Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

Children need a real choice and a real voice!



Melinda on trial silenced and slandered

Posted by Ariel on March 17, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Mother refused bail after court appearance

16:52 AEST Wed Mar 16 2011

Mar 16, 2011

A 48-year-old mother has been refused bail in a Sydney court on charges relating to taking her child out of Australia without permission.

Melinda Margaret Thompson, the wife of former NSW deputy fire chief Ken Thompson, appeared in Central Local Court on Monday, March 14.

She was refused bail by Magistrate Julie Huber, who adjourned the case to the same court on April 6.

According to court papers, a number of submissions were made opposing bail, included that she was a flight risk. Mr Thompson, 66, had in 2010 launched an international search for his son who went missing in 2008.

His search through Europe by bicycle ended when the six-year-old was found in September in Amsterdam, in The Netherlands.

The mother was arrested soon after by Dutch authorities.

In 2009, an arrest warrant was sworn and issued at Downing Centre Local Court alleging Thompson "did, without permission, take a child from Australia to a place outside Australia". The warrant was executed at Parramatta Bail Court on March 12.




Melinda Stratton arrived back in Australia on Friday night last week, under arrest.

She was put before a woman magistrate in Liverpool Street Central Court on 14th March.

She was refused bail, by a female magistrate.


Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction

(regulation 2)

Article 3

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where--

a it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and

b at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

The rights of custody mentioned in sub paragraph a above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.


Declaration that removal or retention was wrongful

(1) On application, a court may by order declare that:

(a) the removal of a child from Australia to a convention country; or

(b) the retention of a child in a convention country;

was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

(2) The court may ask a responsible Central Authority to arrange for the person, institution or other body making a request in relation to the return of a child under the Convention to obtain an order of a court, or a decision of a competent authority, of the country in which the child habitually resided immediately before his or her removal or retention declaring that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

Categories: None

Post a Comment


Oops, you forgot something.


The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

You must be a member to comment on this page. Sign In or Register