By admin|2020-01-28T18:58:11+00:00January 28th, 2020|Comments Off on The local welfare authorities met in a working group in order to identify ways of restoring the relationship between NG and her children.
By admin|2020-01-28T18:57:26+00:00January 28th, 2020|Comments Off on A new attempt to enforce the final court judgment. P prepared the children’s belongings and NG was ready to take them to her house. Together with a number of officials, NG entered P’s home and talked with the children. The children refused to go with NG, despite being encouraged by P.
By admin|2020-01-28T18:55:07+00:00January 28th, 2020|Comments Off on A psychologist issued a conclusion concerning the state of mind of the children, who were at that time with P’s parents owing to a protection order preventing him from contacting his children. The psychologist found that all three children had been seriously affected by the separation from their father as a result of the protection order, and that any action aimed at rebuilding their relationship with their mother would be premature, as the children were displaying clear signs of resistance against their mother, who was associated with the “loss” of their father. In the weeks that followed, the reconciliation procedure between NG and P continued, with the involvement of a number of officials. Three meetings between various authorities took place on 7, 14 and 17 February 2017, aimed at identifying solutions for enforcing the judgment of 24 June 2015.
By admin|2020-01-28T18:44:56+00:00January 28th, 2020|Comments Off on The local police and the mayor’s office asked NG to show more interest in the children’s psychological state. While they acknowledged that NG was unable to establish contact with them, she was blamed for refusing any form of cooperation, which prevented the mayor’s office from adopting any relevant decision. At the same time, P was not allowed to approach the children and she was the only legal guardian. She was urged to “assume her share of the responsibility”, as the only person able to offer the children protection at that time.
By admin|2020-01-28T18:44:21+00:00January 28th, 2020|Comments Off on The court rejected the bailiff’s request for permission to forcibly enter P’s house on the grounds that, as a matter of law a bailiff already has unrestricted access to P’s house.