UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: faithlilly on June 28, 2014, 06:31:43 PM
-
If it has been decided that the McCanns can't, because she is a WOC, sue Amaral in Madeleine's name is it right that they are using money from her search fund to try and gain compensation for their own pain and distress over the book ?
-
If it has been decided that the McCanns can't, because she is a WOC, sue Amaral in Madeleine's name is it right that they are using money from her search fund to try and gain compensation for their own pain and distress over the book ?
Very good point.
-
The McCanns have already brought actions in Madeleine's name.
If there was a problem with that, it would have been flagged up long ago.
-
The case against Amaral would presumably have been thrown out of court by now if the WOC issue meant that the McCanns could not bring an action against him.
-
The case against Amaral would presumably have been thrown out of court by now if the WOC issue meant that the McCanns could not bring an action against him.
The WOC issue is not an attampt to get the case thrown out but to reduce damges....another sign that amaral knows he has lost
-
The McCanns have already brought actions in Madeleine's name.
If there was a problem with that, it would have been flagged up long ago.
Well the judge in this case doesn't seem to concur with your ferryman as she has asked for permission from the High Court that the McCanns be allowed to act for Madeleine.
However that is not the point of the OP. I asked whether the McCanns should be allowed to use their daughter's fund to sue Amaral when they are not legally allowed to proceed with litigation in her name ?
-
The case against Amaral would presumably have been thrown out of court by now if the WOC issue meant that the McCanns could not bring an action against him.
The McCanns can bring an action against Amaral but only in their and the twins names. The question is should they be using the fund, which is in Madeleine's name to do it ?
-
Well the judge in this case doesn't seem to concur with your ferryman as she has asked for permission from the High Court that the McCanns be allowed to act for Madeleine.
However that is not the point of the OP. I asked whether the McCanns should be allowed to use their daughter's fund to sue Amaral when they are not legally allowed to proceed with litigation in her name ?
It is clear that saying maddie is dead will harm the search for her....defaming her parents will harm the search....the libel action is justified within the terms and condition of the fund
-
The McCanns can bring an action against Amaral but only in their and the twins names. The question is should they be using the fund, which is in Madeleine's name to do it ?
3.1.3 "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family"
That aim covers anything and everything.
-
Clearly they anticipated being in for the long haul when that was written.
-
It is clear that saying maddie is dead will harm the search for her....defaming her parents will harm the search....the libel action is justified within the terms and condition of the fund
No it isn't if her parents are not legally entitled to act for her as she is a WOC.
-
Clearly they anticipated being in for the long haul when that was written.
Clearly Jassi !
-
The McCanns can bring an action against Amaral but only in their and the twins names. The question is should they be using the fund, which is in Madeleine's name to do it ?
Are we absolutely certain that The Fund is being used to sue Goncalo Amaral.
-
Are we absolutely certain that The Fund is being used to sue Goncalo Amaral.
According to John McCann it is.
-
According to John McCann it is.
I am not entirely sure that this is true. I believe some legal fees were paid from The Fund when it was being set up, but I have seen no proof of anything further.
-
I am not entirely sure that this is true. I believe some legal fees were paid from The Fund when it was being set up, but I have seen no proof of anything further.
Then I think you need to have a look at the fund accounts certainly for 2009 and 2010.
-
Clearly they anticipated being in for the long haul when that was written.
Who is "they"?
-
Then I think you need to have a look at the fund accounts certainly for 2009 and 2010.
I don't really mind what The McCanns do with the money, large amounts of which have been provided by their own personal efforts.
-
I don't really mind what The McCanns do with the money, large amounts of which have been provided by their own personal efforts.
What personal efforts Eleanor ?
-
Who is "they"?
Those who advised the McCanns and determined what the terms should be.
Couldn't have been done without the agreement of the McCanns, of course.
-
I don't really mind what The McCanns do with the money, large amounts of which have been provided by their own personal efforts.
You may not Eleanor but that's not the point, is it ?
-
Those who advised the McCanns and determined what the terms should be.
Couldn't have been done without the agreement of the McCanns, of course.
I doubt that it would have been set up without the McCanns' agreement, but lawyers would state objects in the broadest terms.
What's the problem?
-
I doubt that it would have been set up without the McCanns' agreement, but lawyers would state objects in the broadest terms.
What's the problem?
Who mentioned a problem?
Merely commenting that it was clearly set up in the anticipation that Madeleine was likely to be missing for some considerable time.
-
You may not Eleanor but that's not the point, is it ?
So what is the point? The Mccanns are not doing anything illegal. And I doubt that they are getting many donations these days.
-
Considering that Britain had taken over the costs of searching for her, additional donations would seem rather unnecessary.
-
Considering that Britain had taken over the costs of searching for her, additional donations would seem rather unnecessary.
That, surely, is the business of anyone who wants to donate.
-
Who mentioned a problem?
Merely commenting that it was clearly set up in the anticipation that Madeleine was likely to be missing for some considerable time.
you are making an assumption
-
That, surely, is the business of anyone who wants to donate.
Of course it is, which is why I said unnecessary. They have no current search costs to bear.
-
Just a thought. When the fund was set up Madeleine had still to be made a WOC so there were no bar to the McCanns using the money in Madeleone's name. When they sued the Express and Bennett they used a conditional agreement to engage Carter Ruck so money from the fund was not used.
It seems only in the case against Amaral where a conditional agreement could not be used that they have they used the fund to pay for their litigation.
Did the McCanns know that if they used the fund to sue in this country there would be issues attached because of Madeleine's WOC status but thought when suing in Portugal it would be less of an issue ? Has Amaral found this weak spot and cleverly used it against them ?
It will be very interesting to see whether the High Court does permit the McCanns to sue in Madeleine's name and what effect that will have on how they use the fund in the future.
-
Just a thought. When the fund was set up Madeleine had still to be made a WOC so there were no bar to the McCanns using the money in Madeleone's name. When they sued the Express and Bennett they used a conditional agreement to engage Carter Ruck so money from the fund was not used.
It seems only in the case against Amaral where a conditional agreement could not be used that they have they used the fund to pay for their litigation.
Did the McCanns know that if they used the fund to sue in this country there would be issues attached because of Madeleine's WOC status but thought when suing in Portugal it would be less of an issue ? Has Amaral found this weak spot and cleverly used it against them ?
It will be very interesting to see whether the High Court does permit the McCanns to sue in Madeleine's name and what effect that will have on how they use the fund in the future.
Why would anyone use their own money to sue when a conditional fee arrangement is available. You are clutching at straws again
-
Why would anyone use their own money to sue when a conditional fee arrangement is available. You are clutching at straws again
I absolutely agree with you on that point, why would anyone but that's not my point.
Were the McCanns forced to use the fund in Portugal ( even when they were legally barred from suing in Maseleine's name and therefore should have been barred from using the fund ) because a conditional agreement was not available ?
-
I absolutely agree with you on that point, why would anyone but that's not my point.
Were the McCanns forced to use the fund in Portugal ( even when they were legally barred from suing in Maseleine's name and therefore should have been barred from using the fund ) because a conditional agreement was not available ?
They have used the fund in Portugal quite legitimately in my opinion....
-
They have used the fund in Portugal quite legitimately in my opinion....
That is my question. Have they if they cannot legitimately sue in Madeleine's name ?
-
That is my question. Have they if they cannot legitimately sue in Madeleine's name ?
The fund wording allows them to us it for almost any purpose.
-
I absolutely agree with you on that point, why would anyone but that's not my point.
Were the McCanns forced to use the fund in Portugal ( even when they were legally barred from suing in Maseleine's name and therefore should have been barred from using the fund ) because a conditional agreement was not available ?
It hasn't yet been established what the legal situation over her parents being able to represent her interests is, has it?
I'm not aware what the financial arrangements are for legal fees are concerning the case in PT.
-
The fund wording allows them to us it for almost any purpose.
I understand that Jassi. What I am asking is does Madeleine's WOC status affect the McCanns use of the fund ( remember the aims of the fund was written before Madeleine was made a WOC and before the McCanns were made directors of the fund ).
-
That is my question. Have they if they cannot legitimately sue in Madeleine's name ?
they are not just suing in maddies name....they are suing in maddies interests which the fund enables them to do
-
they are not just suing in maddies name....they are suing in maddies interests which the fund enables them to do
Not if they are not her legal guardians.
Can I point out that I am asking these questions to stimulate discussion. I don't know the answers.
-
Not if they are not her legal guardians.
Can I point out that I am asking these questions to stimulate discussion. I don't know the answers.
They don't have to be her legal guardians to search and anything that hinders the search...such as people being encouraged to believe she is dead...needs to be addressed
-
they are not just suing in maddies name....they are suing in maddies interests which the fund enables them to do
[ moderated ]
It has nothing to do with Madeleine.
-
They don't have to be her legal guardians to search and anything that hinders the search...such as people being encouraged to believe she is dead...needs to be addressed
No they don't have to be her legal guardians to search but I would assume they would to sue and use the money in the fund to fund that litigation.
-
[ moderated ]
It has nothing to do with Madeleine.
I feel that may be true. Its all to do with reputation management and almost always has been.
-
Not if they are not her legal guardians.
Can I point out that I am asking these questions to stimulate discussion. I don't know the answers.
Good for you. Nor do I. So you see, this Forum needs people who don't necessarily agree with me.
-
[ moderated]
It has nothing to do with Madeleine.
Stephen, you are not being much help.
-
Good for you. Nor do I. So you see, this Forum needs people who don't necessarily agree with me.
This forum needs people who definitely don't agree with you.
-
This forum needs people who definitely don't agree with you.
8()-000(
-
Personally, I don't believe there is a WOC issue. I suspect it's just spin from the Amaral camp so that he can justify begging for handouts from his supporters. If there was ever a real issue, it would have been raised at the very start of proceedings in order to stop them, long before the legal expenses piled up.
-
This forum needs people who definitely don't agree with you.
Okay. I'll go along with that.
-
Personally, I don't believe there is a WOC issue. I suspect it's just spin from the Amaral camp so that he can justify begging for handouts from his supporters. If there was ever a real issue, it would have been raised at the very start of proceedings in order to stop them, long before the legal expenses piled up.
I think that's a little bit of wishful thinking on your part Victoria.
-
Did the McCanns know that if they used the fund to sue in this country there would be issues attached because of Madeleine's WOC status but thought when suing in Portugal it would be less of an issue ? Has Amaral found this weak spot and cleverly used it against them ?
It will be very interesting to see whether the High Court does permit the McCanns to sue in Madeleine's name and what effect that will have on how they use the fund in the future.
Hi,
I don't quite understand how the fund was set up and how legally the McCanns could be prevented from using it to sue Gonçalo Amaral or as they wish.
I even thought that the fund was actually set up as a company and even if its set up as a NGO can British law prevent the funds from being used in this matter when they are most likely not in Maddie's name but rather managed by her parents?
Cheers,
-
I think you have nicely demonstrated some of the useful little loopholes in the rules governing this fund. Which ever devious individuals dreamed them up ensured that the McCanns can do pretty much what they like with the money.
They were quite happy to use it to pay their mortgage until the press got hold of the story and then they though better of it. Who knows what else they may have spent it on.
All perfectly legal, I hasten to add.
-
I think you have nicely demonstrated some of the useful little loopholes in the rules governing this fund. Which ever devious individuals dreamed them up ensured that the McCanns can do pretty much what they like with the money.
They were quite happy to use it to pay their mortgage until the press got hold of the story and then they though better of it. Who knows what else they may have spent it on.
All perfectly legal, I hasten to add.
Out of interest, how and when did the press get hold of the story that the McCanns used the fund to make two payments on their mortgage and when did they stop using the fund to pay their mortgage...?
-
Hi,
I don't quite understand how the fund was set up and how legally the McCanns could be prevented from using it to sue Gonçalo Amaral or as they wish.
I even thought that the fund was actually set up as a company and even if its set up as a NGO can British law prevent the funds from being used in this matter when they are most likely not in Maddie's name but rather managed by her parents?
Cheers,
It was established as a company as the objectives could not make it eligible for charitable status, until such time as the original objectives had been achieved.
-
No idea, but if they only made 2 payments it was probably quite early on in the fund's life.
As this sort of detailed information isn't given in the annual accounts we have no idea if they have stopped or not.
-
No idea, but if they only made 2 payments it was probably quite early on in the fund's life.
As this sort of detailed information isn't given in the annual accounts we have no idea if they have stopped or not.
Right, so you think there's a chance that the fund is still paying off the mortgage do you, despite the fact that the media got hold of the story months after the McCanns claimed they had already stopped using the fund to make the payments?
-
Right, so you think there's a chance that the fund is still paying off the mortgage do you, despite the fact that the media got hold of the story months after the McCanns claimed they had already stopped using the fund to make the payments?
I said nothing of the kind.
The annual accounts give no detailed information on what money is spent on so we can make no judgement.
-
It was established as a company as the objectives could not make it eligible for charitable status, until such time as the original objectives had not been achieved.
Does anyone know as a fact how much input the mccanns had in the conditions re the fund. I would have thought that would be the lawyers job
-
Why would a lawyer choose to draw up that sort of agreement, rather than one that closely mimicked a charity, which was apparently what the McCanns originally wanted to set up ?
-
Why would a lawyer choose to draw up that sort of agreement, rather than one that closely mimicked a charity, which was apparently what the McCanns originally wanted to set up ?
You can't 'closely mimic' a charity. An incorporation either meets charitable aims as defined by law or it doesn't.
-
You can't 'closely mimic' a charity. An incorporation either meets charitable aims as defined by law or it doesn't.
Of course you can. You can set the structure up in exactly the same way. What you can't get is the tax relief enjoyed by charities.
-
Of course you can. You can set the structure up in exactly the same way. What you can't get is the tax relief enjoyed by charities.
No, you can't.
-
No, you can't.
Ok, what prevents such a structure being implemented?
-
Ok, what prevents such a structure being implemented?
Well, start with the obvious. When you refer to 'such a structure' what do you mean?
-
I was thinking along structural lines whereby any monies spent had to be related directly to the search for Madeleine and not for the general benefit of members of the family and friends, whether it be in salaries or expenses.
I think Rachael was some sort of corporate lawyer, so maybe she was involved in setting the system up.
-
I was thinking along structural lines whereby any monies spent had to be related directly to the search for Madeleine and not for the general benefit of members of the family and friends, whether it be in salaries or expenses.
I think Rachael was some sort of corporate lawyer, so maybe she was involved in setting the system up.
As someone who has donated - I find nothing wrong at all with the present structure of the fund. It seems to me the only people who are criticising it are people who have not donated - and never will, but who seek to find fault with every single thing the McCanns say or do - as a matter of course.
If they don't agree with the fund - then don't donate to it. Simples.
-
As someone who has donated - I find nothing wrong at all with the present structure of the fund. It seems to me the only people who are criticising it are people who have not donated - and never will, but who seek to find fault with every single thing the McCanns say or do - as a matter of course.
If they don't agree with the fund - then don't donate to it. Simples.
The pertinent points are these.
1. How many people would ave donated knowing that the mccanns would use the money for their personal 'expenses', when both were working doctors and pulling in substantial salaries.
2. Likewise, if people had been presented with the FACTS of what the mccanns were doing on those evenings, i.e. DRINKING as well as eating; leaving their children for prolonged periods by themselves when they could have hired a babysitter; and the classic, leaving them in 'unlocked' accommodation for several successive nights in a foreign country.
3. For the latter READ THE POINTS LISTED ON 'MARK WARNER'.
-
I was thinking along structural lines whereby any monies spent had to be related directly to the search for Madeleine and not for the general benefit of members of the family and friends, whether it be in salaries or expenses.
I think Rachael was some sort of corporate lawyer, so maybe she was involved in setting the system up.
I am a bit bemused.
When did “Ward of Court” transmogrify into “Madeleine’s Fund”?
The Fund has nothing to do with either "compensation" or the "WOC issue" as far as I can see and I would have been interested in some discussion into the finer points of that.
I realise there is not a lot going on at the moment apart from MI6 demanding to know what MI5 are up to.
The Fund discussion imo is just another opportunity to deflect us in a particular direction, perhaps, and flog a particular hobby horse to death.
As pointed out on the official website for all to see:-
(7) What is the money being spent on ?
The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.
Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors, please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
So anyone … really interested … can access information with little effort, but not as much fun.
-
I am a bit bemused.
When did “Ward of Court” transmogrify into “Madeleine’s Fund”?
The Fund has nothing to do with either "compensation" or the "WOC issue" as far as I can see and I would have been interested in some discussion into the finer points of that.
I realise there is not a lot going on at the moment apart from MI6 demanding to know what MI5 are up to.
The Fund discussion imo is just another opportunity to deflect us in a particular direction, perhaps, and flog a particular hobby horse to death.
As pointed out on the official website for all to see:-
(7) What is the money being spent on ?
The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.
Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors, please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ
http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html
So anyone … really interested … can access information with little effort, but not as much fun.
We are told that the majority of the money is spent on investigative work yet from March 2012 the fund has employed no private investigators, so how can that possibly be and as to the awareness campaign, what money is being spent there as apart from a cheap website which is rarely updated and a free Facebok page I can see no awareness campaign being conducted ?
-
According to the Company Articles of Association the Madeleine Fund can be used for anything in the search for Madeleine and that includes litigation where necessary.
Madeleine became a Ward of Court on 02 April 2008 as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007. The decision to include Madeleine within the list of plaintiffs might have been an ethical one but it certainly wasn't a legal one, in as much as without the agreement of the English Court, this was incompetent. Why they have never sought the permission of the Court earlier is open to much speculation.
The Portuguese Court in Lisbon has rightly decreed that as it stands, the McCanns cannot sue Amaral in Madeleine's name, this raises all sorts of questions as to the competency of the libel action, issues which will no doubt be played out in Lisbon in a weeks time.
-
According to the Company Articles of Association the Madeleine Fund can be used for anything in the search for Madeleine and that includes litigation where necessary.
Madeleine became a Ward of Court on 02 April 2008 as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007. The decision to include Madeleine within the list of plaintiffs might have been an ethical one but it certainly wasn't a legal one, in as much as without the agreement of the English Court, this was incompetent. Why they have never sought the permission of the Court earlier is open to much speculation.
The Portuguese Court in Lisbon has rightly decreed that as it stands, the McCanns cannot sue Amaral in Madeleine's name, this raises all sorts of questions as to the competency of the libel action, issues which will no doubt be played out in Lisbon in a weeks time.
I asked the question before but go no answer. When did the judge decide this, as opposed to requesting further informaton on the issue?
-
I asked the question before but go no answer. When did the judge decide this, as opposed to requesting further informaton on the issue?
It's Amaral spin. There is no truth in it as far as I can see.
-
It's Amaral spin. There is no truth in it as far as I can see.
Here is what Jean-Pierre had to say on the subject of ward-of-court in a post in January:
There are two things which puzzle me:
One is the many references by posters to Madeleine being declared dead because she has been missing for 7 years. What possible reference does this have to the case? And what would this achieve? Utterly pointless.
The second is that the McCanns being unable to bring an action on Madeleine's behalf because she is a ward of court. To anyone with a modicum of (real) legal knowledge this is clearly absolute nonsense - It was they who made the original application, they remain her parents, and have all of the usual parental powers - but with the added protection of the court which could be helpful if she were to be found. Again - this line of argument is utterly pointless.
(Jean-Pierre)
-
This is obviously something for the court to decide, not armchair lawyers.
-
This is obviously something for the court to decide, not armchair lawyers.
Well, one thing beyond doubt is that the McCanns have already brought legal action in the Portuguese courts in Madeleine's name.
In the judgment overturning the injunction on Amaral's book, costs were awarded against the McCann couple and their three children ...
-
Well, one thing beyond doubt is that the McCanns have already brought legal action in the Portuguese courts in Madeleine's name.
In the judgment overturning the injunction on Amaral's book, costs were awarded against the McCann couple and their three children ...
And that went to the Supreme Court... No one brought up this issue during all that time?
-
And that went to the Supreme Court... No one brought up this issue during all that time?
Indeed not
A thought that occurs to me is that Santos, in his statement following being sacked by Amaral, appeared to be under the impression that he had landed a coup in questioning the McCanns' right to bring an action in Madeleine's name.
Perhaps Amaral discovered different, and that might have had something to do with the parting of the ways?
A guess, I confess ...
-
As a Ward of Court, Madeleine and all her affairs are under the control of the High Court. The McCanns might be her parents but they do not have the authority to determine any legal issues on her behalf. The right to sue on her behalf is such a legal issue and will require the authority of her guardian ie the High Court.
-
As a Ward of Court, Madeleine and all her affairs are under the control of the High Court. The McCanns might be her parents but they do not have the authority to determine any legal issues on her behalf. The right to sue on her behalf is such a legal issue and will require the authority of her guardian ie the High Court.
That simply isn't the case, as far as my understanding goes, and I doubt you are able to cite any legal authority that supports your claims (ie statute and case law).
-
That simply isn't the case, as far as my understanding goes, and I doubt you are able to cite any legal authority that supports your claims (ie statute and case law).
So what's the point of the WoC?
-
So what's the point of the WoC?
IIRC one of the main reasons was that if Madeleine was found in a foreign country - she would have to be handed over to the British Embassy - and so there could be no question/delay/legal arguement at all about whether or not she should be returned home immediately.
(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)
-
Yes, I read something similar. I wonder how that would actually work in practice as it would depend on the country in question recognising the primacy of the British court.
-
Look at it the way, Amaral didn't go to the expense and bother of getting High Court documents if the WOC issue was a false dawn. The High Court is responsible for all legal issues relating to Madeleine at this moment in time.
-
Look at it the way, Amaral didn't go to the expense and bother of getting High Court documents if the WOC issue was a false dawn. The High Court is responsible for all legal issues relating to Madeleine at this moment in time.
The mccanns have been given 30 days to clarify the decision I believe which PROVES it is not as cut and dry as you and other posters think
-
Anyone who thinks leave of the court is required in order for the parents (who will still share parental responsibility) of a child to instigate a claim for damages has absolutely no idea what the law relating to wards of court does.
Personally, I don't believe ward if court has even been raised as an issue in any substantive sense by Amaral's side, and I believe the only reason it is being brought up on blogs by Amaral's supporters is as an excuse to try to raise money for his legal bills. If there was any hope of defeating this action by raising the ward of court issue, a) it would have been done at the start of proceedings so that Amaral didn't have to waste thousands of euros on legal fees over the years, and b) he wouldn't have felt so desperate that he needed to sack his lawyer just as the trial was scheduled to conclude.
-
The mccanns have been given 30 days to clarify the decision I believe which PROVES it is not as cut and dry as you and other posters think
I thought it was in order to produce documents to prove that they had the appropriate authority when they initiated the proceedings.
-
I thought it was in order to produce documents to prove that they had the appropriate authority when they initiated the proceedings.
They don't need to produce any documents. Unless the High Court in the UK is proactively trying to stop them bringing proceedings in their daughters name ( by way of injunction) then they do not need any authority. And by the way, if the High Court was going to seek such an injunction it would have done so at the start of proceedings.
-
They don't need to produce any documents. Unless the High Court in the UK is proactively trying to stop them bringing proceedings in their daughters name ( by way of injunction) then they do not need any authority. And by the way, if the High Court was going to seek such an injunction it would have done so at the start of proceedings.
Your interpretation differs from Davel's which is what I was responding to. He seems to think that the McCanns need to provide clarification for the court.
-
Your interpretation differs from Davel's which is what I was responding to. He seems to think that the McCanns need to provide clarification for the court.
I think davel has given the benefit of the doubt to the claims on some blogs that the ward of court status has even been substantively raised in the libel trial. I don't believe it has been and I don't trust the people behind the blogs in question to provide an accurate (or honest) account of what is happening.
It makes no sense for the ward of court issue to be raised this late in proceedings, and in any case, there is simply no argument to make. The McCanns still have parental responsibility in respect of their daughter. It is now shared with the court, but they are not automatically barred from taking any action in her name. The only way they can be barred from doing so is if the High Court specifically seeks to prevent them from doing so by way of injunction. Neither Amaral, nor anyone else, has any influence over this. It is dishonest of Amaral and his supporters to pretend otherwise.
-
I think davel has given the benefit of the doubt to the claims on some blogs that the ward of court status has even been substantively raised in the libel trial. I don't believe it has been and I don't trust the people behind the blogs in question to provide an accurate (or honest) account of what is happening.
It makes no sense for the ward of court issue to be raised this late in proceedings, and in any case, there is simply no argument to make. The McCanns still have parental responsibility in respect of their daughter. It is now shared with the court, but they are not automatically barred from taking any action in her name. The only way they can be barred from doing so is if the High Court specifically seeks to prevent them from doing so by way of injunction. Neither Amaral, nor anyone else, has any influence over this. It is dishonest of Amaral and his supporters to pretend otherwise.
You are quite correct, Victoria.
No Social Services involved, no Guardian ad Litem involved either.
-
I think davel has given the benefit of the doubt to the claims on some blogs that the ward of court status has even been substantively raised in the libel trial. I don't believe it has been and I don't trust the people behind the blogs in question to provide an accurate (or honest) account of what is happening.
It makes no sense for the ward of court issue to be raised this late in proceedings, and in any case, there is simply no argument to make. The McCanns still have parental responsibility in respect of their daughter. It is now shared with the court, but they are not automatically barred from taking any action in her name. The only way they can be barred from doing so is if the High Court specifically seeks to prevent them from doing so by way of injunction. Neither Amaral, nor anyone else, has any influence over this. It is dishonest of Amaral and his supporters to pretend otherwise.
The matter of Madeleine being a WOC had been brought up earlier but only later did the judge ask Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer to obtain the relevant documents. He was able to obtain them and they confirm that she is indeed a WOC. In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof.
-
The matter of Madeleine being a WOC had been brought up earlier but only later did the judge ask Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer to obtain the relevant documents. He was able to obtain them and they confirm that she is indeed a WOC. In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof.
so all amaral has shown is that madeleine was a WOC which everyone knew anyway. The WOC status is only relevant if amaral loses so it shows he is preparing for defeat
-
so all amaral has shown is that madeleine was a WOC which everyone knew anyway. The WOC status is only relevant if amaral loses so it shows he is preparing for defeat
Wait for the court judgement dear boy, it might help.
-
The matter of Madeleine being a WOC had been brought up earlier but only later did the judge ask Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer to obtain the relevant documents. He was able to obtain them and they confirm that she is indeed a WOC. In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof.
Utter rubbish. Leave of the court is not required. There is no legal authority to support these claims, it is pure nonsense.
-
Well, I guess we'll see in a couple of weeks.
-
Well, I guess we'll see in a couple of weeks.
If you have any familiarity with the law, you will know already.
-
If you have any familiarity with the law, you will know already.
I'm quite patient so content to wait for the definitive answer.
-
I'm quite patient so content to wait for the definitive answer.
You won't get an answer from the court in Lisbon if the issue hasn't actually been raised there. If you know any family lawyers, or have access to legal authorities, you can find your own answer in about ten minutes. Parental custody is shared, not ceded, in this case. That's all you need to know. 8)-)))
-
I think I'll wait for the judge, thank you.
-
I think I'll wait for the judge, thank you.
Good for you, old chum. The Judge in Lisbon won't even utter the words 'ward of court', IMO.
-
You won't get an answer from the court in Lisbon if the issue hasn't actually been raised there. If you know any family lawyers, or have access to legal authorities, you can find your own answer in about ten minutes. Parental custody is shared, not ceded, in this case. That's all you need to know. 8)-)))
A beautiful, succinct, summary ....
-
You won't get an answer from the court in Lisbon if the issue hasn't actually been raised there. If you know any family lawyers, or have access to legal authorities, you can find your own answer in about ten minutes. Parental custody is shared, not ceded, in this case. That's all you need to know. 8)-)))
I thought I had read this somewhere but couldn't remember where.
I am loath to ask for a cite, not being very good at producing those myself, but such a thing would be very useful.
-
You won't get an answer from the court in Lisbon if the issue hasn't actually been raised there. If you know any family lawyers, or have access to legal authorities, you can find your own answer in about ten minutes. Parental custody is shared, not ceded, in this case. That's all you need to know. 8)-)))
What's the problem? The judge has asked for the McCanns to provide the proof or authorisation that they are able to act on Madeleine's behalf in this court case. That's all. If they can provide it, no problem. If they can't then the defendents will be acquitted with respect to the action on the child's behalf.
-
What's the problem? The judge has asked for the McCanns to provide the proof or authorisation that they are able to act on Madeleine's behalf in this court case. That's all. If they can provide it, no problem. If they can't then the defendents will be acquitted with respect to the action on the child's behalf.
Do you have any independent verification that the judge has made this request
-
We should know in a fortnight.
-
Do you have any independent verification that the judge has made this request
The issue having been raised by one of the respondents, the Judge would be under some obligation to clarify the issue. Otherwise it could be used as grounds for an appeal. So in this respect Amaral may have missed a trick.
Very well put, by the way Victoria
-
The issue having been raised by one of the respondents, the Judge would be under some obligation to clarify the issue. Otherwise it could be used as grounds for an appeal. So in this respect Amaral may have missed a trick.
Very well put, by the way Victoria
I agree that the judge needed to clarify the situation. I can also see why Amaral's lawyer raised it (there were two points in the online generic description of the court's role in WoCs that could give rise to doubts).
I don't understand why this potential issue wasn't raised far earlier.
-
If the uk court objected you would have expected them to have made their feelings known before now
-
Surely The Court who has Madeleine's best interests at heart, will be aware of what is being done in her name over the last five years.
It's a very funny WoC if they aren't.
-
Surely The Court who has Madeleine's best interests at heart, will be aware of what is being done in her name over the last five years.
I think that is an assumption.
-
Surely The Court who has Madeleine's best interests at heart, will be aware of what is being done in her name over the last five years.
It's a very funny WoC if they aren't.
Seems a funny sort of business anyway.
I always thought that the court would have and exercise full control of the child's well-being and that parents had no or limited involvement, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Perhaps there are different degrees of wardship/
-
Seems a funny sort of business anyway.
I always thought that the court would have and exercise full control of the child's well-being and that parents had no or limited involvement, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Perhaps there are different degrees of wardship/
No, the court is only involved insignifiant activities. See below...
The High Court has powers to make certain orders regarding children where they have been removed, are in serious danger or at risk. The court will make the child a ward.
This means that the High Court will have responsibility for that child and no orders can be made or action taken which affects the child, unless permission is obtained from the High Court first.
Of course with a missing child, the court has very little to do because typically very little happens.
-
The very fact that a missing child, (who may not be alive) can actually be made a ward of court seems pretty strange, but obviously happens.
-
The very fact that a missing child, (who may not be alive) can actually be made a ward of court seems pretty strange, but obviously happens.
It is there in cases were there may have been an abduction.
-
Madeleine is presumed to be alive by The Court, and will continue to be so.
-
Madeleine is presumed to be alive by The Court, and will continue to be so.
The court would normally be on hold until the police turned up something that the court could act upon.
-
The court would normally be on hold until the police turned up something that the court could act upon.
They would still assume that Madeleine is alive.
-
They would still assume that Madeleine is alive.
I think "will act as if she is still alive" is a more accurate description. I can't find any references as to how long she would continue to be WoC without further information.
-
I think "will act as if she is still alive" is a more accurate description. I can't find any references as to how long she would continue to be WoC without further information.
Usually when a child reaches 18.
-
I think that is an assumption.
it is an assumption but one based on reason....As this action can be argued to be in Maddies interest I can only see the court agreeing... I can only see the court disagreeing if something was detrimental to maddies interests
-
Madeleine is a Ward of Court which means every legal decision relating to her has to be approved by the High Court in England. Her parents continue to have parental responsibility for her but not legal responsibility. Any legal action taken in her name requires the authorization of the High Court thus why the Portuguese judge now seeks clarification if such permission was ever granted.
-
I am sure I read somewhere a missing person can be declared' presumed dead' after a period of 7 years.
SY may provide testament that they believe Maddie is dead also.
Compensation=blood money for their children's future. OMG I hope they have 'fun' spending it!
I am sure little Maddie is rather annoyed that her mother and father are soooooooooo distraught about Amaral, Money will help alleviate their' pain and suffering'.
I am on little Maddie's side. I want Justice for her- not blood money on pretense of 'hurt feelings' FGS people!
-
I am sure I read somewhere a missing person can be declared' presumed dead' after a period of 7 years.
SY may provide testament that they believe Maddie is dead also.
Compensation=blood money for their children's future. OMG I hope they have 'fun' spending it!
I am sure little Maddie is rather annoyed that her mother and father are soooooooooo distraught about Amaral, Money will help alleviate their' pain and suffering'.
I am on little Maddie's side. I want Justice for her- not blood money on pretense of 'hurt feelings' FGS people!
Emphasis on the word can
It is an option, not a compulsion.
I'll lay odds Kerry Needham has never declared Ben 'dead'.
Nor is there any reason (other than strictly personal and private reasons, entirely of her own volition) why she should!
-
No one can be forced to declare anyone dead.
-
The fact that amaral is questioning the WOC satus shows he is concerned about how much compensation he is going to have to pay
-
I have said before, nothing on here will influence the decision in Portugal.
Why not just wait for the court to reach it's judgement ?
-
I have said before, nothing on here will influence the decision in Portugal.
Why not just wait for the court to reach it's judgement ?
im not trying to influence anything...just making some observations
-
[ corrupted quote deleted ]
I just noticed that the Team Mc's are suing Amaral for the exact same amount as the reward that was offered at the beginning.
So, how will that money be divvied up?-put a price on their pain. Compare it with Maddies suffering and...well how would one set about a fixed figure? would £50,000 not be enough? should it be £10 Mil. Ok how much would you pay someone NOT to enter your apartment and steal your 3 year old daughter?
Money, Money, money...
-
So what happened to the WOC Amaral was so sure the McCanns had no right to act on Madelienes behalf without court permission? I am disappointed ?>)()<
-
So what happened to the WOC Amaral was so sure the McCanns had no right to act on Madelienes behalf without court permission? I am disappointed ?>)()<
Indeed. I think it's clear that as many people suspected, the WOC issue was never actually raised, that was just BS spun by Amaral's mouthpieces in an attempt to raise money for his legal fees. @)(++(*
-
So what happened to the WOC Amaral was so sure the McCanns had no right to act on Madelienes behalf without court permission? I am disappointed ?>)()<
Good question!
-
Any news on the WOC issue?
-
Perhaps the judge is retaining that until she announces the verdict.
-
Perhaps the judge is retaining that until she announces the verdict.
Wouldn't that be have been an issue to debate in court? Time was spent in court debating all sorts of issues, so why not this one? Or was it, and the decision hasn't been reported?
-
Perhaps it is something that doesn't need debate. The answer is either yes or no and presumably she decides when to announce her decision.
-
Any news on the WOC issue?
It rather looks as though there never was a WOC issue. (Other than in tam aral's head, that is). @)(++(*
-
It rather looks as though there never was a WOC issue. (Other than in tam aral's head, that is). @)(++(*
We don't really know, one way or the other, as it wasn't mentioned.
-
We don't really know, one way or the other, as it wasn't mentioned.
The fact that it wasn't mentioned says it all.
-
Well, it obviously does to you. 8(0(*
-
The fact that it wasn't mentioned says it all.
I would say so. I can't think why the MCCanns would have been allowed their day in court if the WoC issue meant that the case against Amaral was in any way compromised.
-
The main point of not awarding Maddie with compensation has not a lot to do with whether she was a ward of court or not. It has to do with these things:
1. Maddie's 'harm' from the book cannot be established as she is not present with medical evidence at the hearing.
2. As her presence has been acknowledged as 'person whereabouts unknown', the judge would have to decide whether to award a possible corpse a sum of money for a libel which affected a search. And, if the search were to have been affected, it would make no difference to a corpse.
NB: The claim for the twins is a moot point as their 'suffering' from the book was not established or evidenced or diagnosed by a Professional.
The Twins can of course sue their parents for the 'suffering' as a result of being left alone and their sister going missing and their lives being in turmoil ever since!