[ad_1]
An agreement was reached on a police ruling that allowed a mother to kidnap her son, despite an order from the family court.
The mistake was made by a police officer at Christchurch airport on February 7, 2019.
It meant that a child, who was the subject of a Family Court order preventing removal from New Zealand, could leave the country, even after a border alert was triggered.
The father of the minor dictated civil proceedings in the Superior Court, which were to be heard on August 3.
READ MORE:
* Agreement reached due to police failure that allowed the mother to kidnap the child
* Investigation of sexual assault complaint against chief police officer Kevin Burke ‘exhaustive’ – IPCA
* Police officers ‘justified’ in using Taser, pepper spray, to arrest Geraldine’s man
* Woman authorized to abduct her son due to ‘insufficient’ knowledge of officer’s policy
A police spokeswoman said Monday that the proceedings had been resolved after a confidential agreement was reached between the parties.
Stuff
A mother was allowed to abduct her son and take him abroad because a police officer at Christchurch airport could not find anything in his system despite a border alert from Customs.
“The police unreservedly apologize for the mistake that was made and for the great anguish caused to the plaintiffs,” the statement said.
“The police are fully committed to ensuring that we provide the services that the community expects and deserves.”
Stuff He previously revealed that the Christchurch airport officer used the wrong computer system to verify information about the border alert and did not contact Interpol, which was normal practice.
A border alert, which read “Court Order Preventing Removal – Airport Police,” was immediately displayed on the computer and the customs officer handed over both passports to a colleague.
While waiting for the police, the mother showed the customs officer text messages from her lawyer, suggesting that she could leave.
He also said that he informed the Christchurch Central Police Station about the boy’s trip and was told he was fine.
Another Customs officer, who was in the control room for the flight’s departure, called the airport police as soon as he saw the police alert. Only the police could allow such a passenger to fly.
An airport police officer arrived at 9:20 p.m. They showed them the text messages between the mother and her lawyer and told them what she had said earlier about visiting the police. The police officer tried to call the lawyer named in the alert, but was unsuccessful.
The police officer later said he would go downstairs to find out as much as he could.
The customs officer asked the mother if she had any documents or letters to take the child abroad. She said that she was separated and that the child had lived in the destination country.
About 10 minutes later, the customs officer spoke to the police officer again, who told him that he could not find anything on the computer related to the boy, so he would allow them to travel.
The airline was informed that the couple could travel and the police officer spoke with the mother and son alone before they left Customs.
The boy’s father first learned what was happening when the mother sent him a text message as the plane was leaving. The text said that she would take her son to her home country, where she would remain until adulthood.
A summary of the investigation of Professional Conduct of the Police, which also considered whether there was any criminal responsibility, was delivered to Stuff under the Official Information Law.
It found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the officer intentionally violated the Family Court order. The incident highlighted a “discontinuity in training” for the International Airport Police and a lack of organizational knowledge in the Christchurch Police.
The officer’s decision was made in “good faith” but was “in direct conflict” with police policy not to allow a child to leave the country without a copy of a discharge order.
Attorney Nicola Hansen, who represents the boy’s father, previously said her client was “heartbroken.”
She didn’t know if she would see her son again, but she was hopeful.
“He is very sad that customs and police let his son go. The law must be obeyed by everyone. He is very upset that they did not do their job properly,” Hansen said.
