Quite speechless when I read this on the times online website this evening. A mother formerly married to a fat cat financier has been denied access to her three children for three years for allegedly turning her kids against their father (a social worker noted them making 'serious allegations' about the father's treatment of them when they were in their mother's care), she apparently treats them in an infantile way (hugging her three year old...) is 'indulgent' (not strict enough when seeing them for an hour a week) and was jailed two years ago for breaching a court order by approaching her eldest (9 years old) in the street and telling him she loved him.
A psychiatrist who assessed her case said the mother 'loved her children' but had harmed their development by trying to be always 'available' to them. Doesn't a child need that? To know that someone is always 'available' for them. Her children are being raised by a nanny, so daddy certainly isn't always 'available'. He's clearly very busy trying to find different things to nail mummy with.
Two text messages she sent her ex each resulted in a one-week jail sentence (in a separate article the journalist says a month. A day would be a travesty) One said: "Why are you doing this to my kids? I will do whatever you say." The other said she was 'sorry' and offered to look after the children for free instead of him employing a nanny. The judge said they were 'harrassing or pestering'. Jail? You run over a child in the street you don't get jail, but for a text message or two to your ex about your children you do?
If her ex is happy to see that happen he can't love his children at all. We're told he's applied to have her jailed again for posting a video about the case on YouTube.
According to the article, a judge conceded all the children had a "constant wish" to see their mother but another judge said she should have no contact with the boys for two years in order to "give them a break".
I wouldn't be surprised if this debacle is destroying the children. I wonder what the nanny says to them to placate them. After all, someone's got to be 'available' to them. Or no? Better to leave them out in the cold?
The whole thing beggars belief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This situation is nothing more than disgusting - he's obviously got an expensive lawyer.... she's been 'banned' from seeing her children for 'two years' - but that was apparently 3 years ago!! Who's interests is this in exactly???
Unforatunately, this happens regularly, whatever this mother does is going to be viewed as 'wrong'.... this situation needs to be addressed as it's nothing more than 'emotional abuse' to take them away from their mother - especially for a 'nonsense charge' such as this.
It is nothing more than disgusting that there are many cases like this - whatever this mother does is seen to be 'wrong' by the authorities. He's got an expensive lawyer and, therefore, holds the 'strings' to what happens.
Someone should be addressing this injustice - exactly how is this situation in the interests of ANY of these 3 children???
Post a Comment