Stumble It!
THE WRONGS OF THE UNITED NATIONS’ RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
By admin | August 18, 2010
THE WRONGS OF THE UNITED NATIONS’ RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
By Charles H. Francis, Esq.
Mrs Babette Francis, president of Endeavour Forum, Australia, has given her kind consent for the NCHR, HEF and Family Integrity to publish her late husband’s, Charles H. Francis, essay “The Wrongs of The United Nations’ Rights of The Child” on their websites.
Ruby Harrold-Claesson and Barbara Smith
August 18, 2010.
After World War II, when the United Nations first became established, most people looked to it with hope for the future. Primarily it was envisaged as a world authority, which would serve to prevent wars and act as mediator and arbitrator when disputes developed between member nations. Secondly, as the gross violations of human rights by the Nazi regime became more fully known, the United Nations was seen also as a world body to establish and protect human rights throughout the world.
This essay discusses human rights in the context of the present “rights of the child” mentality prevailing at the United Nations. Legitimate concern for the world’s children has, unfortunately, given way to a dangerous and false vision of an autonomous child with the same objectionable humanist “rights” as any adult. This vision, if given legal effect or legitimacy of any kind, poses a real threat to the authority of parents and to the integrity of the family.
IN THE BEGINNING: CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE AT THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN
Most of the countries that played a major part in the early development of the United Nations and in the drafting of its first declarations had a strong underlying Christian and thus pro-family ethos.[1]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly fifty years ago, is evidence of this, asserting, as it does, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance,” in Article 25(2), and declaring, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children,” in Article 26(3). The United Nations made similar declarations after this that tended to focus on improving children’s health, nutrition, safety, and education.[2]
There appeared to be a general agreement that such interests were ordinarily best served by keeping children within integrated families and under the care, guidance and control of their parents.
THE TURN TO HUMANISM AND TO DELIBERATE AMBIGUITY
In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly introduced a new Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was promptly signed by 130 nations with, it would seem, singularly little debate or scrutiny and even less intelligent discussion on the legal effect of its provisions.
This Convention was full of platitudinous phrases and contained much ambiguous language. However, many prominent lawyers became aware of the problems and traps within it and lectured and wrote on its proper interpretation, warning their countries not to sign or ratify it. Most of the representatives of the various nations, which rushed like so many lemmings to sign the Convention, probably had no real understanding of its meaning. It was feted as a Convention in the best interests of children, and those nations that signed it were said to demonstrate a commitment to the prevention of child abuse. Those who expressed concern about possible interpretations of the Convention were falsely assured that parental rights were fully preserved by Article Five.[3]
A number of the supporters of this 1989 Children’s Rights Convention also maintained, quite falsely, that its main object was the protection of children, and that it did no more than provide for those rights that were already law in more advanced democracies such as the United States of America. In reality, had legislation setting out similar provisions to those of the Convention been introduced into the House of Representatives in the United States (or in Australia), it would probably never have become law.[4]
By 1989, however, many supporters of humanist philosophies had already realized it was far easier to implement their ideas by incorporating them in United Nations’ Conventions, which their countries might thereafter ratify, rather than by attempting the more difficult (if not impossible) task of trying to pass such provisions through their countries’ legislatures, where they were likely to receive much closer scrutiny, and where the legal interpretation and actual effect of the provisions might be the subject of proper analysis and debate.[5]
In essence, the 1989 Children’s Rights Convention was humanist (not Christian). Humanism denies and rejects God (as well as prayer, any divine purpose and theism generally) and all religions that place God above human desires. Despite its followers’ claims of neutrality, humanism is a secular religion, and is more dogmatic than any church teaching. Humanism recognizes and accepts abortion, euthanasia, suicide and countless other immoral acts, and works for the establishment of a completely secular society, which is its goal. It also realizes that the traditional family, marked by strong parental authority, is an obstacle to this goal and, therefore, seeks to dismantle it.
In consequence, the 1989 Convention gave to children a sphere of autonomy and freedom from control (in particular a freedom from parental control) and thereby introduced a radically new concept of children having rights entirely separate from their parents, with the government accepting the responsibility for protecting the child from the power of parents.
Professor Bruce Hafen of Brigham Young University has wisely pointed out that parents who subscribe to “children’s rights” thinking and “leave their children alone” so they develop their personalities are irresponsibly abrogating their parental duties, leaving their children a ready prey to a wide range of immoral and evil influences.[6]
Indeed, in England some of the strongest support for “children’s rights” has come from well identified homosexual and pedophile organizations, which long ago realized that the easiest way to obtain access to children was to demand their freedom from any form of restraint, thereby exposing them to the predatory behavior of those who would harm them.[7]
While some Articles of the Convention are praiseworthy (for example its prohibitions on slavery and child prostitution), there are five Articles in particular (12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, discussed below) that would create grave difficulties for parents seeking to exercise authority over children. These Articles appear to be the spearhead of a very serious invasion of parental rights.
ARTICLES 12 TO 16
Article 12 is the first to provide a charter of autonomous children’s rights. Its implications therefore require close attention. It assures to a child the right to express views freely in all matters affecting the child, the view of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
But who is to determine what weight is to be attached to those views? Obviously not the parents alone. Article 12 enables children to ventilate their disagreements with parental rulings in primarily public and legal forums.[8] Carried to its logical conclusion, the child will be able to demand state intervention to challenge any parental conduct the child doesn’t like (or conduct the child claims is not in his “best interest”). This is an absurd threat to parental authority.
Article 13 assures to the child the right of freedom of expression, which includes “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” This Article will prevent parents from protecting their children from objectionable or immoral materials, often disseminated in schools. A recent case in Australia provides a most disturbing example: When a family tried to persuade their daughter’s school that some of its curriculum was inappropriate for young secondary students, the Department of Secondary Education invoked the provisions of the Convention as authority for overriding parental rights and wishes.[9]
We would do well, at this juncture, to consider some material that the United Nations has already approved for children, since we can assume that the Convention on the Rights of the Child would support the unrestricted dissemination of such material to them.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has already produced two sex education films, “The Blue Pigeon” and “Music for Two.” “The Blue Pigeon” is a cartoon targeted at 10- to 12- year-old children, and graphically depicts sexual intercourse between two children attending a children’s picnic. “Music for Two” depicts the fantasies of a young girl who foresees herself as tired, overworked and overburdened when married, and her husband as indifferent and uninterested. By contrast, sexual intercourse with a boy neighbor is depicted as a happy, commitment-free sexual relationship.[10]
It takes no genius to discern this message of approval for sexual activity outside of marriage and even for children at a very young age. Parents must understand that this is the type of “information” the United Nations wishes to “impart” to their children.
Article 14 declares “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” The Convention affords parents and guardians only the limited right to “direct” children in the exercise of this right (although there is no real protection for this right; the state merely gives it “respect,” which, without means of enforcement, is somewhat meaningless). “Direction” of course implies that a parent will not be able to require a young child to go to church or Sunday school if the child does not wish to do so.[11]
American Christian leader Dr. James Dobson has suggested that the real freedom given by Article 14 is freedom from parental control in the area of religion. Parents are relegated to providing a state-monitored influence over the religious practices of their own children.[12]
Article 15 “recognizes” the right of the child to freedom of association and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Such rights make it difficult, if not impossible, for parents to control the company their children keep, even though that company may be truly harmful. The Convention does not balance these “children’s rights” against those of parents (which should always serve the best interests of children), however valid and compelling. In some Australian towns where young teenage vandalism and crime is rife, teenage curfews have been introduced. Usually they have proved successful, but civil libertarians have already complained that curfews are a breach of Article 15 of the Convention. In this regard, the Convention appears to be directly opposed to the view of the United States Supreme Court, which has held such curfews lawful.[13]
Article 16 protects the child’s right not to be “subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy.” The inclusion of the word arbitrary may permit children to exclude parents from anything they consider private, including medical treatments, and presumably activity in the child’s bedroom or any other part of the home set aside for the child’s use. This Article greatly strengthens the position of Planned Parenthood, which routinely puts young girls on birth control pills without notice to (much less consent from) their parents. The United States Supreme Court has, of course, already upheld privacy rights for children in the context of abortion and contraception. Mature minors (maturity being determined by a judge) can have abortions without any parental involvement, and immature minors may have abortions if the judge thinks it is in their best interests.
THE NEED TO COMBAT THE UNITED NATIONS’ “RIGHTS OF THE CHILD”
The picture should be clear by now: The Convention is a very serious invasion of parental rights. A careful analysis of its terms proves that it is anti-parent. It takes many important decisions regarding the well-being of children (on education, philosophy, morality and religion) away from parents and gives them to the State, and ultimately, to the United Nations itself.
Most great civilizations have been destroyed not from without but from within. In almost every such instance, the breakdown of the family was key to the collapse. Responsible parents realize that children (especially adolescent children) need protection from their own actions, which spring from a lack of mature judgment. The Convention’s invasion of parental control can only make this task more difficult, if not impossible.
The new humanist philosophy, increasingly embraced by so many Western democracies today, and brought to the United Nations by their delegates, has enormous potential for harm, especially when applied to our children. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects this philosophy and is, in many ways, diametrically opposed to what the United Nations had to offer the world in its 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We desperately need to re-appraise the United Nations’ present direction. We must realize that those humanist philosophies, which masquerade as a concern for human rights, will end up trampling them — just as the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child pretends to protect children, but damages the parental authority that is their best protection. The humanist element of such documents has the potential to destroy all that is best in Christian civilization, replacing it with a profoundly chaotic, harmful and ultimately evil empire.
How to control adults by means of ‘children’s rights
By Lynette Burrows
The Fight for the Family
By Lynette Burrows
Smacking: Those Swedes must be crazy!
By Jean-Francis Held
The Empresses’ New Clothes or Smacking: those Kiwis must be crazy
By Ruby Harrold-Claesson
[1] – The United States and Great Britain were foremost among them. To some extent, the drafters of the postwar declarations were using 20th-century national constitutions as their models, adding the protection of the family and the child to those political and civil democratic rights that they wished to identify and preserve.
[2] – Such declarations included the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959, a valuable document that included Principle 6, providing that “the child shall wherever possible grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents.” The 1959 Declaration was in many ways not unlike the 1924 League of Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which had stated that “mankind owes to the child the best it has to give.” The philosophy of the 1959 Declaration was again essentially Christian, and anticipated that, at a later date, there would be further and more detailed provisions.
[3] – Article 5 reads as follows: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. But who is to decide what constitutes “a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”? When this Article is read in conjunction with the child’s rights contained in Articles 12 to 16, and with the fact that parents have no right of control, it is apparent that this determination is not necessarily to be left to the parents alone.
[4] – The obvious legal implications of Articles 12 to 16, once properly understood and publicized (as they were in the U.S. Senate), are likely to lead to their rejection. (In Australia, the adoption of these Articles as Federal law would necessitate an amendment to the Constitution by referendum.)
[5] – In England, however, some unfortunate features similar to those of the Convention found their way into the Child Act of 1989.
[6] – Professor Bruce C. Hafen, and Jonathan O. Hafen (1996) Harvard International Law Journal 37(2), pp. 449-491.
[7] - See “The Fight for the Family” 1998, Lynette Burrows — Family Education Trust, Oxford, England, ISBN 0 906229 14 6.
[8] - Article 12(2) reads: [T]he child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
[9] – Newsweekly (Australia) January 24, 1998, at 17. The U.N. has a track record in this regard: Its Committee on the Rights of the Child has already criticized England for not having a way for children to dissent from parental views. The Committee’s criticism was made in relation to parents withdrawing their children from school sex education programs that the parents deemed unsuitable. U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report on the United Kingdom, February 15, 1995.
[10] – “Behind the Mask of UNICEF,” Population Research Institute Review (1992), Baltimore, MD.
[11] – Professor Bruce Hafen, when speaking in Ireland last year, confirmed this interpretation of Article 14 when he said that a parent who might compel his child to go to Mass could well find himself in breach of this Article. The Irish News, March 26, 1997.
[12] – Satanic cults will no doubt make use (or misuse) of Article 14, which enables them to attract children away from the religions of their families more easily. Such cults are typically interested in young children or adolescents.
[13] – City of Dallas v. Stenglin, 490 US 19 (1989).
Topics: International Research and Comment, Uncategorized | No Comments »
How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity
By admin | August 18, 2010
How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity
by Aaron Young
Topics: International Research and Comment | No Comments »
Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step
By admin | July 28, 2010
MEDIA RELEASE
29 July 2010
Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse Is First Step
‘How many more children have to die before we do something?’
Family First NZ is repeating its call for a Commission of Inquiry into the unacceptable levels of child abuse and deaths in NZ, and says that it will be an important first step in identifying and targeting the real causes of child abuse.
The call comes following the death of 6 month old Cezar Taylor. More than 20 children have been killed since the passing of the anti-smacking law, maintaining the rate of child abuse deaths that existed before the law change.
“We are tip-toeing around the real issues of alcohol abuse, drugs, declining rates of marriage, increasing levels of violence and sexual content in our media, and welfare which rewards dysfunction,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“We must take pro-active action and tackle head-on these difficult issues as well as mental illness, low maternal age, and other key factors identified by UNICEF and CYF reports.”
“The 88% of voters in the recent Referendum who opposed the anti-smacking law are NZ’ers exasperated with the fact that politicians and government funded groups seem more interested in targeting good parents than tackling these much tougher issues.”
“These latest cases are yet another wake-up call that children will never be safe until we are honest enough as a country to identify and tackle the real causes of child abuse.”
“An independent Inquiry free of political correctness and agendas would be an important first step,” says Mr McCoskrie.
HALL OF SHAME
Since Anti-smacking law was passed
1. 16 month old Sachin Dhani June 2007
2. 28-year-old woman charged with murdering a newborn baby found dead in the backyard of a Te Mome Road property in Alicetown – June 2007
3. 22-month-old Tyla-Maree Darryl Flynn June 2007
4. 3 year old Nia Glassie July 2007
5. Ten-month-old Jyniah Mary Te Awa September 2007 Manurewa
6. Two-month-old Tahani Mahomed December 2007 Otahuhu
7. 3 year old Dylan Hohepa Tonga Rimoni April 2008 Drury
8. A 27-year-old Dunedin mother of five admitted infanticide. On May 26 she lost control, banged the baby’s head repeatedly against the couch, choked her, then threw her on the bed and covered her with a blanket. May 2008
9. 7-year-old Duwayne Toetu Taote Pailegutu. July 2008
10. 16-month old Riley Justin Osborne (Kerikeri) boy Dec 2008
11. Three-year-old Cherish Tahuri-Wright (Marton) Feb 2009
12. Five-week-old Jayrhis Ian Te Koha Lock-Tata (Taupo) Mar 2009
13. One-year-old Trent James Matthews – aka Michael Matthews Jun 2009
14. Two-year-old Jacqui Peterson-Davis Kaitaia Aug 09
15. Three-year-old Kash McKinnon Palmerston North Aug 09
16. Baby death arrest Green Bay 26 Aug 2009 http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=41369
17. 22 month old Hail-Sage McClutchie Morrinsville 27 Sep 2009
18. Karl Perigo-Check Junior Wanganui 25 Oct 2009
19. 13 month old New Lynn 18 Feb 2010
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626907
20. Infanticide Waltham 18 Feb 2010
Police investigating the death of a baby who was found at a Christchurch address yesterday are looking for the child’s mother. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3342576/Police-appeal-for-dead-babys-mother
21. Cezar Taylor 6 months July 2010
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director
Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42
Topics: News Media/Press Releases, Some child abuse cases in NZ - since Section 59 amended | No Comments »
Success Rate Shows Need for CYF Complaints Authority
By admin | July 28, 2010
MEDIA RELEASE
28 July 2010
Success Rate Shows Need for
CYF Complaints Authority
Family First NZ says that figures provided by the Ministry of Social Development under the Official Information Act show that the recently established CYF Complaints Authority has upheld a majority of the complaints that they have considered.
Since the Authority was established in July 2008, just eleven complaints have made it to the Authority and of those, two have been upheld and five upheld in part. Only one case was found in favour of CYF. Three have decisions pending. Of concern is that 17 complaints were referred back to CYF to handle, and 12 complaints are yet to be dealt with – despite the potential urgency and ongoing effect that it may be having on the families concerned.
“The success rate of these complaints backs up our call for a complaints system but there is still an urgent need for a totally independent Complaints Authority,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“An independent CYF Complaints Authority is in the best interests of the social workers,” says Mr McCoskrie, “as it will provide an independent body to ensure that appropriate policy and procedures have been followed. This will result in public confidence and accountability for actions and decisions by CYF workers.”
“Family First is being regularly contacted by families who claim to have been unfairly treated by CYF social workers – yet they have no independent body to appeal to. Their only option is either a costly court process where CYF have an unlimited pool of resources to defend its actions, courtesy of the taxpayer, or trying to get in front of the CYF Panel.”
“This is grossly unfair when families are being ripped apart, often just based on the subjective judgment of a social worker. The recent response to the CYFSWatch website shows just how deep-seated the concern is.”
“There is a Health and Disability Commissioner, a Police Complaints Authority, even a Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. We desperately need an independent body to hear complaints about the highly sensitive nature of intervening in families.”
“The Advisory Panel has the inherent flaw of not being independent, and the Chief Executive still has the final decision as to the success of the complaint. The Panel can only make recommendations. This is inappropriate.”
Family First calls on all MP’s, the majority who will have received anecdotal evidence of claims of unfair treatment by CYF, to support the urgent establishment of an independent CYF Complaint Authority.
ENDS
For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:
Bob McCoskrie – National Director Mob. 027 55 555 42
Topics: CYF Complaints Authority | No Comments »
‘Ear flick’ case goes to Supreme Court
By admin | July 12, 2010
‘Ear flick’case goes to Supreme Court
One News July 07, 2010
Christchurch father Jimmy Mason has been given leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. The 51-year-old was sentenced to nine months supervision and ordered to undergo anger management courses after a jury found him guilty of assaulting one of his two children. The case was widely seen as a test of the anti-smacking laws as Mason publicly claimed he’d done no more than flick his son’s ear. The Supreme Court has just announced it will permit him to appeal his conviction on the grounds that combining two allegations in a single count resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The two allegations are punching a child and pulling his ear. READ MORE
Family First Comment: This is significant because our original concern with this case was that a father who admitted an ear flick may have been found guilty of assault because of the way the charges were applied. We’ll watch this one with interest.
HEAR Family First’s reaction to the original verdict
Got a comment on this issue? Email feedback@familyfirst.org.nz
Topics: News Media/Press Releases | No Comments »
Only 16% see smacking as ‘very high risk’
By admin | July 12, 2010
Only 16% see smacking
as ‘very high risk’
Telegraph (UK) 08 Jul 2010
Just one in seven UK parents sees smacking as a “very high risk” to children, according to a survey. The poll by The Children’s Society found that only 16 per cent thought that smacking children posed no risk at all to the young. The highest risk identified in the survey of 2,047 adults was letting a child play outdoors late on a summer’s evening without knowing where they were. Respondents were asked to rate how much risk several scenarios posed to children. READ MORE
Topics: Press Release/Media | No Comments »
Socials fast-track new case in Ruby Harrold-Claesson’s absence
By admin | June 25, 2010
Family’s Lawyer Inexplicably Banned
The struggle continues for little Domenic Johannson, seized by police from his agonized parents because he was briefly homeschooled, stayed home with his mother as a preschooler, and was reportedly too affectionate and outgoing. Close observers of the Johansson state-sponsored “kidnapping” case believe the Visby Social Board is pushing Swedish courts to fast-track a new series of court challenges in an effort to have the cases quashed long before Ruby Harrold-Claesson wins her way back as counsel to Domenic’s parents, Annie and Christer Johansson.
Earlier this month, Swedish courts banished Harrold-Claesson from the case after Domenic’s appointed public “defender” complained to the courts about her participation. Harrold-Claesson, president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights, is a widely known and respected advocate for families in custody disputes with child protective services, and has won many such cases in Sweden, restoring dozens of children back to the rightful arms of loving parents. She has since filed an appeal to her court ordered removal.
Word has it the next series of law suits might be heard as early as the second week of July in Swedish courts on the island of Gotland. This new case, challenging the “keeping” of Domenic, was filed on behalf of the Johanssons by Harrold-Claesson just days before she was banished.
The previous series of cases challenged the initial “taking” of Domenic. In those series of suits, the Johanssons were “represented” by court appointed counsel, resulting in Domenic’s continued seperation from his parents. It is for this very reason Christer Johansson has dismissed the original court picked counsel and sought out the hard-hitting Harrold-Claesson to represent him.
June 25, 2010 marks the one-year anniversary of the violent seizure of the then 7-year-old child. So traumatized was Domenic by the acts of armed police on behalf of the Visby Social Services board, witnesses tell us he vomited during and shortly after the shocking scene when uniformed Swedish police stormed an India bound jetliner just moments before take off. We are told the boy’s mother, Annie, collapsed during the assault. The family was emigrating to India, Annie’s home country.
By the end of 2009, the Johanssons had lost all their court appeals challenging the “taking” of their only child. In the December 2009 Chamber Court decision, the court sites as justification the fact that Domenic was home schooled (at the time legal in Sweden), that his parents chose to delay or forgo immunizations (also legal in Sweden) and that the boy had two cavities in his baby teeth.
Annie is a native of India. She emigrated with Christer to his native country of Sweden in 2001 after an earth quake hit India and the couple lost everything they owned. At the time of the quake, Annie was pregnant with Domenic. The couple always planned to return to India where Annie’s large family resides, and were finally doing so the day Domenic was seized.
Topics: Sweden | No Comments »
Sweden’s State-Sponsored “Kidnapping” of 7-year-old Homeschooler Approaches One Year Anniversary
By admin | June 25, 2010
A Review of the Egregious
December 2009 Court Decision
Allowing Social Services
to Keep Little Domenic in State Custody
It was one year ago today, June 25, when armed police, at the behest of Social Services of Gotland, stormed an Indian bound jetliner in Stockholm, Sweden, and forcibly removed the Johansson family. Their crime? They had briefly home schooled their only child in a land which looks upon home schooling families with contempt, and just this week passed a new education law making home schooling illegal across the Swedish landscape. This story examines the life of the Johanssons and the December 2009 Swedish Chamber Court Decision which essentially holds a family captive on the Swedish island of Gotland.
When cultures collide
Because his mother is Indian, Domenic grew up somewhat different from the average Swedish child, naturally adopting Indian ways and customs. Annie, the now 8 year-old boy’s mother, believes in a simple life where mothers raise their children by hand until school age. Therefore, Annie and her husband Christer never enrolled Domenic in Swedish day care and preschool and were repeatedly harassed by Social Services of Gotland for their choice to raise Domenic at home.
(Click photos to enlarge.)
In Sweden, it is the rare child who does not attend day care soon after birth while mothers rejoin the workforce. Domenic and Annie were the exception, and not the rule. Therefore, their way of life attracted attention. Mother and child remained home with each other daily, enjoying the most natural of relationships. Yet shockingly, in the December 2009 court decision to continue holding Domenic in state custody, the fact that Domenic was never placed in day care was held against the family. According to the December 2009 court document, “…the parents have taken a risk with not letting Domenic participate in child care and schooling.” When, in the history of humanity, has it been a “risk” for a mother to raise her child at home herself?
“Lives in the shadow”
The court has clearly held Annie’s position as a foreigner in Sweden against her. You see, Annie’s native tongue is English, yet she has learned to speak and read some Swedish over time since emigrating to the country in 2001. On the other hand, Christer speaks both Swedish and English fluently, as does Domenic. Over the years, Christer has done most of the translating and speaking for Annie. Gotland Socials have interpreted Annie’s reliance upon her husband to communicate for her as a weakness, as cited in the December 2009 court document, stating, “Annie Johansson lives in the shadow of her husband.” If you moved to a foreign country with your spouse, who grew up in that country, would you not also be heavily reliant upon your spouse if you did not speak the language well? Would such a reliance make you an unfit parent?
Annie received her BA from the University of Poona in 1994 and then her MA from the University of Pune, 1996. She also pursued additional education by earning a First Class diploma in Advertising and Public Relations, also in 1996, from the Bombay Institute of Management Studies, as well as a diploma of Distinction in Information and Systems Management from Aptech Computer Education school in 1998. Yet, Social Services of Gotland managed to convince the Chamber Court judge that while Annie has the “will” to be a good mother, she, a multi-degreed individual, hasn’t the “ability.” The December 2009 Chamber Court decision states, “Christer Johansson and Annie Johansson have a will to act as good parents but lack ability.” Do you have a Masters degree, or perhaps just a Bachelors degree? If so, did your degree take a certain amount of knowledge, self-discipline, maturity and “ability” to obtain?
A bereaved mother’s “present state”
According to the Johanssons, in the fall of 2008 Social Services of Gotland began actively investigating and harrassing them after the family notified the local school of their intent to home school Domenic for a brief time prior to their move to India. Compulsory school age is 7 in Sweden. Domenic turned 7 in September of that year. At the time, home schooling was still legal in Sweden. In light of the pending emigration to India, the Johanssons were acting in the best interest of their son by making an educational choice which would naturally minimize disruption to his studies while they moved.
Even though home schooling was at the time legal in Sweden, many in positions of governmental authority are against the practice, as demonstrated just this week when on June 22 the Swedish Parliament approved a new Education Act making home schooling illegal in Sweden. In 2008, the Johanssons were met with resistance to their home school plans from officials at the local Gotland schools, as well as from employees Social Services. Thus, the interrogation and investigation of the Johanssons began. Because it was their legal right, the Johanssons stood their ground and home schooled Domenic through his first school age year.
By the school year’s end, the harassment from Social Services took its toll on Annie, but she persevered nonetheless. However, since Sweden has “kidnapped” her son, Annie’s health has greatly deteriorated, as noted in the December 2009 decision, “Her present state strongly affects her ability to be a parent.”
Let’s consider this in context: By December 2009, the Johansson family had been terrorized by the Social Board of Gotland for more than sixteen months; had their home swarmed and searched by armed Swedish police; had been pursued by armed police, at the request of the Social Board, to the very tip of the tarmac at an international airport; had watched helplessly as armed police stormed the jetliner upon which they were passengers; had been forcibly removed from the airplane; once back in the airport had been tricked into allowing the Socials to separate Domenic from them by stating they were simply taking him “to the room next door” only to find out minutes later that he had been wisked out of the airport and was headed back to Gotland and into forced foster care. They had endured numerous meetings with the Socials pleading for the return of their son; were lied to when told he’d be returned in three days; were accused of neglecting him because of two cavities discovered in his baby teeth, after the fact, during those three days in state custody; they’d been through three levels of court cases attempting to have their son returned to them; they’d not been allowed to see their son except for one hour every five weeks. All of this trauma perpetrated by the state, and the Chamber Court judges Annie’s fitness as a parent based upon her “present state.” How ironic that the same people who created terror and chaos in the Johansson’s lives are those who now claim that Annie is unfit to parent in her “present state.” The Swedish Social Services of Gotland have violated and torn apart a peaceful and loving family. Now they punish that family for their suffering.
Parent’s agony labeled “lack of skill” during supervised visits
The December 2009 decision indicates that Domenic and his parents do not know how to interact with each other during state-supervised visits. Specifically, the document states, “Both Christer and Annie Johansson show a lack of skill…There is a lack of dialogue and interaction from both sides.”
Since Domenic’s seizure, Annie and Christer have battled the fight of a lifetime against forces with seemingly unlimited power and resources. They are allowed to see their only child for one state-supervised hour every five weeks, and are permitted to speak with him for one state-monitored ten minute telephone call every two weeks. During these times of fleeting interaction with their son, Annie and Christer are severely restricted in what they can say and do in Domenic’s presence and they are watched constantly.
During one visit, Annie, overwhelmed by her emotions at seeing her son after such a long separation, began to cry. Instead of understanding and sympathizing with the pain Domenic, Annie and Christer were experiencing, the attending social worker threatened them, telling them if Annie cried again the visit would end immediately. Can you imagine being threatened to lose your one precious hour every five weeks with your child simply because you’ve behaved naturally, as a brokenhearted mother who is losing her child? Is it any wonder all three of them, Domenic, Annie and Christer, don’t know what to say or how to conduct themselves under the ever present microscope of an attending social worker? Yet, in the December Chamber Court decision, this family is accused of having a “lack of skill” in meeting each other under impossible conditions. Again, this family is punished for suffering created by the state.
How far must we stretch our imagination to understand the strain a parent-child relationship suffers once social services removes a child from his home? Since their separation, Domenic, Annie and Christer have suffered great turmoil and impossible adjustments. Looking forward to beginning his new life with his parents and large family in India, Domenic instead was forced to live in a stranger’s house in Sweden. At the time he would have begun school in India, he was forced to begin school in Sweden. On his 8th birthday, the heartbroken boy was denied permission to see his parents. When his first Christmas away from home arrived, he was again denied permission to visit or even talk by telephone with the parents he’s always loved and adored. Instead, Domenic was forced to celebrate his birthday and the holiday season with strangers while the social workers surrounded themselves with family, friends and loved ones.
There are other restrictions, as well. The Johanssons are not allowed to bring gifts or treats for Domenic. Christer’s elderly father and wheelchair-bound mother, Domenic’s grandparents, close and dear to him since birth, accompany the family to the state-supervised visits. Unaccountably, at times these gentle people found themselves kept out of the visiting room. No explanation or reason given.
According to the Johanssons, the family has been instructed always to smile when they see Domenic and never to talk about the separation. In essence, they are expected to act as if everything is perfectly fine when they see their son. They are not at liberty to tell Domenic that they do not agree with his living in foster care. They are not at liberty to tell him they are fighting to bring him home. Instead, according to the Johanssons, they are to interact with their son in such a manner that would obviously lead little Domenic to believe his removal from his family is perfectly acceptable to his mother and father.
We have no idea, however, what social workers are telling Domenic. If his mother and father are not allowed to speak of the separation and are not allowed to tell Domenic they are fighting for him, does that not leave Domenic to wonder what his parents are thinking? Doesn’t that leave a little boy totally confused about what has happened and at the mercy of whatever message the social workers and foster parents choose to tell him? Children often naturally blame themselves for family difficulties. If Annie and Christer are not allowed to reassure Domenic that he is loved, cherished and wanted back home, isn’t this little boy open to very serious and long-term psychological damage? We also wonder what might be happening in Domenic’s foster life which perhaps he has been forbidden to share with his parents.
It is clear why Domenic, Annie and Christer do not know what to say or do when they see each other. This family has become nothing more than puppets on the strings of a heartless puppeteer. They’ve been threatened into doing and saying as little as possible when visiting Domenic. The question remains: what has Domenic been told or gone through which has caused him to no longer interact naturally with his parents? Why does Domenic now suffer huge gaps in his memory, as noted by his distressed parents?
National Health Care – How a man’s conscientious efforts to regain health were used against him
Sweden is a socialist country. The country’s health care is administered by the government, as opposed to private health care where patients enjoy doctor patient privacy. In a socialist system, your health record is the government’s business.
In the Domenic Johansson case, Christer’s health records from years previous were eventually used against him. After the earth quake and the family’s emigration back to Sweden, Christer suffered a major depressive episode. Yet he did the right thing. He recognized his condition and sought help from the Swedish health system. After a psychiatric evaluation, Christer received the anti-depressant medication Seroxat (also known as Paxil). Unfortunatly, this drug can have severe side effects and Christer fell victim to some of its worst, including dependency.
Once more, Christer did the right thing. He recognized his further deteriorating condition and sought help from the Swedish health system again, at which time he was offered the popular Swedish depression remedy: Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT). A well informed and intelligent man, Christer already knew the dangers of ECT and turned the psychiatric clinic’s offered remedy down. Christer found he had only one choice: to wean himself off Paxil, which he succeeded in doing over several months.
Unfortunately for Christer, health records of Swedish citizens are not private. Any government agency or employee, it seems, can obtain a citizen’s records. As in countless other state child protective cases, Christer’s health records were obtained by Visby Social Services and the often conflicting diagnoses of Christer’s mental health condition in 2003 and 2004 have been used against him in 2009. In response, Christer requested a new psychiatric evaluation. Dated October 11, 2009, the newest psychiatric evaluation documents the history of Christer’s struggles and provides a new evaluation and conclusion by Visby Adult Neuropsychiatry Department. According to the report, which was submitted in full to the Chamber Court, Christer is said to be healthy and completely free of any mental illness or other diagnosis.
Even with this latest psychiatric evaluation demonstrating Christer’s depressive illness, as well as the severe side effects he’d suffered from the psychiatric medications are safely in the past, the court continued to insist in its December decision that Christer suffers from psychiatric illness. Surprisingly, the written decision attributes this “diagnosis” as “…according to the social services’ understanding a factor that affects Christer Johansson’s ability to care.” Evidently, the opinion of a professional psychiatrist with Visby Adult Neuropsychiatry Department holds little weight in the Chamber Court at Stockholm over an “understanding” by personnel at Social Services of Gotland.
Terrorized into submission
While Annie and Christer stood their ground against Visby Social Services of Gotland in defense of their parental rights to raise and school Domenic at home, after the boy was seized the Swedish LVU system soon had Annie and Christer terrorized into complete submission. As recorded in the December 2009 Chamber Court decision, Christer was obviously a man brought to his knees.
The Decision records Christer as agreeing to everything Social Services of Gotland demanded. The Johanssons agreed to enroll Domenic in school, to obtain all immunizations, to provide any other health and psychiatric care deemed necessary by the social board for Domenic. They even went so far as to agree with the social board that Domenic was psychologically delayed as a direct result of not attending day care, preschool and the first grade. The Johanssons were exactly where Visby Social Services wanted them: in complete submission. A Court truly concerned with the child’s wellbeing, however misguided, would here have concluded that with full cooperation from the family in every possible therapeutic suggestion, the need to remove the child should no longer exist. But this was not the aim of the Social Services.
Catch 22: cruelty at its utmost
By December 2009, six months after their precious son was ripped from them, Christer was a man willing to cooperate fully with Visby Social Services, in an effort to restore Domenic to his family. In a sworn statement before the Chamber Courts, this father agreed to follow the entire care planned devised for Domenic, with the exception that Domenic’s care be provided while he continued to live in mandatory foster care. The Johanssons were willing to do everything and anything Social Services of Gotland demanded, so they might finally have their son restored home.
The most cruel aspect of this case is boldly recorded in the December 2009 Court decision. In a Catch 22 scenario, the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, which includes mandatory foster care; and the Johanssons lose their son if they agree to the entire LVU care plan, with the exception of mandatory foster care. In conclusion, the court wrote, “Question is therefore if needed care can be given voluntarily. In the care plan is, among other things, said that Domenic should be placed in a foster home which Annie Johansson and Christer Johansson have not agreed to. Chamber Court can therefore state that needed consent to needed care is not present. In such a case, the Provincial Court’s decision to give Domenic care according to LVU should stand. The appeals should therefore be denied.”
In other words, the Johanssons submitted to every demand of the Social Services of Gotland. Those demands included what some would describe as a coerced court admission that they had made wrong choices for Domenic as accused by Social Services. The demands also included that the Johanssons must agree to everything in the LVU care plan, including mandatory foster care for their son. Therefore, they were damned if they submitted to all demands and damned if they did not. The maximum possible compliance was obtained from this suffering family, including denying their own natural way of life. Then, when they were in complete submission, they were denied everything.
How to understand this case?
The plain and simple facts are these: A loved, fortunate and healthy child was taken without legal process from his parents for indeterminate (and faulty) ideological reasons. His family was then punished for the trauma they had experienced, and because they did not simply acquiesce in the loss of their child. There is nothing legal, nothing logical, and nothing just in this scenario. That it could happen in a modern and supposedly democratic nation defies belief. Any free citizen of good will, in any country of the world, should be concerned when a government has the power to act in this way unhindered. This case should concern all of us. All parents, all families, and all who believe in human rights and human dignity.
Sweden’s State-Sponsored “Kidnapping” of 7-year-old Homeschooler Approaches One Year Anniversary
Please visit this website often to see what you can do to help out: http://friendsofdomenic.blogspot.com
Topics: International Home Education, Sweden | No Comments »
Ruby Harrold-Claesson has been removed from Domenic Johansson’s case in Sweden
By admin | June 15, 2010
Ruby Harrold-ClaessonJudge banishes family’s custody lawyer
Chief of Nordic Committee for Human Rights told she’s off case
An internationally known human-rights lawyer who had agreed to work on the case of a Swedish family whose son was taken into custody by agents of the government social-services program for being homeschooled says she has been banished from the case.
Ruby Harrold-Claesson, the president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights and a well-known advocate for families in disputes with social-services agencies over the custody of their children, had been working on the case of 9-year-old Dominic Johansson, who was taken in a state-sponsored abduction in mid-2009.
His parents, Christer and Annie, had been in a dispute with local government officials over their plans to homeschool him as the family prepared to move to India, Annie’s home country.
Police, with instructions from social services, on June 25, 2009, boarded a jet preparing to depart on an international flight to India to take Dominic into custody, where he’s been since.
An e-mail from Harrold-Claesson obtained today by WND confirmed she would appeal the determination, and Christer Johansson told WND, also by e-mail, a new lawyer had called him to introduce himself.
“So I said, ‘Hold on a little, where is my lawyer Ruby?’ He said she was removed from the case by the court [be]cause our son’s lawyer made a complaint against her.”
He said the court apparently removed Harrold-Claesson because the lawyer made an attempt to see the child in the school setting where social-services agents have put him.
“I will not accept any other lawyer than Ruby,” Johansson told WND. “I just can’t start over again.
“Funny thing, Ruby has been asking the social services for the case documents, investigations and all, but they refused to send it to her. This lawyer on the other hand got it all before I knew about him.
“I will refuse this lawyer and demand Ruby to be accepted!” Christer Johansson wrote…
Read more here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165361
 |
Please sign this petition if you have not already signed it.
http://rohus.nu/en/?English_information:PetitionIf you have signed this petition please also make sure that your signature is not in this invalid list.
Sweden Denies Due Process to Family
In a stunning display of bureaucratic indifference and contempt of due process rights, a local Swedish court has removed a highly qualified attorney from the Johansson case…
Appointed only after much back-and-forth with the judicial system, attorney Ruby Harrold-Claesson has now been removed from the case after she attempted to visit Domenic’s school with his parents just a few weeks ago. Harrold-Claesson is president of the Nordic Human Rights Committee and a well-known human rights attorney in Sweden who specializes in working with families whose children have been taken away from them by the state. Following her attempt to visit Domenic, social workers immediately retaliated by cutting off all phone contact.
Unlike most Swedish lawyers who are, in all cases, both appointed and paid for by the courts, Harrold-Claesson aggressively and tenaciously fights an often uphill-battle against social services agencies, guardians ad litem and judges that just go along with the recommendations of social workers. She has taken a number of cases to the European Court of Human Rights.
HSLDA Staff Attorney and Director of International Affairs Mike Donnelly commented that this action goes against the basic notions of fairness.
“Ruby’s dismissal by the court is shocking in light of the most basic understanding of fairness and due process,” said Donnelly. “One of the principal requirements of due process is that a person be represented by counsel of their choosing, to a fair and impartial judiciary, with an opportunity for a full and fair hearing of all the disputed facts. By removing Harrold-Claesson, the court has dramatically interfered with Mr. Johansson’s right to counsel and called the fairness of the entire process into question.”
Read more here: http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Sweden/201006140.asp
Topics: Sweden | 1 Comment »
Legally kidnapped blogspot
By admin | May 13, 2010
This is a worldwide blog. Check out this New Zealand page
http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20Zealand
Topics: Blogs | No Comments »