We've been asked to support a woman's fight against extradition: please tell us what you think

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello,

We've been contacted by the human rights group Liberty to see whether we can support their efforts to stop a woman called Eileen Clark from being extradited to the USA to stand trial for international parental kidnapping.

You can read more about the background details here and here, but here's an edited version:

In 1986 Eileen married John Clark. The relationship quickly descended into serious psychological control, threats of violence and many occasions of physical violence. After almost ten years, Eileen took her three children and moved to California, then eventually moved back to the UK. In her absence, her husband divorced her and took proceedings against her for custody of the children. Eileen was charged with a state-level offence called 'custodial interference'.

In 2008, the state authorities in the US became aware that Eileen was in the UK. The federal authorities stepped in - Liberty believes following behind-the-scenes pressure from John Clark - and effectively upgraded the charges to something called 'international parental kidnapping', which carries a prison sentence of up to 3 years.

In 2010, a formal extradition request was made. Eileen tried to appeal against the extradition order through the British courts but her appeal was dismissed. The very strong and compelling evidence that Eileen was a victim of serious domestic violence and abuse was not properly considered by the courts in this country.

Liberty took on the case after Eileen had exhausted her appeal rights. Liberty says it has been shocked to discover the extent of the evidence of domestic abuse and even more shocked to learn that the British courts have not been able to look at this evidence.

According to Liberty, it is the Extradition Act 2003 which has allowed this case to get so far. It says that the Act has removed huge swathes of judicial discretion to prevent extradition from taking place where, for example, it is not in the interests of justice. All that remains now is for Eileen to make representations to the Home Secretary that her removal should be blocked on human rights grounds.



As ever, we'd be interested to hear what you think.

Thanks,
MNHQ

[mcfee]

Yes support her.

However can I re-iterate what itsall said: Mumsnet should support this case as an example of why the extradition act is wrong, and with a view towards supporting a review of the said act

Also, while I would never deny her support, what will Mumsnet do about every other extradition / human rights individual case out there - impossible to offer support to all.

[Quenelle]

I agree with missorinoco.

(I'm not a lawyer either though.)

[betty10k]

Yes we should definitely support her

[ScrambledSmegs]

Yes, support her. I agree with those saying it should be as part of rejecting the extradition act as a piece of flawed and one-sided legislation.

[Pinot]

Yes please, on my behalf.

[bumpybecky]

yes, please support this case

[UtterlyButterly]

I agree that Mumsnet should campaign on a more general level to get this piece of legislation overturned.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

But sometimes a particularly emotive individual case can be use to effectively illustrate a more complex cause.

Ie WWF going on about pandas in order to raise awareness for wildlife conservation.

The woman in this individual case is a panda, the extradition act is wildlife conservation.

Did that make any sense at all?

[Thistledew]

I am in favour of supporting this case. I assume that Liberty has obtained consent and taken legal advice regarding the publication of the names and details of the people involved?

[AreWeHavingFunYet]

I agree with Toughasoldboots and Maryz

Yes to supporting the issue but no to individuals (unless perhaps as an example)

[QuintessentialShadows]

Yes. You should support this campaign.

America is a nightmare for decent people.

My friend (British) who was married to an American and living their with her husband and baby, was deported (whilst still married) due to some technicality in her visa, she did not submit her visa re application in time or something. She had to be outside the states for 6 months, thus separated from her husband and baby. She was going absolutely bonkers away from her 11 month old.

This has nothing to do with Eileen Clark of course, but just goes to show how ridiculous and inflexible they are.

The justice system regards to such issues needs to be looked at.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

But yes, if Mumsnet are going to support this individual case it is super important they get the facts right.

E. G. Nowhere does it mention if the husband was also abusive towards the children. If he was an abusive husband but a fantastic father (IYSWIM) surely he should be able to see his kids...

[Want2bSupermum]

The Extradition Act is wrong but from what I know of US family law the mother should not have taken her children out of the country. She has a very good reason for her actions so I don't see her taking the children out of the country being a problem. It sounds like the children were born in the US which would make them US citizens. In addition, if the evidence of domestic abuse is extensive she will have no problems with her exDH gaining custodial access. I know here in NJ if there is evidence of domestic violence the court will go out of their way to protect the victim and children. In addition, she left him in approx. 1996. This makes her youngest child at least 16 years old. His pursuing of this case will be seen as an act of abuse against the mother if the children are 18 or older.

I assume she doesn't have the funds to support a legal team so I would suggest Liberty and this mother contact Stanford and UCLA Law Schools to see if they woud help with the case on a pro bono basis. She will most probably not get bail but she should be contacting the Governor (Jerry Brown) and Sentators as they can influence these cases. Given the age of the children I would be very surprised if they would allow this extradition to continue.

[QuintessentialShadows]

"America is a nightmare for decent people."

[MarySA]

I agree with what people have said re supporting legislation. But that might take too long for this lady. And Maryz is right about if it was a man doing the same thing would people support him. It is so important to get the facts right in these cases. It's difficult.

[TheHouseOnTheCorner]

I think you should....we should rather.

[Want2bSupermum]

The legal system in the US is 'different'. DH was told by the DMV that he couldn't drive while his visa was being processed as it had expired (he was allowed to stay in the US for 180 days after expiry). He needed to drive for work. I called our senator and wrote him a letter. When I didn't get a reply I contacted the Governor of our state - Corzine. I didn't get a reply. I lived in Hoboken and knew someone in the same building as Corzine so I knocked on his door with a copy of the letter I had sent him. A week later DH has his visa processed and he was able to drive.

Bonkers yes, but there are some parts of the UK legal system that are just as bonkers. The lady needs to email, write letters and telephone the Governor of California.

[TheHouseOnTheCorner]

But it's not a man....it's a woman and she has been a victim. In the case of a man suffering extreme DV then I don't see MN not helping....of course MN would help because this is about the safety of the children.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

MaryZ: I completely agree. I'm just not very articulate.

I think Mumsnet should support a review/repeal/whatever of the act.

I think this particular case could be a useful illustration as to why the act is not a good thing.

But with the main focus on the Act.