To think not looking like you parents

[DevonLodger]

Is not a good reason to take a child into care and carry out a DNA test.

I look nothing like my daughters. Should I be worried?

It only costs about £20 to microchip a cat - its not that expensive... it might be viable.

Countless of children WORLDWIDE. This issue doesn't begin and end in the UK.

But for the Irish police to be taking action, it kind of helps if it's taking place in Ireland, yes?

And in any event, I dispute your claim that it's "countless children WORLDWIDE", too. Evidence would be nice. This is what might be described as truthiness: it sounds like it ought to be true, it might even be true, but there's absolutely no evidence that it is true.

Nobody is saying police should not investigate apparent crimes. They should. Just this: having a child who looks different is not an apparent crime, not even if you are Roma. This is the point of this thread. There is nothing to investigate if the only allegation is that the child looks different. Those saying "I would like the police to investigate" are being racist about this.

Obviously if there is more than simply looking different that's another matter, e.g. if there has been a kidnap. There was no kidnap in this case, no suspicious circs, the family had not just moved in, the child was in school, etc.

I stand corrected about the passports etc.

I still stand by what I've said. I have no prejudice against anyone. MrsTerry I too have travelled with Dd. We have different names, she looks nothing like me and certainly doesn't look like her passport photo. I too have been stopped on three occasions at immigration for an hour once whilst they verified if Dd was my daughter. Was I pissed off? Of course I was. I was stopped because of the colour of my skin. But I also recognised the reasons for it. If I have to be "interrogated" every time I travel to the US or Canada fine, if it means they prevent one child from being trafficked or whatever.

If I have to be "interrogated" every time I travel to the US or Canada fine, if it means they prevent one child from being trafficked or whatever.

What if it prevents no children being trafficked?

Do you have reason to believe that children are, in fact, being "trafficked" into the USA on commercial transatlantic flights? Ever? It seems awfully complicated, with passports and tickets and shit, when there's a porous land border into Mexico.

There are children who are the subject of custody disputes being moved over borders, and the Hague Convention exists to deal with that. Children are checked at borders because of that, particularly if there is reason to believe they might not be the children of the people they are travelling with. But that's not trafficking, and there's no suggestion that the Irish police were worried about the Hague Convention (aside from anything, a DNA test would prove nothing, as in most custody disputes the child would match the parent with whom they were travelling).

But the claim here is about dastardly (dark-skinned, of course, a generally a little bit foreign) abductors taking innocent white children for nefarious purposes. It's essentially 1950s tropes about innocent women being lured into the white slave trade by West Indian men with their devilish jungle music. And about as convincing.

Lamu it's one thing to be interrogated every time you travel to the US or Canada (lucky you, great countries to visit!) It's another thing if the police were to come to your house, seize your DD, and hold her for three days running DNA tests. You really can't see the difference between what you experience at airports and what Roma people experience? You think being stopped on your holidays at airport security is the same thing as having your child removed from your home? Did you see that the child went back to school traumatized and angry? I'm guessing your DD does not become traumatized and angry when you are stopped at immigration.

friday Thanks for clearing that up. I needed to know why I kept getting stopped. I thought it was just my face. I wasn't insinuating that this has anything to do with The Hague convention. I know little about it to make comment.

Having a child that looks different to you isn't a crime. No. If police have been tipped off and have reason to believe that a child does not belong to you. They have a duty to investigate. They did. They were mistaken. The person reported it was mistaken. It was unfortunate. Authorities use racial profiling its nothing new.

I didn't say it was the same thing. Of course it isn't! I referenced it because someone else mentioned it up thread.

And as if by magic...

I wrote at 1627:

Prediction: the "Maria" case in Greece will not be an innocent child rent from their parents, bit will turn out to be rather more complex, with the child probably being no worse off with the family that were looking after her than she would have been with her birth parents.

And the Guardian put up the latest installment at 1650.

Lets face it. The Police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They were wrong on this occasion because of the information they were given. The child was being called by a nickname which didn't match her documents. The hospital had no record of a child with that particular name. DNA proved otherwise.

What should they Police have done? Please I really want know your thoughts. It's all well saying it was wrong. DNA could have been done in a day etc. I wonder how many of you think it's a bad idea to have a DNA database from birth?

I wondered about that too! I am glad they found the girl, but I was wondering on what basis can you take a blonde child away from their dark parents.

hides ds!

What should they Police have done?

Figured out if a crime had occurred, because they started looking for victims and suspects.

I wonder how many of you think it's a bad idea to have a DNA database from birth?

Almost everyone who's thought about it for more than about ten minutes.

before, not because.

lamu you are asking what should the police have done? If I call the police and say I think my neighbour is a serial killer, he is a Roma guy and he just looks like somebody who would kill people serially, what do you think the police should do?

I guess you would say well, serial killing is a bit serious the police had better investigate you never know it might be true and what if the police do nothing and then the neighbour turns out to be Jack the Ripper and kills hundreds of people the police would be vilified for doing nothing. They should arrest him and lock him up in case he does a runner while they investigate. No harm done if he turns out to be innocent. They'll just hold him for three days while they investigate and then send him back home. I'm sure his family won't mind, they'll be happy the police are investigating crimes. And he won't mind, if he's innocent they'll release him what's the problem.

Just one problem with that reasoning: this is not how free societies work, where civil liberties and fundamental freedoms matter.

Lots of reasons to give a DNA sample if you are part of a cmmunity that has been targeted by the police in the past and don't trust them!

Also family lines have not always been straight forward people taking on a younger sister's child as their own.. A dad not realizing he isn't the dad.

• to NOT give a DNA sample!

Hypothetically the child is not theirs and they've just been rumbled. Don't you think it would be unwise to leave said child with he supposed parents whilst investigations take place?

Hypothetically, my neighbours have buried six victims under the patio. Don't you think it's unwise for the police not to dig it up?

Ok, hypothetically every citizen has committed a crime. After all, crimes happen and somebody must have committed them. Crimes don't commit themselves. It could be YOU, Lamu, that has done those crimes for all I know. No, I don't think the police should pick you up from your house and hold you until you prove that it wasn't you. Not even if you were Roma, that still wouldn't be ok.

Perhaps we should all have our houses searched once a week, just in case we happen to have abducted a child and hidden her in the cellar. After all, if only one victim were found, it'd be worth it, wouldn't it? And it's not as though such crimes don't happen, either.

OP said No legitimate parent about whom no other concerns have been raised should be required to produce evidence that a child is theirs based on lack of resemblance alone

From what I can see everyone would agree with that. On the limited info we have that is probably the case in Ireland. We don't know what info the police were working on.

In Greece the authorities were searching for weapons and drugs but also might have had other info.

Everyone is making assumptions that they removed the child on looks alone.

Venus - if the police (in Ireland) had evidence or suspicions that the girl was being abused or at risk they wouldn't have returned her so quickly.

They removed her based on her looks.

Um, we do know what info the police were working on, because the police said they received a phone call from the neighbour saying that there was a blonde child living with Roma people who were not her parents. Given the Maddie case and the Greek case the police thought they should investigate.

I'm prepared to concede, so far so good, but the investigation found that the parents had a birth certificate and passport so the matter should have ended there and the nosy neighbour would have done her civic duty.

Removing the child from the family for three days is where the police erred.

Lamu here are some ideas about what the police could have done.

Investigated properly - the way police are supposed to do when given a piece of totally subjective (?anonymous) information before removing a child from her parents.

The following are ridiculously extreme and heavy handed but still not as bad as removing a 7 year old from her family for 3 days for no reason.

Done the DNA in an afternoon while the whole family sat in the waiting room.

Removed passports and sat an officer outside the house while waiting for DNA results if they thought the family were a 'flight risk'.