Friday, 22nd January 2010 - 08:22CET
Girl returned to mother after ‘nightmare'
Video: Mark Zammit Cordina
A girl who was caught in the crossfire between her separated parents and remained in Scotland with her father for almost two months, has finally joined her Maltese mother.
"She's my little girl and it's amazing to have her back. But it's hard to see her so confused. She's a bit traumatised," Emma McLelland, 26, said, as her daughter, Caitlin, 5, was at her first day of school since the incident.
In November, they went on holiday to visit relatives in Scotland, where Ms McLelland's estranged husband, Chris, also lives. She said he showed up at the airport and asked whether he could keep their daughter for a day, a request she acceded to because their relationship had stopped being as volatile as it used to be.
But, instead of returning the girl, Mr McLelland made serious allegations about his wife, convincing the Scottish authorities to allow him to keep his child until the courts decided on the case, Ms McLelland said.
On January 8, the courts heard that she had care and custody of Caitlin and her husband had no legal entitlement to keep her, Ms McLelland said.
"When they saw all my evidence, his lawyers advised him he does not have much of a defence and he should return the child," Ms McLelland said.
In court, Ms McLelland invoked the Hague Convention, which spells out the procedures that should be followed for a child to be returned to her rightful guardian.
Last week, Ms McLelland flew to Scotland to get an "over the moon" Caitlin back home.
"She was singing Home Sweet Home on the plane. She didn't even give me five minutes; she rushed to open her Christmas presents as soon as she got through the door."
Before returning to Malta, however, Ms McLelland had some unfinished business to take care of.
"I took her to the zoo like I promised," she said.
Even though she has now settled down, Caitlin is still afraid to be without her mother and does not want her to go to work or leave her alone in a room.
Ms McLelland is still worried about the girl's safety.
"I don't want to stop her from seeing her dad but after what has happened, how can I? And if I don't, will Caitlin retaliate later on in life? It's a really hard situation to be in and I don't know what to do."
When The Times contacted Mr McLelland on New Year's Eve he denied any wrongdoing, insisting he took back his daughter because she was being neglected in an unhygienic and dangerous environment.
He could not be reached for comment yesterday and nor could his Scottish lawyers.
RSS
Comments
I do agree with you... yet I would not be so hasty to eliminate feminism from being a (partial) root cause. As you said, custodial legislature isn't set in stone so I'd look back in history to see what fueled the rise of court's belief that its primary concern is best served through the mother.
Secondly, one notes a global movement towards same sex marriage, possibly with child. We may feel about it the same way we felt about divorce many years ago... but will this movement make it to our shores? In such case how will courts sway over custody of the child should the couple, say 2 guys, split up? I'd say that the same criteria in such a case should apply to today's heterosexual marriages too.
Big words for a Sunday afternoon :)
The courts have to keep in mind that the most important is the minor child. This shows in our law (where the interests of the child is primary and that of the parents is secondary). I believe there are basically 4 criteria's as to how care and custody is allocated, namely the parent who takes care of the needs, fitness of parent (be it mental, physical etc), capacity to give love, affection, and marital fault (especially violence)
I don't want to be in your shoes, and again, I sympathise. However, Maltese law is very different. Here a father can simply register as unemployed and work without the book.. you know how the abuse happens, I'm sure I don't need to go into much detail. Try to look at the other side of the coin. Kids cost money, we all know that.. and I think many men are obsessed with where their money is going to a point that it becomes ridiculous. One personal example: My ex should pay half the school transport. Instead, he offers to pay for half the fuel and I shuttle them there and back, It costs (him) less of course and I'm ready to do it. But, he won't give me the money for the fuel in my hands... no.. at no care for my dignity, he goes to a petrol station and pays the attendant and then I go there to get the fuel. Now, if I spent €10 euros on lipsticks.. don't I still have to get that €10 from MY money to put the fuel in? Or to feed the kids? Or to clothe the kids? etc
However, fathers have rights too and if they are non-violent and are paying support to the upkeep of the child, then they have a right to visits and access to the child. These conditions are usually set by the Courts and both parties, that is the mother and father, have to abide by these conditons.
Custody is not written in stone however, and a parent can also lose and forfeit custody of the child to the other party or in some instances where both parents are deemed unfit, the child becomes a ward of the State and put in foster care.
Therefore, this has nothing to do with "Feminisim" as some might think, but the primary concern of the Courts is the welfare, both physical and psychological, of the child and to minimise the trauma that a marriage break-up can have on a young child.
Many men do indeed often get a rough deal in these circumstances. And many women. I wonder if many don't enter into the serious business of marriage not really equipped with the knowledge of what married life really entails. Everything is treated so lightly these days and everybody blames everybody and everythings else when things go pear-shaped. But after all is said and done, the interest of the child comes first.
Simply, because we operate in the West, where an individual's dignity is respected. Always.
Though saying that its 'naturally' that children should be with their mother is not correct, at least in my opinion. There are surely better fathers than others and better mothers than others - and every father can be as good as he wants like every mother!
I agree with you fully that children should have the right to both their parents. In actual fact from a certain age onwards they themselves are - by (German) law - allowed to choose the parent they want to stay with after the divorce.
In no way do I believe that the mother is always the better choice to raise the children - even though I am a mother myself. I believe that both parents are important for a childs' development. Even if one is heading towards a divorce one should - in the interest of the child - try to opt for joint custody and continue sharing the responsibility. But obviously it always depends on the circumstances of each and every case. One simply cannot generalize this issue.
As for the German divorce law, you have already stated that it is all a matter of interpretation. Your interpretation was interesting to read, but I don't have to agree with it ;0)
i know a lot of fathers in germany whose total life was ruined because their ex wives are like yours, think only of money, prohibit them to see their children etc. etc. even though i am a woman myself, I am sorry for these men who are treated like crap, the result is they end up in alcoholism or with psychological problems. And it is not only one father i know i am speaking about but a least three. everytime they speak of their children they have tears in their eyes. and i think no woman should use a man to bear offspring and afterwards when she does not want him anymore, just use him for financial reasons. In germany there is a strong feminist movement, which per se is not negative, but I find it unfair when it is used to treat men as if they were subordinate beings. these laws in favour of women are sometimes misused by women in germany who want children but cannot be bothered with a husband
I think that the mother could have been traumatised by the idea of losing a court battle where she not only loses the child but would have to pay alimonies instead of receiving them. That would have made her liable to search for a good paid enough job to keep up her obligations towards her offspring.
Il-germanja hu l-iktar post, bhall Austria u l-isvizzera fejn il-missierijiet ghandhom inqas drittijiet mill-majjali. U jekk xi hadd ghandu dubju jiccalingjani.
Issa fuq li qed tghid li l-mara ma tistax tmur fejn trid bit-tfal hi hrafa. L-uniku mezz li ghandu l-missier hu li jidhol il-qorti kontra l-omm, tiswieh mijiet jew eluf ta liri f-avukati etc, biex forsi l-ispejjez tat train jew fuel jinqassmu. Ovvjament ghax imsieken l-ommijiet huma "fqar" u mghandhomx minn fejn ihallsu parti mill ispejjez, il-missier jibqa bla flus u bla tfal. Dawk huma il-ligijiet germanizi.....
nirringrazzjakom
minn missier Malti li michud jara lill uliedu ghall dawn l-ahhar 16 il-xhar. Il-mara hi "kumbinazzjoni" germaniza.
by the way jien ukoll ili snin kbar nghix il germanja u l ligijiet tal germanja nafhom ahjar minn ta malta ghax minn malta ili li nqtajt
qatt ma smajt xejn fuq li kkumentajt?
qatt ma smajt li ragel jew mara ma jistghux imorru joqoghdu fejn iridu, minghajr il kunsens tal partner? mela saqsi sew ta
No wonder the poor girl is traumatised - I can only imagine how awful this time apart was for both her and Emma.
Shame on her husband for letting his anger/hurt or whatever for his ex-wife out on his daughter!!!!
Jien nahseb li ma tafx xejn fuq il Germanja..jien nghajx il Germanja,u qatt ma smajt xejn fuq dak li ikommentajt inti..jekk f´pajjizi gharab jghamlu kif ktibt int, fil Germanja zgur li ma jghamlux dawn il hmerijiet...
Lucky it only took 2 months.. and the Hague Convention means something in Scotland.
Unlike it does in North African and Arabian countries.