Nathalie Gettliffe stays in jail
Nathalie Gettliffe was sentenced tonight to a term that means she will spend a further six months in jail.
The sentence was 16 months. I know little more about a decision that naturally disappoints me and confounds those confident Canadian voices that spoke of a likely release.
In particular, I do not know how the sentence squares with the "credit" scheme for time spent in custody awaiting trial.
It appears that the judge made allowance for only part of the time served. She (the judge) did not, however, go as far as urged by the prosecution, which wanted a sentence that would have kept Gettliffe incarcerated - with or without baby son - for a further 14 months
Gettliffe's continued detention, wrong as I keep saying she was to abduct two of her children in a bitter matrimonial/custody dispute, seems to me to be of value to no one. And least of all does it appear to serve the interests of the children the courts repeatedly said were their main concern.
When I do know more, I will have more to say, though I may wish to wait for more information about the sentencing hearing.
Oh, and the flagship 8pm news programme of France's private TF1 channel was only 15 or 20 minutes behind me with the news.
Labels: baby, British Columbia, Canada, child custody, jail, judges, pregnant, prison, Scott Grant, TF1, Vancouver
By Colin Randall @ Monday, December 04, 2006 ¦
5 Comments:
I only caught the end of the news saying that she might be transfered to France to work out her sentence and that the children would stay with their father until they are old enough to decide in which country they wish to live.
I'd heard about the prison transfer possibility, but the TF1 report also said the future was far from clear.
Including the time served from April 11th the sentence, probation, and restrictions on visition that will be placed upon Ms Gettliffe, compounded by the distance from British Columbia to France, Nathalie Gettliffe's children Jose and Max will be effectively punished by the British Columbia Court by their separation from their mother for four years and 2 months. Whether or not it was the intent to punish the children Judge Koenigsberg, as a representative of the British Columbia legal system has scucceeded in doing just that. If the courts intent was to heal the wounds of the childrens separation fom their father its action taken against Ms. Gettliffe have guaranteed that the pain for all consider will continue. Preferring revenge Judge Koenigberg abjured mercy and the best interest of everyone concerned and chose punishment and seperation for Ms Getliffe and her children and almost certainly guaranteed, when they receive all of the facts of the case, that they will indeed continue to hate their father. The quality of mercy has been strained, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been chosen by Canada. Shame! Canada..
Can she appeal? Should she appeal?
As far as the children are concerned, I imagine much depends when they are allowed to make their own choice - is it 18 or can they choose earlier? I believe that children can now take a lawyer to plead their case in such circumstances. This may sound silly, but as a divorced Mum, my children fortunately or unfortunately had to grow up much quicker than children from a two parent home and at the age of 12-13 were more than capable of deciding who they wanted to live with - this of course may change later on and courts should take this into consideration - no child should be obliged to live with one parent all their life if both parents can offer more or less the same stability, but we come back to the black and nasty side of divorce where most parents are too busy nursing their own egos instead of worrying about helping their children to develop into strong adults.
The Gettliffe posting went through several changes as more news filtered through, leaving Bill's comment looking as though he was attacking something I hadn't said. Apologies. In fact, successive judges in this case, and the prosecutor, made pointed reference to the affront to Canada's system of justice that her actions represented. Or should that be systems, to take account of other provinces where courts reach decisions Bill chooses not to defend?
Post a Comment
<< Home