Report of Dr.
Dan Sharon Ph.D.
Member of the board of the Association for Child Protection, Member of the board of
the Council For The Welfare Of The Child,
Psychotherapist, Certified Family Therapist & Supervisor
Family, Marital, Sex Therapy, Stress and Crisis Intervention
26 Hashaked Street, Neve Savion, Or Yehuda 60407
Tel.: 03-634 4666, FAX 03-634 4888, E-MAIL: sharon1@ccag.fau.ac.il
Biography and accomplishments of Dr. Dan
Sharon Ph.D.
11.28.99.
The Dolberg Children:
Perspective On The Rights Of The Children According To The UN Convention For The Rights Of
The Child
The case of the Dolberg children was brought to me by
the representative of the mother of the minors, attorney Samuel Moran, for the purpose of
my stating an opinion about the extent of breach of child rights under the Convention.
I perused the court verdicts given in Israel, the
verdict given in Italy, the many expert opinions given in Italy by various psychologists
and the protocols of the statements of the girls in the courts in Israel and Genoa.
From the material given me, it is clear to me that the mother is in breach of the Hague
Convention by her kidnapping the children and taking them from one country to another. She
herself violated basic principles of child rights.
At the same time, from the moment - because of the Hague Convention - the children were
returned to the country they were unlawfully taken from, in this case, Italy, and from the
moment of the commencement of the legal processes regarding custody and visiting
arrangements, a violation on the part of one of the parents of the rights of the child
does not justify or allow a continuing violation on the part of the other.
It should also be remembered that the provisions of the Hague Convention for a kidnapped
child seek the welfare of the child and the improvement of its situation, and therefore,
the object of extradition is not penal but to enable examination of what is best for the
child by accepted methods, as well as custody and visiting arrangements. There is no
intention to create territorial “advantage” in this respect or any other.
The material given me raises questions and a need for clarification in many issues
regarding the way due process under the Convention was observed. We refer to the issue of
child rights in general and the rights of the particular child under discussion.
The material given me indicates blatant violation of several principles of the UN
Convention For The Right Of The Child. Moreover, as one who deals in Israel with children
in divorce cases, assessment of parental ability, and recommendations for custody and
visiting arrangements, I also have a large
number of questions regarding the objects and efficiency of the assessment process
adopted.
We will mention all these queries in the following paragraphs.
The center of what I fail to understand is the protocol of the Italian court ruling. But
we will also refer to other documents which have been given to me.
I am aware that I am limited by the fact that I have not met the children or their
parents. My statements are based only on the written material I have been provided with.
If I were asked to become professionally involved in this matter, I would be very happy to
do so, for the documents show the implications of the case involve great risk to the
welfare of the child, that the welfare of the child is being sacrificed in consequence of
the conflicts of adults.
It is clear to me that if I had the possibility of examining the matter first hand, I
would have a fuller and more reliable picture. At the same time, the written material
itself prompts astonishment and many thoughts about the welfare and place of the children
in the course of the legal process.
1. The material I have been presented with contains positions and opinions which go
against paragraph 2(2) of the Convention insofar as they penalize and discriminate against
the religious beliefs of the mother. Paragraph 2(2) states:
Member countries shall take every measure appropriate
to guaranteeing that the child shall be protected against any form of discrimination or
punishment on account of the position, activities or beliefs of the parents of the child,
its legal guardian or family.
In the light of my clinical experience with various population groups in Israel, it seems
to me that it is forbidden to classify the religious beliefs of the mother and the
religious lifestyle she chose as those of a “cult” in the negative sense of a
following with sinister, bizarre practices. Moreover, it does not seem to me that those
who are responsible for this dismissive labeling are aware of or even tried to become
aware of the anthropological aspects of the mother’s religious following before they
labeled her lifestyle as that of a mad cult with psychopathological trends.
Precisely in a situation in which the two parents have and are making for themselves
changes in their lifestyles, both geographically and spiritually, resulting in their
children being exposed to a significant cultural experience, it would have been in place
to appoint a multi-cultured team to gather learned and objective information about the
nature of the various cultures involved and their implications for the welfare of the
children.
I found in the material positions which define the belief of the mother in terms of
primitive cults. It should have been important that the panel responsible for analysis and
recommendation include a person with a professional knowledge of the culture of the mother
who would be able to define the differences between religious-cultural values and
psychopathology.
2. Paragraph 4 of the Convention states:
Member countries shall adopt appropriate steps, legislative, procedural or otherwise, to
implement the rights recognized by this convention. Regarding economic, social and
cultural rights, member countries shall adopt said means to the fullest extent possible
given the resources available to them and where necessary in the framework of
international co-operation.
In the present case, legal proceedings are being conducted in Italian courts while the
family members are Israeli citizens. So the question arises what level of co-operation is
there between Israel and Italy to secure the rights of the child as required by the
Convention? And: what qualified persons have been appointed for this international
dialogue should involved issues, questions, and arrangements arise re the protection of
the rights of the child?
3. Paragraph 8(1) of the Convention determines:
Member countries undertake to respect the right of the
child to preserve his identity, including citizenship, name, family ties as recognized by
the law, and this without illegal interference.
Paragraph 8(2) notes that where the child has been deprived of components of his
identity or all of them, member countries shall supply appropriate aid and protection to
restore the child’s identity as soon as possible.
The material I have read provokes the need to question the orders regarding communication
with the grandparents, and talking with the mother in Hebrew. (If there were grounds for
suspecting any abuse, supervised visitation could have been imposed rather than ruling out
above.)
Since the maternal grandparents are non-religious, the claim of the adverse influence of
extreme religiousness, made in the case of the mother, does not apply. The bar on their
visits is, therefore, all the more surprising.
4. Paragraph 9(3) determines that
Member countries shall respect the right of the child separated from its parents or one of
them to maintain personal relations and direct contact with the two parents, unless this
is against the interests of the child.
The material provided me indicates that at various stages child and parent were
hermetically separated, although I am not aware of causes for this representing protection
of the interests of the child.
Moreover, the material indicates that taking into account where the meetings were held and
who was present, they did not have neutral setting allowing the girls to talk naturally
and harmoniously. They would have felt obliged to weigh up their words lest they be
accused of passing on information to an interested party. A meeting of this type creates
stress and does not provide for reasonable and advantageous relations with the parent.
This applies even more when there is already a conflict of loyalties.
5. Paragraph 12(1)(2) of the Convention determines the right of the child to be heard,
declare and express its opinion appropriate to the child’s evolving capacities. In
the present case, it is not clear to what extent the girls were allowed this right, and if
it was given, how much their opinion counted in considering their welfare.
The Italian court’s ruling fixed that the desire of the girls is neither relevant nor
authentic. “Not relevant” is a sweeping statement. It is all the more remarkable
inasmuch as it is unqualified in the spirit of paragraph 12(1)(2) of the Convention. Let
us also note that the girls are at a stage from the point of view of age and evolving
capacities where their opinion about their future and their fate in the light of the acute
conflict of their parents is super relevant since the outcome of this conflict will
determine the country in which they live, their religion, language, culture and their link
with their parents for all that that implies including the court ruling for their future.
Studies on the issue of mastery point to the importance of the protected intervention of
the children in divorce proceedings, that is, their ability to express their view and
bring influence to bear inasmuch as after the divorce, the child should not feel a
definitively outside mastery focus, according to which he loses his mastery, as well as
having minimal, partial resources with which to live his life.
As for authenticity - authenticity is not a sub-category of relevance. First one hears the
child. Afterwards there are accepted clinical methods for measuring authenticity.
Suspicion of lack of authenticity (and whether the parents in the case are more authentic
than the children) does not make the statements of the children irrelevant. On the
contrary, determining the remarks of the child as inauthentic, for example in consequence
of incitement, make them super relevant.
6. Paragraph 14 speaks of the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. In the present case, I heard various claims about various violations affecting
the freedom of the girls’ expression of their religious and traditional customs.
Here, it was not clear to me to what extent the court had cultural knowledge so as to
understand the girls’ customs or to be able to resolve the cultural conflicts
involved without damaging the right of the girls. It seems here that the court lacked this
knowledge; or even if the court had such knowledge, it did not manifest itself in its
verdict which - at least in its written form - does not provide reasons for decisions,
neither on this issue nor any other.
7. Paragraph 18 of the Convention speaks of the principle of the joint responsibility of
the two parents for bringing up their children. It is unclear why there was a plea to
rescind the legal motherhood of the mother and how this can be reconciled with the spirit
of the Convention. In this country at least, denial of a parent’s legal parenthood
(as opposed to right of custody) is ruled only in extreme cases where highly convincing
proof is adduced of the inability of the parent to the point of the parent being a real
danger to the child. After examination of the material I was given, I was unable to
discern that the mother represents such a danger. However, if there was such a danger,
what, it must be asked, were the clinical findings and methods adopted to prove such a
danger?
8. As one who is engaged with supplying opinions to courts about custody and visiting
arrangements, it is not clear to me why there has not - as is the practice in cases of
this kind - been until now a comprehensive evaluative diagnosis to include examination of
the parental ability of the two parents, clinical interviews, observation of
parent-children interaction. Beyond considerations of the Hague Convention, it does not
seem to me that therehas been a comprehensive evaluation of this type.
The material reveals a trend to selective analysis, by
means of unrelated methods, of various aspects of the family setup.
Beyond estimating the parental ability of the two
parents and examining parent-child interaction, as above, it would have been in place to
interview the family as a unit in its present situation even when it is strained and
loaded. An analyst could have even more used family dynamics examination methods to get a
more complete picture, to gain better insight into child-parent relations and links, an in
vivo rather than in vitro position.
9. When children are caught up in a bitter parental
conflict, especially one which involves polarization of fundamental issues of lifestyle,
including religion, language, culture, etc., the right course of action is to conduct an
examination in a neutral environment and at various times to provide the children with an
alternative neutral environment setup. This will allow an examination of their needs free
of the alien influences of the polarized situation.
In the present case, the whole analysis is being made in a situation where the minors are
fully exposed to the influence of the father, the essence of which is his anger with his
ex-wife. Since I have not examined him just as I have not examined the mother and the
children, my remarks can only be general on the basis of my estimation. Nonetheless, it is
reasonable to assume that the girls have possibly been subjected to pressure to identify
with the father and his beliefs and values.
Given this, it is not clear to me that there has been a “clean” clinical
examination of the needs of the girls, the parental capability of the parents and their
ability to adapt inasmuch as they have already been through a lot of changes.
10. The material does not inform me who is representing the interests and welfare of the
actual child. Under paragraph 12, it should have been important to give much more
legal weight to the needs of the children and their desires by means of suitable
representation.
11. Since the present case involves a sequence of
events in different countries, different nations, differing religious and cultural
practices and even difference of language, it would have been advisable to appoint a panel
of specialists which would have employed understanding dialog, sensitivity to different
cultural perspectives and worked in the interests of the welfare of the children, using
lateral-line examination of the sum total of relationships, cultures and the meaning of
changes in the lives of the minors.
I would be happy to help and participate in such a panel if appointed.
12. The time factor should be taken into account. The
more effective the separation of the girls from their mother, the more linkage with the
two parents is damaged. An emotional severance occurs which weakens one parent and
strengthens the other and in such a way as it is difficult to restore relations with the
parent who has been marginalized.
13. After much time, the girls, having no option, can
develop survival adaptation, which comes from a source which does not reflect their needs
and desires. Should this emerge, it is harder to arrive at a reliable analysis of their
true desire.
14. From this point of view, the material prompts the
question if it was not possible to allow the girls to stay, at least during the
examination, in a neutral context, where they will not feel fear, under threat from a
parent or under obligation to either parent. This would allow, in the broad, neutral
psychological understanding, a “cleaner” environment - such as is required to
estimate their desires and needs and taking into account also their own declarations.
15. My hope is that the Italian welfare and legal authorities will respond to the many
appeals and make an estimate of the situation in the interests of the welfare of the girls
while preserving the basic rights defined in the Convention.
Dr. Dan Sharon
Following is a partial list of
the details of my education and expertise:
I serve as a member of the committee of the
law office chaired by Her Honor Judge Saviyona Rotloi for the assessment of basic rights
in the field of the child and the law, and their implementation in legislation, and the
sub-committee for the examination of the continuous protection of children.
I am a senior lecturer in the School of Social
Work in the University of Tel Aviv. In this capacity, inter alia, I organize studies in
“Children In Danger”. For three study cycles, I have served as academic director
of the advanced program for the legal and applied training of social workers for affairs
covered by the Law Of Treatment And Supervision Of Youth.
In the distant past, I served for 7 years as a
social worker for affairs covered by the Law Of Treatment And Supervision Of Youth.
I did my doctorate in the University of
Wisconsin, Madison, USA. The subject of the doctorate was Clinical And Legal Definition Of
Parents’ Psychological Abuse Of Their Children.
I served for 4 years in the capacity of
chairman of the Israeli Association of Psychotherapy.
For many years, I have given supplementary
courses and instruction in the fields of the child, the family, and population law to
child investigators, social workers for affairs covered by the Law Of Treatment And
Supervision Of Youth, social workers for t affairs covered by he Welfare Procedures Law,
State Advocacy and judges - under the auspices of the Zussman Institute For Judges’
Supplementary Education.
I am a member of the board of the Association
Of Medicine And Law In Israel, and head of the section for Behavioral Sciences And Law in
the Academic Branch of the Association.
I am a member of the board of the Association
for Child Protection, and a member of the board of the Council For The Welfare Of The
Child. I am frequently appointed by courts to provide an expert opinion regarding
adoption, sexual abuse, custody, and visiting arrangements. I am a captain in the IDF
(Israeli Defense Force) and serve as an officer-instructor (psychological and physical
welfare) of procedure in situations of stress, crisis, suicidality, bereavement and post
trauma.
[public/statements/1999/dulbergfooter.htm]
520.gif)
|