Sorry,You have not added any story yet
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.
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.