In cases of a child abuse, parents should have their parental rights taken away, as simple as that. This legislation is to stop one parent from taking a child for a “short trip” abroad just to text the other parent from abroad that they are not coming back. This is an abduction, pure and simple and the parliament is rightly putting a stop to that:
In their submission supporting the amendment, Both Parents Matter said: “Currently, a parent will sometimes simply remove the child under the guise of a short trip, as the risk of adverse repercussions may correctly be perceived to be low.
“Treating child abduction solely as a civil law matter is often ineffective in ensuring the return of children. Closing the loophole would create an effective deterrent that would reduce the occurrence of child abduction.”
The work to strip abusive parents of their rights and prevent them from being harmed by their parents needs to happen before criminalizing the safe parent for removing them from the situation.
If 75% of women who abduct the child (if the stat in the article is accurate) are doing so because of DV, then that work has not been done. If someone looks at their own situation and has had other attempts to gain safety removed from them, and they see a way out by taking their children from the country, they are morally correct for doing so and the failure is on the part of their local social systems and government. If the law cares for its obligation to the rights of children to physical safety more than the rights of abusive parents to have unmitigated access to their children, putting the safe parent in prison for trying to protect their child is the wrong move.
It is illegal to beat your spouse and threaten to kill them, and it is illegal to do this to their children. We both agree that a parent who does this should not have rights to their children. Why are they not having this happen? Is it because one or both parents are immigrants? Can the government be doing more to ensure the safety of DV victims in these situations?
This law is the cart before the horse if the goal is protecting children and maintaining their rights to physical safety. There should be an exception for people fleeing violence. Otherwise, it should be criminalized, sure.
This law is the cart before the horse if the goal is protecting children and maintaining their rights to physical safety
This is what abductors may claim. They may claim they are “protecting the children” when in fact they are depriving the other parent any and all contact with their children, just because they don’t like their ex. Do a quick Google search, there are plenty of stories like that.
There should be an exception for people fleeing violence
If one of the parents have a criminal conviction for domestic abuse, i. e. the abuse is a fact rather than a claim, sure.
Otherwise abduction remains abduction. Children are not a property and they do not “belong” to one of the parents. Both of the parents have equal rights to raise their children.
*abduction and retaining children abroad without consent of both parents to be criminalised.
Corrected for you.
Do you believe the right of a parent to have access to their child is more important than the right of that child to safety?
In cases of a child abuse, parents should have their parental rights taken away, as simple as that. This legislation is to stop one parent from taking a child for a “short trip” abroad just to text the other parent from abroad that they are not coming back. This is an abduction, pure and simple and the parliament is rightly putting a stop to that:
The work to strip abusive parents of their rights and prevent them from being harmed by their parents needs to happen before criminalizing the safe parent for removing them from the situation.
If 75% of women who abduct the child (if the stat in the article is accurate) are doing so because of DV, then that work has not been done. If someone looks at their own situation and has had other attempts to gain safety removed from them, and they see a way out by taking their children from the country, they are morally correct for doing so and the failure is on the part of their local social systems and government. If the law cares for its obligation to the rights of children to physical safety more than the rights of abusive parents to have unmitigated access to their children, putting the safe parent in prison for trying to protect their child is the wrong move.
It is illegal to beat your spouse and threaten to kill them, and it is illegal to do this to their children. We both agree that a parent who does this should not have rights to their children. Why are they not having this happen? Is it because one or both parents are immigrants? Can the government be doing more to ensure the safety of DV victims in these situations?
This law is the cart before the horse if the goal is protecting children and maintaining their rights to physical safety. There should be an exception for people fleeing violence. Otherwise, it should be criminalized, sure.
This is what abductors may claim. They may claim they are “protecting the children” when in fact they are depriving the other parent any and all contact with their children, just because they don’t like their ex. Do a quick Google search, there are plenty of stories like that.
If one of the parents have a criminal conviction for domestic abuse, i. e. the abuse is a fact rather than a claim, sure.
Otherwise abduction remains abduction. Children are not a property and they do not “belong” to one of the parents. Both of the parents have equal rights to raise their children.