Ruling, June 17, 2010
Laura Dekker - Legal Challenge
Photo credit: ?
R U L I N G
by the
COURT OF MIDDELBURG
about the
EXTENTION OF THE SUPERVISION
in the lawsuit of
LAURA DEKKER
LJN: BM8125, Rechtbank Middelburg , 73059 / JE RK 10-352
17 June 2010
Synopis
A. Involved Parties
Laura Dekker (original: [the juvenile]), born [place] on [date],
represented by Mr. P.A. de Lange, Barendrecht,
as child of her father [living place]
represented by Mr. P.A. de Lange, Barendrecht, her mother [living place]. was invited to the hearing but didn´t show up.
Not mentioned:
Stichting Bureau Jeugdzorg, Utrecht, (Youth welfare department)
further to be named: Jeugdzorg
Raad voor de Kinderbescherming (Council for child protection)
further to be named: The Council
B.
1. Procedure
1.1. - 1.9
17 May 2010: Request by Jeugdzorg for extention of the supervision over Laura Dekker for one month.
Request changed during the hearing of 14 June to 2 month extention.
Hand in of several documents before and during the hearing.
Hand in of the document[s] "Vorbereiding Zeiltocht [Laura Dekker]" during the hearing of 14 June.
2. Facts
2.1. - 2.2.
Judgement of the Rechtbank Utrecht [court of Utrecht] of 30 October 2009,
confirmed by the
Judgement or the Gerechthof Arnhem [court of Arnhem, higher court than Utrecht and Middelburg] of 4 May 2010.
3. Assessment
Presence of The Council during the hearing
3.1. - 3.3
Request of Laura Dekker and her father to exclude The Council from the hearing. Request rejected.
Laura Dekker as party
3.4. - 3.6.
Request to accept Laura Dekker as party in this process. Request allowed.
Change of the request
3.7. - 3.9.
Permission for changing of request under 1. from 1 month to 2 month extension during the hearing accepted by the court.
Comment by the court:
The plan "Vorbereiding Zeiltocht [Laura Dekker]" was handed in too
late. There was no possibility for Jeugdzorg and The Council to check
this plan.
Supervision
3.10. - 3.19.
3.10.
Jeugdzorg: When conditions as layed down in the ruling of 30 October
2009 set up by the court of Utrecht are met there is no need for a
further supervision.
At present it is not clear if these conditions were met by Laura Dekker.
Jeugdzorg does not share the concerns layed down in the ruling of the
Gerechthof Arnhem of 4 May 2010 about Laura´s physical/psychical- and
personality- development.
Their sailing expert will need more time
to check Laura´s plan. A Request by Jeugdzorg at Laura and her father
about this wasn´t replied.
3.11.
According to Laura
Dekker and her father all conditions are met. A risc related to the
sailing trip in not denied by them. According to the report by a
psychologist [examination was ordered by the court of Utrecht
August/September2009] there is no risc relating to the development
(phys./psych. and personality) of Laura.
There is no reason for supervision any longer. Cancelling of supervision requested.
3.12.
The Council is following the Jeugdzorg´s opinion. The Council is
sharing the Gerechthof of Arnhem´s opinion about the risks of the
planned journey. The Council will maybe request a new examination of
Laura because there were many developments in Lauras life since the
examination of summer 2009.
Assessment by the court
3.13. - 3.19.
3.13.
Citation from the law about reasons for supervision.
3.14. - 3.15.
The court of Middelburg mentions the concerns of the Gerechthof Arnhem
about the danger for Laura´s physical/psychical and personality
development. These concerns must not be ignored in this lawsuit due to
the fact that the Gerechthof Arnhem is in position of overruling (see
also 3.18.).
3.16.
Failing of Laura Dekker and her father determined (the plan "Vorbereiding Zeiltocht [Laura Dekker]"was handed in too late).
3.17.
Unless the opposite is proven the court is of intention that the
conditions layed down in the ruling of the court of Utrecht of 30
October 2009 are not met.
Comment by the court:
Up
to now Jeugdzorg failed to take a closer look at the concerns by the
Gerechthof of Arnhem about Laura´s development (see 3.18.).
3.18.
Judgement
The Supervision over Laura Dekker extenden to 1 August 2010.
No judgement about Laura´s planned sailing trip until the plans are checked.
Order to Jeugdzorg:
1. Hand in a report about the status quo of the preparations of Laura
Dekker´s planned sailing trip with regard to the conditions [layed down
in the ruling by the court of Utrecht of October 2009].
2. Hand in a report of the choosen sailing expert according to 1.
3. The report under 1. has to include the concerns regarding to the development of Laura by the Gerechthof Arnhem.
4. Ruling
The court extends the supervision of Laura Dekker until 1 August 2010, supervision by [Stichting Bureau] Jeugdzorg at Utrecht.
This ruling is to be executed from now on.
The request by Laura Dekker and her father for cancelling the supervision is rejected.
The next hearing will take place at July 20 2010 at 1.30 pm; the
lawsuit regarding the decision about Laura´s sailing trip is halted up
to then.
A copy of this ruling is to be handen out to each party.
The court of Middelburg
[signed by the involved judges]
Middelburg, 17 June 2010
Ruling, June 17, 2010
 |
| Laura Dekker - Legal Challenge Photo credit: ? |
R U L I N G
Thomas Weber
The Legal Challenge
In the past Laura Dekker already had problems with Netherland
authorities caused by her sailing solo. According to her mother there
was a lot of trouble with the police and other authorities. By this time
Laura was 10.
In May 2009 13 year old Laura sailed singlehanded
from Ijmuiden, Netherland, to Lowestoft, England. There was no nice
welcome for her: The local authorities were "not amused" about a young
girl who sails without being accompained by a grownup. They took her
under care and forced her father to come to England and ordered him to
accompain her during the sailing trip back to Ijmuiden. Her father came -
and let her sail back alone.
In June 2009 Laura announced her
solocircumnavigation-plans. Due to the need of sponsors Laura put a
website on the internet. A Dutch newspaper brought the story about her
and within a short periode of time Laura fond herself in a bizzarre
discussion. The major subject is: Has the state a duty to intervene in
cases of riskful plans of minors even when these plans are supported by
their parents.
The Youth Welfare Departmend opinion: Lauras
plans must be stopped. Immediately. They requested the court of Utrecht
to take Laura away from her father and put her under the care of the
states Youth Welfare Departmend.
In the Netherlands there are two
organisations: On the one hand "Stichting Bureau Jeugdzorg" and on the
other hand the "Raad voor de Kinderbescherming". Both departments
cooperate. In the following text only the phrase Youth Welfare
Departmend will be used.
In late August 2009 the court denies
the request by the Youth Welfare Department but puts Lauras plans to a
halt by ordering supervision for Laura and her father. The court also
orders a detailed examination of Laura including investigations of her
sailing-skills and many other assumptions, physically and mentally, for
her circumnavigation. These examinations were concluded by mid of
October 2009.
Based on the results of this examinations the court ruled out the following on 30 October 2009:
Laura will stay under supervision until 1 July 2010. She has to improve her plans and the following conditions have to be met:
1. Detailed arrangements with the "Wereldschool" ["Worldschool", school
for Netherlands children that life in foreign countries and who are
taught by their parents] have to be made.
2. An Agreement from the authorities for following the schooling by the "Wereldschool" is required.
3. Laura has to get more experience in solo-sailing and has to practice with the new safety- and navigation equipment.
4. Laura has to follow a first aid course.
5. Laura has to plan and practice sleepmanagement.
6. A detailed safety-plan in cooperation with an by the Raad voor de
kinderbescherming (Youth welfare department) choosen expert for sailing
has to be worked out.
7. A list of emergency-harbours has to be worked out.
8. A plan for communication with the shore-team has to be worked out.
9. A plan showing the necessary steps to guarantee savety in the harbours has to be worked out.
10. An overview of the members and the method of working of the shoreteam has to be set up.
11. There must be an auxilliary power-unit on the boat.
12. Laura must develop skills in solving problems.
13. An agreement by Lauras mother to the whole plan is required.
14. Agreement and support by Lauras father is required.
From Lauras point of view some of the conditions are not to meet. Laura
saw her chance to start her voyage before she turned 18 fading.
According to her family Laura fell into a deep depression that got worse
with every day.
On 20 December 2009 afternoon, after nearly two
month of hearing nothing about her in the media, she was in the news
again: "Laura Dekker is missing". After a thread by the Youth Welfare
Departmend that she might be taken away from her father she ran away.
Later that day Laura was found savely on the carribean island Sint
Maarten. On 22 Decembre she was returned to the Netherlands.
The
Youth Welfare Departmend requested the court of Utrecht again to take
Laura away from her father. After an unsucessful try of Lauras lawyer to
get other judges for this decision (the judges that had to decide about
the new request by the Youth Welfare Department were the same that
already ruled about Laura in October), a kind of christmas-miracle
happend to Laura: On 23 December the court of Utrecht denied the request
and even found himself of being partly guilty over Lauras bad
situation. The court also ordered the Youth Welfare Departmend and
Lauras father to cooperate in a more serious way. There was also a
review of the conditions by the court to make them reachable for Laura.
Unfortunately this appendix to the ruling is not accessible on the
internet.
Nevertheless Laura and her father decided in
early 2010 to appeal to the ruling of the court of Utrecht from 30
October 2009. A hearing about this took place on 6 April 2010. On 4 May
the Gerechthof Arnhem denied this appeal. Otherwise Laura would have
been free. In between Laura and her father decided to buy a bigger boat
to meet the conditions in a much easier way. They also moved from the
district of Utrecht to the district of Zeeland.
On 2 June 2010
the court of Middelburg, which is now appropriate for this case,
announced that the Youth Welfare Departmend requested an extension of
the supervision of Laura. The decisive hearing took place on 14 June.
On 17 June the court of Middelburg extended the supervision of Laura
until 1 August 2010 but denied the request of the Youth Welfare
Department who had asked for a two month extension. The reason for this
decision is that the plan for Laura´s circumnavigation was handed in too
late (during the hearing on 14 June). They also gave orders to the
Youth Welfare Department to investigate about the concerns that the
Gerechthof Arnhem came up with.
The next hearing is on 20 July at 1.30 pm.
Thomas Weber
Thomas Weber
POSSIBLE DECISIONS
by the court of Middelburg
regarding the solo-circumnavigation
of Laura Dekker
Decision:
Supervision over Laura to be extended for two month.
Reason:
New examination(s) required. Results from 2009 are too old due to many changes in Laura´s life during the last half year.
Consequences:
With positive results Start in 2010 is still possible. Negative results could lead to another extension of the supervision.
Decision:
Supervision over Laura extended until summer 2011.
Reason:
Conditions not met.
Consquence:
No start in 2010.
Decision:
Supervision over Laura extended until summer 2011.
Reasons:
The conditions set up by the court of Utrecht are not obligatory to the
court of Middelburg. It is possible that the judges of the Middelburg
court see this lawsuit in a completely different way as their colleagues
at Utrecht. There has not been a case like that before. All the
conditions that were layed down for Laura are from the court of Utrechts
judges point of view. There is chance that the law that allows a
supervision is interpreted in a different way by the court of
Middelburg´s judges. Laura might has met all the conditions but would
not be allowed to sail.
Consequence:
No start in 2010.
Decision:
Supervision over Laura extended until summer 2011.
Reasons:
Conditions of the court of Utrecht maybe met but overruled by the the Gerechthof Arnhem´s decision of 4 May 2010.
It is not clear if this decision is obligatory to the court of Middelburg (precedent).
Consequences:
No start in 2010.
Decision:
Laura is taken away from her father.
Reason:
Laura´s health and development cannot be guaranteed when she continues living with her father who supports her and dream.
-Decision very unlikely-
To keep in mind:
Time is working against Laura! Each (tactical) request by Laura or her
lawer to the court may cause a delay that might prevent her from
starting her trip in 2010. Appointment of an own sailing-expert would
take too much time and maybe to much money.
"Hoger beroep" (appeal
to the Gerechhof Arnhem) was a fault, too. The court of Middelburg gave
order to Jeugdzorg to investigate the concerns that the Gerechthof
Arnheim brought up regarding Laura´s development. Jeugdzorg did not want
to use this arguments against Laura (see ruling court of Middelburg
3.10.)
Thomas Weber
Thomas Weber
R U L I N G
by the
COURT OF UTRECHT
about the
SUPERVISION
over
LAURA DEKKER
LJN: BK1598, Rechtbank Utrecht , 272995 / JE RK 09-2115
30 October 2009
Synopis
SUPERVISION
over
Laura Dekker (original: [child]), born [place] on [date],
as child of
her father [living place]
represented by Mr. P.A. de Lange, Barendrecht
her mother [living place].
1. Procedure
Lawsuit to be continued by the reason of rulings by the court of Utrecht of 28 August and 8 September 2009.
Hand in of several documents (14 October - 26 October 2009).
Hearing at 26 October 2009 (no public access).
2. Assessment
Conclusion of the facts
2.1.
Laura´s parents are divorced since 2002. Since that she is living with
her father. Both parents are responsible for her. Laura has a passion
for sailing. She wants to make a world-circumnavigation.
2.2.
Raad voor Kinderbescherming [further to be named: Youth Welfare
Department]: Laura´s planned world-circumnavigation is a serious thread
for her life and her development.
2.3.
On 28 August 2009 the court of Utrecht ordered a supervision for Laura.
Facts for the assessment
2.4.
Citation from the law regarding the presuppositions for the supervision over a child.
2.5.
The court is using the following sources for the assessment
- A by the Youth Welfare Department handed in examination of a seasoned sailor [NN]
- the facts that were handed in and expressed by Laura and her father,
their lawer and Laura´s mother [and handed in documents].
2.6.
The Youth Welfare Department layed down six points of concern about Laura´s planned journey:
SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT
2.7.
In most regards Laura is an average 14 year old girl. There are unusual characteristics in her personality.
2.8.
In the Youth Welfare Department´s opinion those unusual characteristics
will lead to a serious thread for Laura during journey.
2.9. - 2.10.
The court is not sharing this opinion (2.8.). No serious thread for Laura will be caused by this during her journey.
SCHOOLING
2.11.
In the Youth Welfare Department´s opinion the journey of Laura will be a thread for her schooling.
2.12.
According to the examination by a psychologist it is possible for Laura
to manage her schooling during her journey without being supervised by a
grownup. The report by the psychologist describes Laura as disciplined,
intelligent etc.
2.13.
According to the court there
is a thread for Laura´s schooling because no concrete arrangements were
made with the Wereldschool [Worldschool; offers internet-based schooling
for Netherland-children in foreign countries].
Conclusion of the court: there is a thread for Laura´s schooling.
SECURITY AND ABILITY TO SOLUTE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS DURING THE JOURNEY
2.14.
There are no doubts regarding Laura´s sailing-abilities by the court and the Youth Welfare Department.
There are several points that are in doubt:
- Experience of Laura in solosailing.
She sailed on Neterlands lakes, rivers, the Ijsselmeer; the mud-flats,
the north sea and did one solo-sailingtrip to England and back.
According to th court her experience is limited.
- She has not suceeded in first aid.
- She has no experience with sleepmanagement.
- The security-plan is not properly worked out. Missing: a list with
safe harbours in case of on-sea-emergency; there is no plan about the
communication with the shore; there are no plans how safety will be
guaranteed in harbours; there is no information about an auxilliary
power-unit on board of her boat.
2.15.
According to
the psychologist there was only little insight given by Laura how she
would solve technical problems that might face her during her journey.
Guess: due to a lack of experience Laura is not aware of problems that
might face her.
The court agrees to the Youth Welfare
Department that the lack of security and missing experience with solving
technical problems are indeed threads for Laura´s psychical and
physical health.
INTERIM RESULT
2.16.
There are no threads regarding Laura´s personality development.
There are threads regarding Laura´s security, schooling due to her
missing ability to solve technical problems during her journey.
2.17.
In between (28 August - 30 October 2009) there were some new
developments. Question by the court: Is a supervision still necessary?
2.18.
[New facts]
1. Statement by Laura during the hearing on 26 October: She wants to
adjourn her journey until July 2010 due to the fact that she finds it
now necessary to do arrangements with the Wereldschool, get more
experience in solosailing, follow a first aid course, practice
sleepmanagement and work out a security-plan.
2. An accompany by another boat is suggested by Laura.
3. There will be additional navigation gadgets installed to her boat
4. Her mother will agree to her journey if she will be accompained (see 2.).
2.19.
The Court´s opinion
The expressions and/or arrangements regarding the improvement of
security are not concrete enough; there is still a serios thread for
Laura´s health.
There is no insight regarding a possible shore-team
No concrete arrangements were made regarding the accompany by Laura by another boat.
There are no concrete plans regarding the following of a first aid
course by Laura and it is not clear if her father supports this.
There are no concrete plans for learning sleepmanagement by Laura and it is not clear if her father supports this.
No concrete arrangements were made with the Wereldschool regarding Laura´s schooling.
No concrete arrangements were made with Laura´s mother.
The security plan is not concrete enough.
There is no improvement regarding the security of Laura during her journey.
Comment by the court: In Laura´s father´s opinion Laura was ready to
start her journey by end of September 2009; "Actually there isn´t
anything that Laura has to learn yet". Comment sharp critizised.
Laura´s statement for suspending of her trip would show that she finds herself being not ready for it yet.
JUDGEMENT
2.20.
1. Supervision for Laura until 1 July 2010
2. The Youth Welfare Department has to watch that Laura won´t start her journey until she´s really ready for it
3. The supervision might be cancelled by request from the Youth Welfare Department or Laura´s parents.
3. RULING
Supervision for Laura until 1 July 2010
This ruling is to be executed from now on.
All further requests are denied.
The court of Utrecht
[signed by the involved judges]
Utrecht, 30 October 2009
Thomas Weber
45N73W
FINAL JUDGEMENT in case LAURA DEKKER 27th of july 2010,
Rechtspraak.nl - Ondertoezichtstelling Laura Dekker (14-jarige zeilster) met onmiddellijke ingang op
www.rechtspraak.nl
Middelburg, 27 juli 2010 – De rechtbank Middelburg heeft dinsdag 27
juli 2010 beslist om de ondertoezichtstelling van Laura Dekker met
onmiddellijke ingang op te heffen.De rechtbank stelt vast dat de Raad
voor de Kinderbescherming, Jeugdzorg en de ad
Thank you Thomas.
Posted by 45N73W
45N73W
Thomas Weber
An official synopsis of the judgement in English
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Middelburg/Nieuws/Pages/Supervision-order-of-Laura-Dekker-withdrawn-with-immediate-effect.aspx
Thomas Weber
