exFamily.org > chatboards
> genX > archives
> post #836
You are very wisePosted by WC on May 02, 2002 at 05:12:53:
In Reply to: Re: let it out posted by Kristi on May 01, 2002 at 20:30:28:
I have nothing but respect for you! Despite the intense shit you are going through - how clear your thinking is, and how well you are handling it all!
There was a lot of wisdom in your above post. Only you can know the right move in this tricky situation.
Since you haven't had contact with your brother, you don't know what state of mind he is really in. His being depressed, we can safely assume comes from the same BS you were all subjected to. However, where he is at exactly, you don't know. If you come across as forceful with an agenda to get him out and into your custody, that could scare him away when he is depressed, weak, vulnerable, and open to manipulation. I have lost loved ones on a few similar occasions.
What you can be forceful and unbending about though, is your right as a sibling to see him. I will cite some conventions and legal precedents very specific to this issue from the Justice Ward case:
Some conclusions reached by the Judge:
- "The United Kingdom (and the US?) is a contracting party to the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 9 of which provides that:-
- "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or beliefs and freedom .....
- "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
- "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
- ".... Article 5: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family ... to provide ... appropriate direction and guidance.
- "Article 12: States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
- "Article 13: The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include the freedom to seek receive and impart information and ideas of all kind, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print ...
- "Article 15: States Parties recognise the right of the child to freedom of association.
- "Article 37:
"1. States Parties shall ensure that (a) no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... (b) no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily ... "
- " Children's Homes
Regulations 1991, Regulation 8 of those regulations provides that the
following measures shall not be used in a children's home:
.... (c) any restrictions on visits to or by any child or any restriction on or
delay in communication by telephone or post with his parent, his
relatives or friends (which would include grandmother)."
"On the evidence presented to me, and as set out above, there has been a significant number of breaches of the provisions of this Convention applied to children in The Family. I am not satisfied that children are fully prepared by The Family to live an individual life in society nor are they brought up in the spirit of tolerance as set out in the preamble, I am not satisfied children enjoy the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them. They do not enjoy the freedom to seek and receive ideas of all kinds. They do not have the right to freedom of thought or the freedom of association. Forsaking all is an interference with their Family. In many respects, therefore, The Family fall short of the standards set by this Convention."
A ruling by the Judge:
"3. The Family must assure me of their intention to maintain their programmes of reconciliation and openness and must confirm that it is their policy to encourage the maintenance of contact with relatives outside The Family."
The judge thoroughly explored the Family's concept of contact with unfavorable "system" relatives, (specifically situations when there are families torn between members and non-members and the resultant split loyalties and interests) and ruled heavily against the Family's policies.
Very specifically, the Family defendant (the mother) in this case was required to allow access to relatives:
"5. She must undertake unstintingly to allow S contact, including
staying contact with his grandmother and with other relatives. "