IFLG and PACT

Well what an incestuous world it is... Clarrie is now press officer for PACT

http://www.pact-online.org/News-and-Media/news-a-media-pact-parents-and-abducted-children-together-parental-abduction-missing-children-associate-of-icmec.html

Just reviving this after googling:

Practice Direction 12D –
Inherent Jurisdiction (Including Wardship) Proceedings
This Practice Direction supplements FPR Part 12, Chapter 5
The nature of inherent jurisdiction proceedings
1.1 It is the duty of the court under its inherent jurisdiction to ensure that a child who is the subject of proceedings is protected and properly taken care of. The court may in exercising its inherent jurisdiction make any order or determine any issue in respect of a child unless limited by case law or statute. Such proceedings should not be commenced unless it is clear that the issues concerning the child cannot be resolved under the Children Act 1989.
1.2 The court may under its inherent jurisdiction, in addition to all of the orders which can be made in family proceedings, make a wide range of injunctions for the child’s protection of which the following are the most common –
(a) orders to restrain publicity;
(b) orders to prevent an undesirable association;
(c) orders relating to medical treatment;
(d) orders to protect abducted children, or children where the case has another substantial foreign element; and
(e) orders for the return of children to and from another state.
1.3 The court’s wardship jurisdiction is part of and not separate from the court’s inherent
jurisdiction. The distinguishing characteristics of wardship are that –
(a) custody of a child who is a ward is vested in the court; and
(b) although day to day care and control of the ward is given to an individual or to a local authority, no important step can be taken in the child’s life without the court’s consent.

And from the 'reunite' brochure of the Government:

WHAT CAN I DO IF I AM WORRIED THAT MY CHILD MIGHT BE ABDUCTED OVERSEAS?
• If you are not sure about your legal position in relation to your child, consider instructing a suitably qualified family lawyer immediately. You may need to get a residence (custody) or preventative court order to stop your child being taken out of the country. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you may need to apply to have your child made a ward of court, through which the court becomes a legal guardian of the child and can exercise its powers to back up its decisions on what is in that child’s best interests. unquote

Was this an ill-advised move? Because the IFLG would most likely have advised this - however the parameters are not at all relevant to a case of criminal abduction. Well - lawyers and doctors have failed to impress me. A really good one in either profession is hard to find.

The two bolded lines are interesting imo. Especially the order re medical treatment. Might that also include refusing to hand over medical records?

It does work, but it has got cluttered with lots of [ ] urls and things

copy and paste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_and_Abducted_Children_Together

PeterMac wrote:It does work, but it has got cluttered with lots of [ ] urls and things

copy and paste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_and_Abducted_Children_Together

nr.25: ^ "Charity Salary"[dead link]
Interesting - both Lady Meyer and Cherie Booth paid themselves fairly large amounts for all the exhausting and groundbreaking work they must surely have done....

doug wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Within a day or so of the 'event' the International Family Law Group (IFLG) were involved and had sent out a representative.
Subsequently the McCanns got into the organisation Parents and Abducted Children Together, (PACT)

Both agencies talks about 'abducted children', but not in the sense of abduction by stranger, pae****, or anyone other than the natural father/mother who happens to live somethere else and usually outside the jurisdiction of the British Courts.

IFLG
"We resolve the financial aspects of relationship breakdown for all families. This includes expertise in high net worth individuals with global and complex assets. We also look after the distinctive aspects of international families and expatriates, working closely with many lawyers abroad.

Our work includes international child abduction as well as all other national and international disputes involving children.

We provide a full range of alternative dispute resolution services including a specialist mediation service. This includes both high conflict situations involving cross-border issues with children and complex financial circumstances. Our mediators have a wide range of experience and knowledge in dealing with relationship breakdown which extends across international borders. They understand the difficulties faced by parents wishing to live in different countries and cover Hague and non-Hague child abduction, international contact and child relocation dispute."

PACT
"Parental child abduction across borders

As a pioneer in this field, PACT has played a significant role in raising awareness of international parental child abduction and how it affects children.  We have, for example, lobbied the House of Commons, the US Congress and EU institutions.  PACT has produced a documentary  which has been distributed worldwide. Although we are not a helpline, our website offers advice on steps for parents to take if their child has been abducted to a Hague Convention country. "

Again, just to bash it home, the taking of a child by one parent from the custody of the other parent, so that the child can live as part of the first parent's family.  
NOT the unlawful removal of a child by someone outside the family.

It was reported that Katey first said words along the lines "They've taken her".
Other members of the group were reported to have said words along the lines 'We knew something might happen, but not this.'
And for the first few days both Katey and Gerry used the expression "...when IT happened".    Does this imply that there was previous knowledge of an outcome ?
Some of these statements have been edited or denied subsequently.
Both parents insist Madeleine is alive and well, unharmed, and at one point even insisted she was living with a couple.

Was this a strategy which went wrong, and was subsequently dropped, perhaps on legal advice, in favour of the predatory Pae****, who had been watching for some time, taking notes (!) and so on ?
The problem with the change is that the insisting on Madeleine's safety canot be transferred from the first scenario to the second.

IIRC the "We knew something might happen, but not this" refers to a comment made by one of the T7 after the neglectors were made aguidos.
doug

Yes. I think there was a pre-arranged plan for a faked live child abduction to occur that week. Designed to make parents paranoid about stranger abduction. Probably introduce the concept of microchipping and increased state surveillance generally.

But something went wrong during that week, imo. Which is the 'disaster' that Gerry spoke of and the 'world's biggest c***-up' that Murat spoke of (or words to that effect).

Hence TM's absurd 'time-line' and the unjemmied shutters and their inconsistent police statements. 

The Mcs and their friends messed up the script, imo. They tried astonishingly hard to bail themselves out but I do believe that they might almost be at the stage where they are desperately rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

One can but hope.