Prosecution of child abductors
Father relieved abduction case is over
Wednesday, 29, Oct, 2008 4:04PM
The father of an eight-year-old boy at the centre of a high profile abduction case is relieved the ordeal has come to an end.
The boy was missing for five months after he was taken from Hamilton City Library two years ago.
Today his mother Kay Skelton and grandfather Dick Headley pleaded guilty to abduction at the High Court in Hamilton.
Court orders prevent the child’s father Chris Jones or his Lawyer Thomas Sutcliff speaking about the boy. However Mr Sutcliff says his client and his family are relieved, as they believe the matter could have been cleared up over a year ago.
Mr Sutcliff says the ordeal has drained his client financially and emotionally with the case going all the way to the Supreme Court.
Skelton and Headley will be sentenced in December.
After 5 or 600 women abductors in the last 20 years, 1 prosecuted when it could no longer be hidden from the public
Several men have been prosecuted, when number of men abductors is less than 100!
Generally the men kept the child for a few days, with little or no intention of totally destroying the child’s relationship to the other parent.
Most of the women abductors intended to put the child out of reach of the father forever!
Please draw your own conclusion about the integrity and skills of these familycaught “judges”!!!
As Ralph Nader said about a FORD car, the familycaught is unsafe at any speed.
Deterrence does require competent, timely, effective prosecutions.
Our children are worth protecting, from all abductors of any sex and (in my opinion) from these misleading, manipulative, devious, greedy, deviant “judges”. They lack knowledge about how to protect children and just play legal games for personal profit.
Note how they try protect their performance from informed public comment, by issuing gagging orders onto the father, whom they ripped off financially through the last 5 or so years. By doing this, they intend to protect their personal financial interests, which they have placed far far before the child’s “paramount” interests!!!!
They don’t want practices in the familycaught to improve or become competent, even by accident!
People of this ilk cannot be taken seriously, as protectors of children.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
My question is why men and women are pushed to abduct their children from the other parent? Is the word ‘abduct’ appropriate? How on earth a parent is said to abduct his (her) child. A parent is only reclaiming his rights to a child he(she) has brought to this world. The other day i was reading in the Press: ‘Woman abducts her child from cyfs’. A mother abducts her child!! this is insane. It is the otherway around. It is the agency that abducted the child!!.
The Press would not tell us why. What this mother has done to have her child taken away from her.
So why do men and women are pushed to ‘abduct’ their children? That is because state agencies are involved which in most cases solve guardian rights in such utterly unfair way to one parent that most of the time violence results from such state interventions. It is time judges, psychologists and social workers got out of the way. They are the problem because they lack compassion and a heart. Let the community solve its problems. Only require state intervention.
Tren and others,
Abduction is a legal term for withholding a child from a lawful custodian. Could be parent, could be CYFS, could be someone else appointed by court eg grandparent. Skelton and Headley made a plea bargin. They were charged with kidnaping (a more serious offense) they offered to change their pleas to guilty in exchange for a lower crime.
I refer you to s 210 of ther Crimes Act.
It is a useful one to know and ask the coppers to use when mum refuses contact or does not return after access. I only know of cases where men (Dads) have been charged with it, no cases where mum has been charged in my limited experience (until this case).
210 Abduction of young person under 16
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge of a young person of the possession of the young person, unlawfully takes or entices away or detains the young person.
(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who receives a young person, knowing that he or she has been unlawfully taken or enticed away or detained with intent to deprive a parent or guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge of him or her of the possession of him or her.
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2),–
(a) it is immaterial whether the young person consents, or is taken or goes or is received at his or her own suggestion; and
(b) it is immaterial whether the offender believes the young person to be of or over the age of 16.
(4) In this section young person means a person under the age of 16 years.
What Skelton has done to warrant the removal of custody of her child includes;
Fought a seven year battle with the biological father wanting him to have nothinbg to do with the child.
Falsifying evidence and claiming her husband was the biological father. Blatant perjury of DNA evidence.
Taking the child to Australia for seven months to frustrate Dad’s contact with the child.
She used every tactic in the book, delay was her primary tool, especially chnaging lawyers just before a Court hearing so it was postponed. She went through 17 different lawyers with that tactic.
Finally when the Court granted Dad day-to-day care and her significant unsupervised contact she then had the child abducted and kept away from everyone she loved (including herself) for over 5 months.
I think that is pretty bad and the press have told us all theis information lots of times before.
She and her Father have destroyed this poor little boys life.
I hope he and his Dad, Chris, are enjoying their stability and lack of Court applications. Dad is very big though and still wants mum to be in his son’s life fully. I hope she can do what is right for child finally.
Well said Allan,
Its is heartening to seee that despit this appaling record of behaviour from the mother that the Father still acknowledges that she is the childs mum and does have a place in his life. A real man and a great dad!.
Spot on Scrap, but any parent who puts themself in a position where they may be separated from children they are responsible for caring for or want to care for, by jail bars, doesn’t seem to be that concerned?
Maybe she was totally confident that she would never ever ever be punished in any way, for doing the abductions!
Certainly her experience with the familycaught could reasonably lead to this conclusion!
I saw her smirks in the Auckland High Caught. It didn’t look as though she took the caught system at all seriously and we can see why!
This brings out the observation that the previous familycaught “judges” weren’t in the dock with Kay Skelton, to take responsibility for their large part in leading to these abductions.
These familycaught “judges” role practically trained Kay Skelton to do this!
Accordingly, they should be prosecuted, as they were an essential part in leading Kay Skelton to treat all familycaught “orders” with abject contempt.
The final outcome was entirely foreseeable, from the history of this case.
Its funny how parental discipline for toddlers says, punish reliably, punish severely enough to be taken seriously (which includes some degree of erraticness ( but not no punishment at all!) and punish quickly. A reasonable degree of consistency is important.
The familycaught “judges” broke every single one of these rules, which in reality is training and encouraging to break familycaught “orders”.
This is why I say that it is impoortant that these familycaught “judges” are punished and do the proper amount of jail time. As they should have known better, I would expect that their jail time should be much longer than Kay Skeltons.
Or, are these familycaught “judges” simple idiots?
Either way, the people who are hurt the most by them, are the people who take them seriously!
To protect your relationship with your children, it is important that you don’t rely on these “judges” to work competently, skillfully, quickly or cost effectively. You might be able to rely that they would do the opposite? (I haven’t mentioned integrity, as it only becomes an issue, when the other conditions are already met.)
Protect your children, by minimising your families exposure to these “judges”.
To be successful, we need judges who are willing to see evidence placed before them by both parents and who will consistently enforce NZ legislation, not just twist the meanings of words, to spring mothers out from carrying responsibility for their actions. Only this would allow children to access the best that both parents can provide for them.
Unfortunately for herself, Kay kelton has put herself in a situation where all of the children in NZ can only be protected from abduction, by making an example of her with a significant jail sentence.
Unfortunately for herself, the familycaught “judge” has put herself in a situation where all of the children in NZ can only be protected from abduction, by making an example of her with a significant jail sentence.
I wonder if the police are planning to let Kay Skelton complete her jail time and as she finally walks out, to charge her for the previous international abduction? This would allow her the maximum possible amount of porridge, for her deeds!
Or are women international abductors free of all consequences, while these familycaught clowns sit on the highest bench in the caughtroom?
It looks as though NZ “judges” want to maintain NZ’s image as a very attractive destination for women international abductors. Just watch where the money goes…and where it is taken from.. Taxpayers should be better protected from these rorts.
Protection of our children should be more important than paramount legal worker profits.
Best regards, MurrayBacon.
“Court orders prevent the child’s father Chris Jones or his Lawyer Thomas Sutcliff speaking about the boy. However Mr Sutcliff says his client and his family are relieved, as they believe the matter could have been cleared up over a year ago. Mr Sutcliff says the ordeal has drained his client financially and emotionally with the case going all the way to the Supreme Court.”
Are there any court proceedings that should not have been resolved over a year ago, at the very least, or that don’t emotionally and financially destroy litigants? We have become so conditioned to accept that a woman can do no wrong, or if she does, a man has caused it, to the point that many fail to see this as a terrible example of parental and legal abuse.
Penalty for Men in Sweden who commit Parental Child Abduction.
Alicia’s father jailed over Cambodia abduction
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09) 271 3020
A Netherlands and Australian example of judges unwilling to contemplate applying legislation against a custodial mother:
Kidnap mother may escape jail in new deal
Date September 12, 2010
Paola Totaro, Amsterdam
Until judges allow themselves to become aware that abduction by a mother has the same problems for children as abduction by a father, our children cannot be properly protected from abduction. As 85% of abductors are mothers, this is a serious problem in NZ, Australia, UK, USA, France, Germany, South Africa………
It is mothers who most need prosecution as a deterrent!
Two-year-old girl abducted from Ipswich home found in Archerfield
It seems that the mother and a group of her heavy friends abducted the baby girl from her father’s care, using intimidation and a degree of violence. It will be interesting to see if any type of prosecution follows through from this event?
It is mothers who most need prosecution as a deterrent!
Man and woman charged with abducting two-year-old Ipswich girl