The WA Family Court has ruled that two young children should be returned to Switzerland to live with their mother who abducted them on false passports five years ago.

Justice Julienne Penny said the children, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, were closely bonded to their mother and were suffering from the separation.

“In my view, the children should return to Switzerland and reside with their mother, but under strict conditions,” Justice Penny said. “While their mother’s conduct since 2001 has mainly been responsible for the difficulties suffered by the children, they are so closely bonded to her they cannot be punished for her conduct.”

The children have been in foster care in WA.

The mother, who cannot be identified, told The West Australian that she would not believe the custody fight was over until the children, a 10-year-old girl and eight-year-old boy, returned to Switzerland. The Swiss-born 42-year-old, who lives in Zurich, said she feared that their father would appeal against the decision and the children would remain in limbo in Perth.

“I don’t really believe it until the children are here,” she said. “So many things have happened — we have to expect the worst, you never know what is coming next.”

The mother, who last saw the children in January last year, said she spoke to them after the decision and they were unsure about their future.

The father is understood to be considering an appeal against the ruling and has 28 days to lodge one.

Geoff Day, from HUKO International — a support group for “left behind parents” from parental child abductions, criticised the decision as discriminatory. “It basically says fathers’ rights don’t matter in our courts of law,” he said.

Mr Day said the father believed in the court system and complied with everything he had been asked to do but he had received a slap in the face from the decision.

In her ruling, Justice Penny said the children were in an unstable situation and the daughter was at risk of self-harm and depression if not allowed to return. She ordered that the father be allowed access to the children during school holidays this month and have future contact via webcam, phone calls and visits.

Lawyer Simon Watters, for the Department for Community Development, said all three expert witnesses had agreed that the children should live with the mother.

The parents married in 1994 and separated in 2000. They have been locked in a bitter row over who should have the children and where they should live since 2001.

The children told a Family Court counsellor last month that they wanted to return to Switzerland.

SOURCE: The West Australian Newspaper - Perth - Western Australia

Reporter: DAVID DARRAGH

3rd July 2006, 16:50 WST

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=468

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comments

Paul said:

Unfair DCD A JOKE!!! Well I just cant believe this judgement what the hell is the world coming to, The big questions are why hasn't Judge Penny meet with the children? Why did she past judgement before the new laws came to order? Why are DCD being so judgemental and bias to the father? All I can see is that the father loves his kids and wants to give them the best life him and his family can offer. As for judge Penny and DCD, just don't get me started I think it is the biggest JOKE of all, now and women can abduct their children to another country break the law yet still get away with it. My heart is with the father and his family and I pray that all will be right in the end. Many Prays

report abuse vote down vote up

September 03, 2006
Votes: -1

glenda said:

DCD / Judge have a lot to answer for! I have dismayed that a judge is now basically saying that it is ok to brainwash children (this has been done by the Mother and DCD) That it is ok to manipulate the system, that it is acceptable to abduct/kidnap children, its ok in Australia to commit federal and local criminal acts, disobey court orders in Australia and Switzerland, basically do whatever you want and make sure you psychologically damage the kids along the way because if you do all these steps and you are the MOTHER you will ultimately get what you want, and with the court blessing. As I said in a previous posting I sat in court during the DCD psych being onthe stand and was appalled with her and her whole department. It also came out that the Court appointed psych did a half hearted job and was in communications with the negative/bias DCD psych regarding the case and her opinion and conspired together I believe to discredit the Father. The court expert believed the Mother and DCD psych allegations and neither DCD nor the court expert accepted the judges 2002 decision, that the allegations were false. the court expert only saw the kids twice and the father twice once with the kids inthe clinical surrounds of an office with two DCD supervisors accompanying the children. ( can only imagine what they said to the kids on the way to the psychiatrist/court expert appointment) You have to question how a drawing "appears" and the Mother alleges it was drawn when by the child yet it just happens to be the day after the Mother loses her appeal to return the children. This drawing was apparently discredited in Switzerland but DCD and the court expert took everything the Mother said as gospel. Also the Mother made various allegations agains the Paternal Grandmother!! This court expert and DCD apparetnly made their conclusions that the children should be with the Mother on psych reports that dated back to 2003, AND 2004 WHEN THE MOTHER HAD CARE OF THE CHILDREN AND WAS CONTINUING TO EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSE THEM. If DCd are so short staffed how come there were so many dcd workers attending court on the day I was there who were not called up but simply sitting in the galley, when they should have been at work which they are paid to do not sit and observe whilst our tax dollars pay for them to do nothing. WHY NOT GET SOME UP TO DATE TRUTHFULL REPORTS DONE NOW WHEN THE FATHER HAS HAD NORMAL CONTACT!! I BET THE CHILDREN'S EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS HAVE DECREASED SINCE BEING AWAY FROM THE MOTHER VINDICTIVENESS. I PRAY THAT THE FATHER OVERTURNS THIS RIDICULOUS BIASED JUDGEMENT ON HIS APPEAL.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 03, 2006
Votes: +0

Jackie said:

Hmmmm... I think the suggestion that the adjudicator made the right judgement is based on trying to make the best of a worse case scenario. A family breakdown in any circumstance is very traumatic for the child. How the parents, the 'role models' (and I use that term loosely), handle the breakdown is paramount to the childs security and indicative of that childs future development. The way in which it was described that both parents in this case handled the breakdown before the children were abducted, can only be described as abusive; to each other and especially their children. Your use of that buzzword 'abuser' can be applied to either parent in this case, single dad.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 29, 2006
Votes: +0

Single dad said:

Place the children with abuer? Justin, To remove a child or children form a parent WITHOUT JUST CAUSE is child abuse. Your resolve is to place the children with the proven abuser! I have had experience with DCD and if your resolve was applied, my children would be in the custody of a parent who physically and sexually abused then. Although there is some merit in the fact that the children want to return to Switzerland, this must be taken in context. From the children's perspective it is an option of full time contact with one parent in a familiar environment or 5 hours per week in a cold room with the other parent. Obviously the children are going to choose the greater contact situation. The real tragedy here is that the DCD has totally failed in any re-unification with the father. In light of the gravity of the allegation (of sexual abuse) 18 odd months is more than enough time for the DCD to make a determination and either deny all contact with the father or release them into his care.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 10, 2006
Votes: +0

Jenny Hall said:

Two Sides There are two sides to every story. Why did the mother feel that she had to kidnap the children? I felt for the father until I read a report where he demanded HIS rights be upheld by being allowed to that the children for access visit on a stinking hot Ozzy day just after the children had been returned from Switzerland. This shows me that the father really did not have his childrens best intesterts.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 10, 2006
Votes: +0

Justin said:

Think of the children I agree Grant, the mother is not likely to change a pattern of behaviour thats served a purpose for the 5 year period but that risk is recognised in the magistrates ruling with controls implented in the hope to establish a healthy relationship between father and children. Whats also recognised in the magistrates evaluation is 'What would harm the children more? Being seperated from the mother or being seperated from the father?' If we take a step back from the obvious injustices that have been committed regarding the father and the lack of his presence in their lives take a look at what was present in the childrens lives. They were unwillingly seperated from their primary caregiver to be reunited with a parent they had little or no memory of. They spoke little or no english. They were in the custody of strangers (DCD) who were investigating the validity of the sexual abuse allegations. Whether DCD and their representatives were impartial or not, Im guessing the first two conditions werent great odds on the possibility of establishing a happy, healthy relationship between the children and the father. Given time, (having lost my wife and watching my kids have to come to terms with the death of their primary caregiver), I'm sure they would have established some sort of relationship. But the slate has to be clean, with trust, love and common ground from all parties to enable that bond. I dont think the judge got it wrong. I do think the procedures leading up to the ruling are laughable, and the authorities that are supposed to enforce these procedures or uphold ideals like the wellbeing of the child, are even more of a joke. If we are aiming at changing anything, our efforts should be aimed at departments like DCD not the judicial system that in this situation, I believe got it right. My best wishes to the family. I sincerely hope that this ruling has set a path that can only benefit the developmental stages of these two children.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 02, 2006
Votes: +0

Grant said:

How can the Mother be trusted!!! Justin, I read you posting and do agree that the children shpould not be punished for the Mother's actions, but lets face it the Mother won't suddenly turn around and be a decent Mother and stop ABUSING these poor children!!!!!!!! The children need psychological counselling, yet it seems that the DCd have simply been postponing such and just had them seeing a DCde psych who was totally against the Father so lets face it he has never been given a chance of a relationship. You have to wonder if the fAther was given a fair go with his children and then they reassessed how they would actually be emotionally according to psychiatris/psycholgist reports. The children would most certainly have picked up the vibes that DCd did not want them to have a relationhship with the Father and were anti him. Lets face it kids aren't stupid they pick p on these things. The children have been pushed from pillar to post, when they could have had the DCd working toward reconciliation with their Father and his family but it seemed that was never to be on the cards with DCD and their feminist anti father agenda. Give the father ago, he has never set out to manipulate and emotionally abuse the children but THE MOTHER HAS AND MOST VERY LIKELY WILL CONTINUE TO EMOTIONALLY ABUSE THESE CHILDREN.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 29, 2006
Votes: +0

Justin said:

Think of the children I read with interest the magistrates ruling and despite the appalling behaviour of the mother, I believe the ruling addressed the fundamental issues which are the childrens pyschological and physiological wellbeing. I agree with the ruling that the children should not be punished further or held accountable for her behaviour by being seperated from their primary caregiver. To be extracted from a seemingly unstable environment where the father is perceived to be violent then forcefully returned to that same parent after a period of 5 years of no contact can only have been distressing for those poor children. The proposed orders set guidelines for building a healthy relationship between the father and the children after 5 years of seperation and provides intervention to ensure the mother cant harm the children with her own hidden agenda again. I think that it was absolutely horrendous that the rights of the father were nonexistent, but this case cannot be about when the system fails to uphold the rights of the father. No matter how much we dislike it and I'm the first to sympathise with those men that are affected, I believe the wellbeing of the child supersedes the rights of the father.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 26, 2006
Votes: +0

Hugh & Jill Boyle said:

Unfair decision As a retired couple who have followed this case with interest, including visits to the court, we were amazed by the extremely biased attitude by the Department for Community Development (DCD) against the father. On their arrival back in Australia, the DCD virtually held these children in custody for approx 18 months period. The father had limited access i.e. 4 - 5 hours a week and then only in the presence of at least one DCD appointed supervisor. Every word and action of the father and his partner was recorded, leaving no possible chance of a bonding with his children. One had the impression that the DCD were a law unto themselves and did not take comments by Judge Penny in a serious vein. It would appear they had their own agenda as to the future of the children and whilst in their custody, set upon a program to manipulate and confuse the minds of the children against their father. One senior female emplyee of the DCD in particular, was bordering on defamation in her comments on the father. The DCD efforts would have been better served by coaxing the mother back to Australia and thus giving the children access to both parents. We hope the father appeals the decision and is able to raise enough money through this website to engage a high profile barrister outside the legal aid system. The authorities should be stopped from placing these young Australian citizens in exile.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 18, 2006
Votes: +0

mark said:

	disgusting i'm shocked and appauled at the outcome to this case which seems a no brainer that the children belong with their father. unbelieveable
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 12, 2006
Votes: +0

Evelyn said:

What The......????? Is this a joke.? You've got to be kidding right.? A mother can abduct her own kids, go overseas using false passports, deny the other parent any contact for years. I have been reading alot about this case of recent times and can honestly say as a mother myself i am TOTALLY disgusted how unfairly treated this father has been dealt with. The mother on the other hand, what a cow...!!! These poor kids should be kept here in Australia with the father...my thoughts are with you and your kids Mr Wood.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 09, 2006
Votes: +0

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment