Dragged out of their Beds

and Ripped Away From Their

Mother

If it wasn’t bad enough that section 121 of the Family Law act worked against her from
speaking out against the alleged child abuse that compelled her to run, Ann Louise
Vallette was painted as an abductor of her own children. It has become a worldwide
problem where Family Courts use discredited theories such as Parent Alienation
Syndrome to discredit allegations of child abuse. If the Family Court investigates, the
process is so superficial that it can involve child protection making a phone call to the
school, asking a teacher and the investigation ends. The concerned family member
sometimes receives a letter to inform that child protection has found no concerns.
Other times if the parent is persistent and press the concerns, the service often
retaliates and tries to find something against the mother by using trivial psychology such
as “Munchenson by proxy” to assert that the child is at risk of emotional harm. Some
countries have had the European Council of Assembly investigate them on violations of
human rights, particularly UK and Croatia.

“The Assembly further notes that mothers have had their children
removed because they were victims of domestic violence or on the basis of
medical evidence for which there had been no second opinion.”

“The Assembly further notes that England habitually gives judgment in

family proceedings without the judgment being in public (in conflict with
Article 6). This Assembly notes that there can be an argument for
anonymity, but not for the reasoning of the court to be kept secret which
means that the court’s reasoning is not properly accountable.”
In another document called, “Sexual exploitation of children: zero tolerance”, The
European Council of Assembly made the following statement:

“Dozens of mothers recently took refuge in Switzerland with their children,

having fled from countries such as Belgium, France and Spain, accusing
those countries’ courts of ignoring what their children had said and
awarding right of access or custody to fathers who had sexually abused
them.”
In the media release from the Australian Branch International Social services, “Parents
now more likely to flee with kids” it was stated that:

“Ms Nicholes said the 1980 convention, signed by Australia in 1987, was
originally aimed at fathers, the most common abductors of their own
children in the 1970s. But it was now more usually being invoked in
response to cases in which a mother had taken her children.”
In another publication from the Australian Branch International Social services it states
that:

“In 1999, an analysis of 1080 return and access

applications under the 1980 Hague Convention revealed that
70% of abductors were women. The most common reason
for these abductions was fleeing from domestic violence.”
In the Sydney Morning herald, it was reported that not only was this mother arrested,
but her and the children were dragged out of their beds at midnight by the police. Whilst
the report is made in favour of the father stating that he is happy to have found them, it
does reveal the boys were fine and healthy on which there was no real question of that.
The only court hearing that is announced despite our petition to the Hague convention,
is whether the mother will remain in police custody.

One of the comments highlights a very good point:

“In reality even in child-hostile Sweden, George pesor kidnapped the kids
to Australia with help of social services, the courts and the Swedish police.”
Another part of the Hague convention is that recovery orders are void if the parent gave
permission. George Pesor signed our petition to leave her alone; she is only protecting
her children – Isn’t that permission?