Madeleine McCann made a 'Ward of Court' by English Judge.

[Benita]

why was madeleine made a ward of court in the first place..who sanctioned it ?

[Jean-Pierre]

they will be involved 

I think you are correct.  (Apart from being her parents), they are also her legal guardians under the terms of the wardship, and as such it would be tricky for the Portuguese authorities to argue against their being assistentes on those grounds.   

[CPN]

why was madeleine made a ward of court in the first place..who sanctioned it ?

I think her parents requested it.

[Serendipity]

You do seem to be spending a lot of time thinking about ways in which the McCanns should not be involved in the investigation.

Not at all, how bad minded are you?  I have no problem at all with them becoming Assistente if it is granted.  I merely responded to a post that happened to be relevant given the lawyers announcement yesterday that he will be applying for such a status for them.  Would you not kick yourselves if they applied and were turned down on such a technicality? I felt it was a relevant point to be raised and something that if it were my lawyer making such an appliation, would hope that he was aware of the of the Assistente requirements. 

Why does there have to be some sinister motive read into every post that is made that raises a query over something?

[Wonderfulspam]

During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said: "I can state that on the instigation of Gerry and Kate McCann Madeleine is a ward of the High Court of England and Wales.

[DCI]

why was madeleine made a ward of court in the first place..who sanctioned it ?

Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London, 7th July 2008, in open court: International Family Law Group

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

[Victoria]

Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London, 7th July 2008, in open court: International Family Law Group

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine's parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

So as far as the High Court is concerned, there is no evidence that Maddie is dead. Jolly good.

[Benita]

So as far as the High Court is concerned, there is no evidence that Maddie is dead. Jolly good.

jolly good indeed 


and thanks DCI 

[AnneGuedes]

Why does there have to be some sinister motive read into every post that is made that raises a query over something?

[AnneGuedes]

Maybe someone who posts here who lives in Portugal could us assist here? :)

I might be wrong, Serendipity, but I have a feeling that Dra Duarte announced, on the first trial day, that she was representing Mr, Mrs, Am, Se and Madeleine. But I may confound with the book injunction. Dra Duarte always speaks globally of the "McCann family".
The evaluation of the amount of damages takes into account the damages due to Madeleine through the lack of search for her.
Which document doesn't have Madeleine's name ?

[misty]

Would I be right in assuming that the Judge is accepting  Madeleine may still be alive, as the WOC refers to "all decisions affecting the life of the child?"

[Silkywhiskers]

Would I be right in assuming that the Judge is accepting  Madeleine may still be alive, as the WOC refers to "all decisions affecting the life of the child?"

As no one knows what happened to her, yes.

[icabodcrane]

I have never understood why the McCanns,  just days after Madeleine disappeared,  decided to hand over  responsibility for her

I mean,  in what way did they think that would benefit her  ? 

In her book  ( page 125 )  Kate says  ;  "The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court"

Notice she does not say that lawyers  advised  them to make an application for wardship  ...  merely that they  'talked to them'  about it

Kate goes on to explain that such an order could be useful in aquiring records not otherwise  available to them

It was just eight days since  Madeleine disappeared and the McCanns were already thinking about  'aquiring records' 

What records were they thinking about aquiring at that early stage then  ?  ...  police records  ?

It really is a very strange business

[misty]

As no one knows what happened to her, yes.

So, in your opinion, what position does that put Amaral in with regard to his allegations, if the Judge considers the parents cannot take action on behalf of a possible living child?

[Silkywhiskers]

So, in your opinion, what position does that put Amaral in with regard to his allegations, if the Judge considers the parents cannot take action on behalf of a possible living child?

Amaral has no case to answer, never has had.

To prove libel, one has to prove lies.

As no one knows what happened to Madeleine, it follows that it cannot be proven his book is lies or libelous.

I wouldn't worry about this anyway.  They've attempted to schedule it in July so clearly, someone expects "whatever the hold up is" to be resolved by then.

The hold up may well be a gaping great hole in PDL.