papertrail
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 2,573
- Reaction score
- 2,618
Thanks. I just found my link to the caselaw. The relevant sentence says ...
"HIS HONOUR: The child the subject of these proceedings – whom I shall call Julian – was one of four siblings. Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers."
So, if William was taken and hidden by his parents at 8 months old, it would have been no different from a non-custodial parent taking a child from a custodial parent. Typically classed as an abduction. Perhaps my wording was not so incorrect after all.
It would also account for the supervised visitation that was then allowed.
(I haven't linked the caselaw as a mod once asked us not to link it.)
Your argument is relying on what the paternal bio grandmother had stated. And you know that her statement of 8 months is not accurate as per what the caselaw transcript reported as FACT at 7 months.
There was NO 'stealing' or 'abduction' of William by either of his biological parents. He had been secreted in a desperate attempt to delay the process that FACS had obviously commenced. Somewhere I have read that Natalie Collins the paternal bio grandmother had heavy involvement in the secreting supporting with finance and location.