This case is an interesting one just reported by the Court of Appeal. The first question that should be asked is why it took the English judicial system over a year to decide it did not have jurisdiction.
The second question is why the English Courts have decided there is an issue when the Swedish Courts have not. They cannot both be right. It is my view that the evidence in the family courts in England is frequently intellectually unreliable and as a consequence the decisions are not well grounded in reality.
This case seems to substantiate my view and give good reasons why the system in England takes the wrong children into care.
Comments
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/135208-treatment