her sons.

But Lewes Crown Court, in West Sussex, heard that Australian authorities insisted she return to Britain, arguing the case had to be pursued there.

Philippa McAtasney, QC, who opened the case for the prosecution, told the court that she returned to Britain at the cost of her life.

In the months that followed her return, police were called to several violent confrontations between the couple, and officers equipped the young mother with a panic alarm.

Mrs Hasanovic's mother, Sharon De Souza, broke down as she described the terror inside the car on July 29, when her son-in-law appeared from nowhere and lunged at the car as she prepared to drive her daughter and grandsons to a refuge.

In the panic, the car's central locking was de-activated, allowing Hasanovic to reach into the back seat, where his wife was sitting between the boys.

"I just remember trying to start the car and the alarm went off and I could not get the car started … I could see a figure coming towards me in the shade …" Mrs De Souza said.

"I looked up again and he was staring towards me. … I just thought: 'Oh, my God."'

She then saw Hasanovic drag her daughter from the car, leaving her face down on the pavement.
"She was lying on the ground. Her eyes were open and she was not moving at all.

"I didn't realise she was dead. I said: 'Come on, hold on, you're going to be OK.' I could see the blood [but] I could not take it in and I remember hearing the boys screaming."

"Cassie was devastated when under the Hague convention she was ordered to return the boys to England," Mrs De Souza said.

"This brutal, cruel and senseless act has torn our lives apart".

http://www.smh.com.au/world/following-a-court-order-killed-her-20090503-ard1.html

Following a court order killed her
PAOLA TOTARO IN LONDON
May 4, 2009

The man accused of stabbing his 24-year-old wife to death in front of his two little boys has been jailed for life in a British court, shouting abuse at her family as he was led away.

Hajrudin Hasanovic was convicted of the murder unanimously in a West Sussex Court but shouted at his former wife's devastated family and friends as he was led to the cells: "My children will never forgive you for what you have done to me and Cassie. . .you killed her. You are bastards all of you."

Police officers were forced to intervene and led him forcibly out of the dock, leaving the family in tears, the Argus newspaper reported.

The terrible tale the 24-year-old mother, Cassandra Hasanovic, who sought refuge from her violent husband in Australia but was refused unfolded during a three-week trial. The court heard that she was dragged out of the family car and stabbed to death by her husband in front of her mother and sons last July, just hours after begging police in the UK to drive her to safe house: "I live in fear for my safety. I am so scared of him."

Her estranged husband, 33, was set to be deported to his native Serbia after losing custody of his children in the wake of a conviction for his wife's sexual assault in 2007.

During the murder trial, the jury heard a damning story of an increasingly desperate young woman who feared for her life and the safety of her sons but whose anxiety was downplayed or ignored by authorities in two hemispheres over a period of more than 12 months.

The young couple's five-year marriage ended in May after the first conviction and Cassandra Hasanovic initially fled to Australia where she had family. She lived in the fervent hope that she could pursue custody of her two boys from the safety of Sydney's western suburbs. However the Lewes Court in West Sussex heard that Australian courts insisted she return to the UK, arguing that the case had to be pursued through the British courts.

Philippa McAtasney, QC, who opened the case for the prosecution told the Court: "She obeyed the court order at the cost of her life."

In the months that followed her return, police were called to several violent confrontations between the couple and officers equipped the young mother with a police panic alarm.

Cassie's mother, Sharon De Souza, who desperately tried to drive her daughter to a refuge after police refused to drive her, issued a statement through the family's support officer after the verdict.

She provided a photograph of her beloved daughter and her little grandchildren in memory. Mrs De Souza said nothing could express the family's devastation: "Cassie was a beautiful, loving, compassionate, insipirational woman, an amazing mother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, niece, cousin and friend,

"Gentle, warm, thoughtful, caring and generous. A courageous and devoted mother who absolutely adored her children. She wanted to build a beautiful life with them and she had everything to live for. She was just 24 years old when she died.

Mrs De Souza, who now lives in Sydney with her grandchildren, said "a light has gone out of our lies never to be replaced".

". . .She fled to Australia in fear for her and her boys' safety. Cassie was devastated when the Hague convention court hearing in Australia ordered the return of the boys to England. Although Cassie was in fear for her life she felt forced to return with them despite the police deeming Cassie and the boys high risk."