The Supreme Court ruled that the girl should not go to Italy temporarily.

(file photo)

[Reporter Wang Dingchuan/New Taipei Report] A Taiwanese former flight attendant and a wealthy Italian businessman are in court over the parental rights of their 8-year-old daughter. The second-instance collegial panel of the Family Court of the Taipei District Court ruled last year that before the final decision on the "parental rights" case, the girl would Should have a video meeting with the father once, and go to Italy to live with the father for 10 days and 30 days during the winter and summer vacations respectively. , the implementation was temporarily suspended, and the girl was determined to stay in Taiwan for the New Year; the North Court issued a press release today stating that it respects the Supreme Court's ruling, and responded to some media reports, and also appealed to the public: "Please don't push children to the front line."

The reason why the North Court issued a press release was because yesterday there was a media report saying: "The most outrageous thing is that the court has actually finished writing the ruling requiring the girl to go to Italy before hearing the child's opinion". Does not match, so explain.

Please read on...

The North Court stated that before the provisional punishment ruling on November 30 last year, the judge considered the new crown pneumonia epidemic. In order to reduce the risk of the child’s infection and not to affect the child’s schoolwork, the first and second court sessions were held via video conference, and the judge listened carefully to the child’s speech. The agency allows the child and the father to stabilize the video, restore the parent-child relationship, arrange for the parents and the child to have individual and parent-child consultations and consultations, and expect the child to reply to the unique resources that should have dual nationality.

Regarding the ruling of the Supreme Court, the North Court expressed its respect and appealed to the public that this case is a family matter involving the parental rights of minor children. Children are pushed to the front line".

The press release of the North Hospital is as follows:

1. Before the provisional punishment ruling on November 30, 2011, the judge listened attentively to the child, entrusted the agency to stabilize the video communication between the child and the father, repaired the parent-child relationship, and arranged individual and parent-child consultations and consultations for the parents and the child:

During the video conference on June 23, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the first video conference) (which lasted nearly an hour), the judge listened attentively to the child’s thoughts on meeting and interacting with his father on weekdays and winter and summer vacations, and the reasons for his reluctance to go to country A; the child agreed He had video conferences with his father twice a week, and the judge entrusted a third agency to arrange for the child to have video conferences with his father at the agency since August 111 to restore the parent-child relationship between the child and his father.

Later, the institution was unable to continue to serve due to human factors. The judge also told the child the change of location during the video conference on December 2, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the second video conference), and discussed the possibility of video conference at home.

During the first video call, the child said that he did not want to go to country A. The family members in country A are not considered family members. As long as the family members are in Taiwan, the child misses his father but does not want to go to country A to meet his father. From the reasons explained by the child, we can know that the child faces two choices In one situation, the fear of not being able to return to Taiwan is due to the fact that the parents competed for their children in the past and were unable to become cooperative parents. The children had the traumatic experience of being separated from their parents and being abducted, and also lost the language and cultural advantages of dual nationality.

In order to rebuild the cooperative relationship of parents’ joint parenting, the judge expects the child to return to the unique resources that should have dual nationality, and refer the parents and children for individual and parent-child consultation and consultation. The No. 1 ruling instructs the supervisor of the arrangement procedure to guide the child to country A to spend time with his father and his family during the long vacation, and to give the parents’ appointed lawyer an opinion on the court’s ex officio ruling on the temporary punishment. ruling for interim disposition.

The report stated that "the Taipei District Court made a judgment a few days ago", "the most outrageous thing is that the court has actually written the ruling requiring the girl to go to Italy before hearing the child's opinion", "the lawyer found that the date of the judge's ruling was 11 On December 30th, the clerk made the original on December 1st, that is to say, the judge finished writing this ruling, which cannot guarantee that the child will return to Taiwan, two days before the video conference with the child. The act of "false questioning and real persuasion" happened in court, which is trampling on children's right to express and be heard, and the court is a flagrant violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child," "The lawyer reminded the presiding judge that this ruling was obviously written before asking the child Such a ruling that did not allow children to express their opinions is a violation of the "Constitution" and the judgment seriously infringes on children's right to express their opinions." The outrageous situation of "listening after making a decision", the opinions he listened to has become a form of passing water." It is obviously inconsistent with the process, and it is difficult to recognize the appropriateness, so it should be clarified.

2. In consideration of the COVID-19 epidemic, the judge adopted video conferences for the first and second hearings in order to reduce the risk of children contracting the disease and not to affect their studies:

Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the judge decided to hold the first and second court sessions via videoconference in order to reduce the risk of the child getting the disease and not to affect the child's studies.

In the second video, the child expressed his thoughts of the court and finally took off his mask, and made an appointment to have a face-to-face conversation with the judge next time.

The judge also asked the judicial affairs officer to ask the mother when it was convenient during the interim execution procedure on December 29, 2011. The mother chose January 13, 2012, so the judge arranged to meet the child in the children's special room of the hospital on the same day. Dialogue, the hearing notice will also be delivered, but neither the mother nor the child came that day, nor did they ask for leave.

On December 29, 2011, the judicial affairs officer did not notify the child of the temporary punishment execution procedure. Three lawyers who claimed to be the child brought the child to the scene. The judicial affairs officer invited the child to make a statement. Although the child said that he would be accompanied by a lawyer, The procedure of the family matter is not public, and the legality of the lawyer's appointment certificate is doubtful (the collegiate panel considered that the three lawyers did not have the legal non-litigation right to represent minors and ruled to reject the application of the three lawyers), and two of them have clinical qualifications. A psychologist-qualified program supervisor was present and could accompany him, so the judicial affairs officer asked a lawyer to wait outside. The three lawyers quarreled, made noise and other words and deeds, and then took the child away.

Considering the understanding of the psychological state of the child and the accompanying function and exercise of authority of the procedural supervisor stipulated in the Family Matters Act, the collegial panel found that the three lawyers had violated the lawyer's code of ethics, and requested the Taipei Bar Association to deal with it.

The report stated that “Even though the child expressed to the presiding judge many times through his lawyer that he wanted to talk face-to-face, the presiding judge insisted on using video conferencing. Once the child had already arrived at the court, and there was only one door away from the judicial officer, just because the child directly asked "I need a lawyer to be present", and the judicial affairs officer continued to refuse to accompany the lawyer, and finally reached a stalemate and let it go." The situation is also inconsistent with the facts and should be clarified.

3. The execution result of the provisional punishment ruling is related to the parental judgment of this case. This court respects the Supreme Court’s 112-year Tai Jian Sheng Zi No. 8 suspension of execution ruling:

Due to the reason and necessity of this court’s ex officio provisional disposition on matters such as changing the rights and obligations of minor children, this case was ruled by this court as a temporary sanction on November 30, 2011, in accordance with the Judicial Affairs Officer of this court (investigation) In the transcript, both parents agreed to the implementation of the temporary punishment in this case, and from the video statement between the child and the court, it can be seen that the child has excellent ability to make statements independently, and the child and his father discussed the itinerary to country A during the winter vacation in the video interaction, including requesting arrangements The horse riding lessons and meeting with good friends in country A in the past also show that the child is willing and looking forward to going to country A. The father has promised the child that going to country A will not prevent the child from coming back, so that the child can go to country A again during the summer vacation. When going to country A to play, the court arranged for two professionally neutral program supervisors who have been with the child for many years to accompany the visit. The execution result of the temporary sanction ruling is related to the parental judgment of this case.

However, the Supreme Court ruled on the afternoon of yesterday (19) with Tai Jian Sheng Zi No. 8 in 2012 that this court’s temporary disposition on November 30, 2011 should be suspended until the ruling is finalized.

Based on the trial-level design, this court respects it.

The report said that "the court is in a hurry to send her abroad, which is the real reason why the child can only turn to the president for help at the last moment." The situation should also be clarified.

4. This case is a family matter involving the parental rights of minor children. Please respect the best interests of minor children and make decisions:

This case has been in this court for more than 5 years. The loyalty issue of children from high-conflict families is highly professional. In order to ensure the best interests of minor children, protect their right to express and hear, and ensure the best interests of minor children Interpretation can be integrated into his own point of view. The hospital has selected two clinical psychologists with a specialty in child psychology as program supervisors for minor children, who will accompany the minor children for a long time, visit them and issue reports.

The family judge understands the whole picture of the problems encountered by the family of the case, and also understands the characteristics of the father, mother, and child. From the social, psychological, or emotional levels, the family investigator assists in the investigation, and refers social workers and professional psychologists for parenting education, individual and parent-child counseling, counseling and other resources to help repair the relationship between children and non-residents and promote meeting and communication.

In order to protect the rights and interests of the parties to the case and the children, if the parties to the case are dissatisfied with the judge's decision, they can follow the trial-level system for relief. The court appeals to the public: please do not push the children to the front line.