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

Damn phone! The whole legislation is wrong and unfair. I agree that needs to be addressed but publicly supporting just one case ? What then? We can't publicly support them all. How do we choose? Who is to say one case is more important? I think the fairest way is to oppose the legislation as a whole.

Please do support this.

Others such as Maryz and Toughasoldboots have said exactly what I think.

I think the information given in the original post is one-sided and no one knows the true facts of this case (what's that saying, there's three sides to every story; his, hers and the truth?). Mumsnet would be choosing sides based on an emotive appeal.

The whole story sits uneasy with me anyway-- I don't think any of the parties are 'innocent' of wrongdoing. It's not that I don't care about the case. This is something particularly relevant to me as I experienced something similar as a child: my parents divorced due to my father's physical and emotional abuse of my mother and she obtained his permission to move me from the US to the UK when she married my British stepfather. After a few years he decided he wanted me back and filed an international kidnapping suit against her in The Hague. I was taken into custody while the trial went on until my mother won and I became a ward of the British court.

And the American justice system is no better or worse than anywhere else and certainly not a nightmare for decent people ; I was just reading here about some dickhead who was drunk driving and killed two little boys and served a ridiculously tiny sentence and is now going to play for a football club-- great justice here too then

Agree with lisaro - focus on the Act itself. However - if this isn't an option then I suppose this one case could raise the profile. Best support something rather than nothing.

Meant to add: I do think that focus on opposing the Extradiction Act and not one particular case is a better idea

i think MN should support this case as an example of a critical area where the extradition treaties do not serve the best interests of anyone other than the US

If her children are under 18 what happens to them? they get handed back to a possibly abusive parent in the US or abandoned here in the UK while it all gets sorted out.

Whether or not Eileen was right or wrong (and we can't know that other than any intuitive sense that we would all have gotten our kids to safety if we needed to) is immaterial, no reliable judicial process has taken place here in the UK

Whilst I feel a huge amount of sympathy for this woman I don't think it's right for mumsnet as an entire organisation to front a campaign of this sort. General campaigns are fine but not one where we don't have an absolute guarantee of all the facts. I also feel very uneasy about attacking the US judicial system which is not as unfair as many people would have us believe. It reminds me of the time the Guardian urged it's readers to email people in the US to ask them to note vote for Bush. Despite the merits of this sentiment the US citizens were understanadably pissed off at being told by UK residents who to vote for. Thinking about it, there is a link between here and the Guardian...

Yes, please support this.

Yes, let's support a removal of the Act and not one individual who, in some ways, sounds like is using a lot of conjecture, i.e. that her x was behind the Federal Case. Liberty and the woman seem to have no actual idea why the Feds did what they did.

So let's fight the Act that made it possible rather than support an individual.

Agree with "thebestisyettocome", however:
I think the links mumsnet provided in the OP do not have enough details in order to make an informed decision.

Oh and Quint? If you think the UK isn't as inflexible as the US in this area, let me tell you a story about the woman who didn't get her Further Leave to Remain Visa approved because her name wasn't on the Utility Bills so couldn't prove she had lived in the UK the required amount of time.

Except this woman, like myself, lives in NI, where the utility companies only allow one name on the bills and do not allow it to be changed unless the original person on the account dies.

She lost her visa. She had one child and one on the way.

I don't agree MN should get involved with things like this. Agree with Maryz and Tough

I think the whole Act is a pile of shit and would support removing it from the statue books. In the meantime I would support any campaign that prevents the use of the Extradition Act 2003 including Eileen Clark's, regardless of the details of her particular case because the Act is just so wrong and unfair and should be unlawful.

I think that MN supporting this woman may just be seen as supporting her just because she is a mother rather than the specific wrongs IYSWIM.

I would be very uneasy about Mumsnet as an organisation supporting this particular case but am pro the idea of supporting the removal or amendment of the Extradition Act in general.

Under the Hague convention she should never have removed the children from the US in the first place because it was their habitual place of residenceso it's tricky to use that to argue...

I feel, however, there is another huge aspect which MN wouldbe well advised to support which is the admission of evidence relating to domestic violence/abused in UK courts.

The children in this case are now all adults. I am appalled that our legal system would even entertain the notion that this is extradition should go ahead. It is not about the rights of the grown up children, it is a vendetta by an abusive Ex.

I would support this woman in her fight and I am quite disgusted that she even has to. I am ashamed that our judiciary seem more in thrall to the US than interested in justice.

I think we should support this woman

It's one thing if someone is fleeing a country after exhausting all possible avenues of protection against DV. It's quite another if a mother denies a man his right to see his children growing up without first following normal legal due process.

I have read in full Eileen's submission to the Commons (which lists her DV claims). I do not, on the strength of her own words, believe that she exhausted those legal avenues.

We would all be up in arms if a father whipped his kids away from their mother and hid them for 15 years. We should be just as horrified at a mother doing this.

I do not want to downplay the effects of DV and the fear created by DV, but that is why legislation exists, and it is why women's refuges and support groups exist. Ignoring all of these options doesn't become excusable simply because the issues are traumatic, particularly when the effects on the children are so dramtic. The DV instances are not proven because action against the husband was not pursued (and even if they had been proven, they do not automatically remove a parent's entitlement to be involved - even if only in a peripheral way - in the upbringing of their children).

I would be very disappointed if emotional sway took precedence over rational actions here. Much as I respect the work of Liberty in general, I would consider is discriminatory for MN to support this specific case.

I agree however that MN should support in general both the protection of women from DV, and the protection of people from the very onerous deportation rights of the US.

Well said Squiffy

What ItsAllGoingToBeFine said

I agree with campaigning against the act in general. It's an horrendous interference with the right of UK citizens to a fair trial, and biased in its implimentation.

I don't know enough about this particular case to agree or disagree. There may well be much more to it than is contained in your original post.

100% what squiffy said.