FRIDAY: New development in custody case of Espoo brothers

print this

It was not possible on Friday to continue negotiations on the future of the two Espoo boys who had been ordered to return to the United States with their father, as the Finnish mother and her two sons did not appear at the bailiffs’ office in Espoo as anticipated and requested.
      "Regrettably, the mother has now chosen this course of action", said Maija-Liisa Parmi of the bailiffs’ department, which is ultimately responsible for enforcement of the return order in the custody dispute, following a decision by the Supreme Court to uphold an earlier ruling in the case (see linked article).
      The mother’s solicitor Ulla-Riitta Harju reported that the next step would probably be to seek enforced compliance with the order. In practice this might mean the boys would initially be placed in some form of home. "I’m very much afraid that they can be taken by force", said Harju. She also noted that she was unaware of the boys’ current whereabouts. She said that the mother had decided shortly before the meeting that she would not be attending the negotiations.
     
In the wake of the Court’s ruling in early September, the bailiffs’ office in Espoo requested that the parents and the children, together with their respective legal advisers, should come to a meeting to see if a peaceable solution could be found to the dispute, placing the interests of the children above all else.
      A first meeting was held on Tuesday, but the boys were not present. One was said to be suffering from tonsilitis and the other had expressly refused to attend, according to the mother’s legal counsel.
     
The dispute began just over a year ago, when the Finnish mother brought the two brothers to Finland on a legally-sanctioned holiday. An American court had previously confirmed a joint custody agreement between the two parents, according to which the children would officially live with their father in the United States.
      After the vacation, the mother did not return the children to the United States. The father then appealed for the return of the children under the terms of the Hague Convention, which specifies that the children should be returned to the country of their official residence. He also sought sole custody of the children.
     
The case has sparked a certain amount of public interest, largely because of the Supreme Court’s apparent unwillingness to consider the views of the two boys in the matter.
      The Supreme Court President Leif Sevón has pointed out that the issue in the case was not one of custody as such, but a resolution of the legality of the return order.
      Sevón also noted that according to the Hague Convention, the country to which children have been taken is not at liberty to make judgements on the specific custody aspects of the case. This is a deliberate stipulation to prevent the possibility of "home advantage" being applied in situations of this nature.
      A small demonstration on behalf of the boys’ continued residence in Finland accompanied Tuesday’s meeting in Espoo.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Supreme Court final ruling: Custody dispute brothers to be returned to their father in U.S. (3.9.2004)

Helsingin Sanomat