9 minutes ago, Retfed50 said:

<snip>

We are still missing some info such as who the legal custodial parent is, and the age of the child. The Hague Convention only applies to children under the age of 16.

According to UK newspaper reports Mr. Smith was granted temporary sole custody in UK past FEB before traveling to Thailand. The boy is now 10 or 11.

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by JLCrab

A racist troll post has been removed

So, lets see... he has already kidnapped a Thai child and left him with his grandmother in UK instead of letting the child growing up with his mother in Thailand and now he is trying the same thing again... lock him up and trow away the key! At least that is the way the Thai court probably see it, the mother is seen as more valuable to the child than a sexpat!
 

This could be worse than stealing someone's lottery ticket.

17 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

He needed to domesticate the UK custody order in Thailand.  There's no reciprocity treaty as Thailand is not a member of the Hague Convention (due to being on the wrong side in WW2).  He would probably need to go through a child custody court trial in Thailand.  Instead, he took a shortcut commonly known as "parental kidnapping".  There's no self-help remedy for recovering a child in a country that hasn't recognized your legal custody.  No bail for you and no sympathy from me.

Sometimes laws need to be broken. Sometimes law have no moral or ethical basis. In this case, I side with Sean. He was doing great work. There is a good chance this child was being neglected. Alot of Thai parents possess very minimal skill when it comes to parenting. A big generalization I admit, but I have seen it often.

 

Erdington MP Jack Dromey, who was instrumental in returning Mariam to Britain, voiced his concern.

He said: “There are many families reunited thanks to Sean Felton. And the biggest smile I have ever seen belonged to Miriam. I am deeply concerned by the news you’ve given me.”

 

Can you even imagine what it is like to be in a Thai prison, this time of year? I cannot even imagine being in my house this time of year, without AC. Damn. A very nasty vision. If he is only being held for trespassing, which it sounds like is the case here, there is no way on earth he should be a prison, with the general population. Way, way too much. Overkill. Draconian. Nasty. 

Why is he in Sakhon Nakhon Jail?

Couldn't be further from Bkk. You do time in the jail where you get nicked here.

"Don't get involved as you will be blamed". Guess he didn't read the "how to survive living in Thailand" memo.

If he broke the law he has to pay, period. I have no problems with that...except when Thai Hi Soc. dude breaks the law it's bend down and kiss their boots time.

I watched the accompanying video with the unrelated story of Sean's previous 'work,' and am curious about it.  A young girl named Miriam has been reunited with her mom, but Miriam seems off a bit.  Is it culture shock?  What's the story there?  She has a very glazed look and doesn't utter a word during the entire piece. 

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by falangjim
clarification

Sure he breaks the Thai law. And he knows that. No complaints please. Better stay in painting and decorating.

30 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Sometimes laws need to be broken. Sometimes law have no moral or ethical basis.<snip>

Thank you Henry David Thoreau. I do not think the two were not attempting some moral civil disobedience. I just think they thought, if they were fast enough, they could pull off another abductee return legally or otherwise.

 

I also think there may be some extenuating circumstances as to how the two might have reacted to their being held at the BKK airport and their subsequent return to SakNak where trespassing charges were levied that contribute to their current circumstances. Waiving UK documents in the face of Thai Immigration police and claiming that they had the right to enter a private residence to retrieve a UK passport maybe would not win them any sympathies from the Thai officialdom.

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by JLCrab

18 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

He needed to domesticate the UK custody order in Thailand.  There's no reciprocity treaty as Thailand is not a member of the Hague Convention (due to being on the wrong side in WW2).  He would probably need to go through a child custody court trial in Thailand.  Instead, he took a shortcut commonly known as "parental kidnapping".  There's no self-help remedy for recovering a child in a country that hasn't recognized your legal custody.  No bail for you and no sympathy from me.

You are spot on except I have sympathy for him but more for the boy. The father and charity helper committed a crime in Thailand knowingly and as a judge I would deny bail as they are a flight risk and came to this country to illegally steal a young son. I use the word steal because that is what they attempted to do. If the mother stole the boy from UK then you have to use the courts of Thailand and UK to get him back. You cannot just steal him back. Feel for the boy. Two parents who are not thinking about the boy but about themselves. I am sure the dads UK lawyer warned him to not try to steal the boy if the dad told the lawyer his plans. The  charity man that is in the business of encouraging illegal kidnapping of kids is rightfully in a Thai jail and hope he stays there for a couple years. 

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by Wake Up

18 hours ago, YetAnother said:

the new.modern thailand; 0.4

 

This case and its circumstances have absolutely nothing to do with Thailand 4.0.

 

4 hours ago, greenchair said:

He's not been convicted, confiscation of his passport is standard. The child is British. She'll end up a hooker on a pole before she is 16 if she remains here. 

Half cast children with only the Thai parent, are not accepted and don't do well in Thailand. The man had full custody by the courts of the child. The mother abducted her illegally. 

Quote "The child is British. She'll end up a hooker on a pole before she is 16 if she remains here" I find your words pretty offensive, don't paint the whole population with the same ignorant brush. Seems you have a very narrow view of Thai people.

18 hours ago, YetAnother said:

the new.modern thailand; 0.4

Modern by 1632 standards perhaps?

"Let no good deed go unpunished."

Then on the other hand, "Two wrongs don't make a right." 
This is an issue for the courts.  So mom grabbed the child, and in turn, dad grabbed the child - then got caught by the authorities doing so.  I'm sure in the minds of the two men in jail, they were engaging in moral relativism: "England is a developed country so England is a better place for the child, and hence, kidnapping is justified."  However - it's illegal to do what they did and they got caught.  Kidnapping is kidnapping regardless of how you dress it up.

However much it totally sucks, it is a legal issue that should have gone to court.  Without the courts and laws on the books regarding parental abduction, estranged parents would simply use their children as weapons to hurt their estranged spouses.

And Mr. Felton is not a 'Hero', he is a kidnapper - regardless of how he justifies it in his own mind, or how the UK and Western media spins the story.

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by connda

17 hours ago, Get Real said:

As a former chef, all I have to say. Don´t put your fingers in another chefs soup.

So you'd put your fingers in the soup you made yourself? Handy to know.

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

So you'd put your fingers in the soup you made yourself? Handy to know.

I am just sorry to read the decay of intelligence. Didn´t you see the underlying meaning with my expression related to the news article, then I can only feel sorry for you.

4 minutes ago, connda said:

"Let no good deed go unpunished."

Then on the other hand, "Two wrongs don't make a right." 
This is an issue for the courts.  So mom grabbed the child, and in turn, dad grabbed the child - then got caught by the authorities doing so.  I'm sure in the minds of the two men in jail, they were engaging in moral relativism: "England is a developed country so England is a better place for the child, and hence, kidnapping is justified."  However - it's illegal to do what they did and they got caught.  Kidnapping is kidnapping regardless of how you dress it up.

However much it totally sucks, it is a legal issue that should have gone to court.  Without the courts and laws on the books regarding parental abduction, estranged parents would simply use their children as weapons to hurt their estranged spouses.

 

The father is Scottish actually, and lives in Scotland and the temporary custody order he received in his favor was granted by a Scottish Sheriffs Court. 

 

Interesting that the British authorities, not for the first time, allow a parent to take a child overseas when they shouldn't. Whereas the Thai authorities are seemingly a little more vigilant. 

 

However, they were acting illegally, which whilst allowing for the emotions, is still never a good idea. Even though we know Thai law can be very selective and variable whenever it suits. 

18 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

He needed to domesticate the UK custody order in Thailand.  There's no reciprocity treaty as Thailand is not a member of the Hague Convention (due to being on the wrong side in WW2).  He would probably need to go through a child custody court trial in Thailand.  Instead, he took a shortcut commonly known as "parental kidnapping".  There's no self-help remedy for recovering a child in a country that hasn't recognized your legal custody.  No bail for you and no sympathy from me.

You are incorrect. Thailand is a member of the Hague Convention since 2012. And since the divorce was done in the UK, the Thai court has no standing to hear the case. 

28 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The father is Scottish actually, and lives in Scotland and the temporary custody order he received in his favor was granted by a Scottish Sheriffs Court. 

 

Interesting that the British authorities, not for the first time, allow a parent to take a child overseas when they shouldn't. Whereas the Thai authorities are seemingly a little more vigilant. 

 

However, they were acting illegally, which whilst allowing for the emotions, is still never a good idea. Even though we know Thai law can be very selective and variable whenever it suits. 

Like a said, it sucks.  My 18 month old daughter was awarded to my wife who was an alcoholic and drug addict.  At that time, courts always awarded children to the mother unless the father could proved the mother unfit.  Substance abuse was basically my word against hers.  So she had my daughter for the next ten years until she screwed up, and I was awarded custody by the state.  I didn't go kidnap my daughter regardless of how justified I would have been in the act.  Without legal mechanisms between Scotland and Thailand, then the father is unfortunately simply out of luck.  Like I had to accept an unfit ex-wife getting custody of my daughter, the father would have been better off to simply accept that his only recourse was the Thai courts, and attempt to negotiate a custody agreement.  But he believed he was justified to kidnap the child who now resides within the Thai legal system.  I feel for him, but I don't condone what he or his fellow kidnapper did.  He made a bet, he lost, and now he faces the Thai judicial system that is now squarely aimed at he and Mr. Felton.  It's a sad story, but they had other options.

Edited March 20, 20188 yr by connda

24 minutes ago, spermwhale said:

You are incorrect. Thailand is a member of the Hague Convention since 2012. And since the divorce was done in the UK, the Thai court has no standing to hear the case. 

Nope, you still have to go to court, even under the International Civil Cooperation on the Breach of Rights of Custody Act, B.E. 2555 (2012), also known as the Thailand Child Abduction Act. 

http://www.tilleke.com/resources/thailand-child-abduction-act-legal-recourse-parents

1 minute ago, connda said:

Like a said, it sucks.  My 18 month old daughter was awarded to my wife who was an alcoholic and drug addict.  At that time, courts always awarded children to the mother unless the father could proved the mother unfit.  Substance abuse was basically my word against hers.  So she had my daughter for the next ten years until she screwed up, and I was awarded custody by the state.  I didn't go kidnap my daughter regardless of how justified I would have been in the act.  Without legal mechanisms between Scotland and Thailand, then the father is unfortunately simply out of luck.  Like I had to accept an unfit ex-wife getting custody of my daughter, the father would have been better off to simply accept that his only recourse was the Thai courts, and attempt to negotiate a custody agreement.  But he believed he was justified to kidnap the child who now resides within the Thai legal system.  I feel for him, but I don't condone what he or his fellow kidnapper did.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your past problems. My ex moved my daughter to Malaysia where her then boyfriend had retired too. Would have been difficult to contest that at the time, having taken legal advice. She then made it as difficult and awkward as possible to maintain contact and providing information. I only regained contact when my daughter was at university and things go slow now of course. 

 

Thailand has signed up to the appropriate Hague convention and going through the courts was the correct way. Had the father been wealthy, and/or connected, I'm sure he'd be back home with his son by now. But for most, courts are a slow, expensive and often not quite what you expect experience. Whilst I understand his frustrations and emotions, trying to snatch someone isn't the answer.

5 hours ago, greenchair said:

He's not been convicted, confiscation of his passport is standard. The child is British. She'll end up a hooker on a pole before she is 16 if she remains here. 

Half cast children with only the Thai parent, are not accepted and don't do well in Thailand. The man had full custody by the courts of the child. The mother abducted her illegally. 

Haven't read the post? The child is a boy his son not a girl.

21 hours ago, greenchair said:

I don't understand why he would not have been given bail? ?

Maybe he couldn't raise it?  Maybe he's considered a flight risk?

21 hours ago, seajae said:

who has legal custody of the child,  the mother or father, lot of info not included in this so its a bit hard to see who is the one at fault. If the father has been granted legal custody and  the mother abducted the child then she should be in jail, again really poor reporting but what can we expect

Yes, poor reporting from the Birmingham Mail.

1 hour ago, the guest said:

Quote "The child is British. She'll end up a hooker on a pole before she is 16 if she remains here" I find your words pretty offensive, don't paint the whole population with the same ignorant brush. Seems you have a very narrow view of Thai people.

A view through a narrow door in a go-go bar most likely.

1 hour ago, Get Real said:

I am just sorry to read the decay of intelligence. Didn´t you see the underlying meaning with my expression related to the news article, then I can only feel sorry for you.

 The decay of intelligence you refer to consists of making a statement which is open to more than one interpretation.

I feel sorry for anyone who takes themselves so seriously they can't recognise a leg-pull.

5 hours ago, greenchair said:

He's not been convicted, confiscation of his passport is standard. The child is British. She'll end up a hooker on a pole before she is 16 if she remains here. 

Half cast children with only the Thai parent, are not accepted and don't do well in Thailand. The man had full custody by the courts of the child. The mother abducted her illegally. 

"She'll end up a hooker on a pole before she is 16 if she remains here. 

Half cast children with only the Thai parent, are not accepted and don't do well in Thailand".

.

 

Geez...don't some people talk absolute b ollocks?  Why do you choose to use a derogatory term such as half-caste when you can't even spell it?  Do you know what it means?

Just don't  understand it. Is the fact that the laws in Thailand are only applicable to Non Thais . looks that way .