sottrazione di minori – Tre anni di reclusione


Va avanti la battaglia di Marco Di Marco

San Benedetto – Bimbo sottratto, il tribunale condanna una donna slovacca

Tre anni di reclusione. E’ la condanna che il tribunale di Ascoli Piceno ha inflitto ad una donna slovacca. E‘ accusata di aver portato il figlio all’estero contro il volere del marito, il sambenedettese Marco Di Marco. Il noto fisioterapista, da allora, porta avanti una battaglia anche attraverso l’associazione Adiantum che aiuta i papà separati. La causa di divorzio aveva, infatti, stabilito di affidare il piccolo al padre cioè l’ex marito della donna. Da qui l’accusa di sottrazione di minore e mancata ottemperanza di un ordine del giudice. Reati per cui è stata riconosciuta colpevole.

Il bambino, che oggi ha cinque anni e mezzo, ha lasciato l’Italia nell’estate del 2012 e da 4 anni il padre non riesce a rivederlo. Marco ha lanciato appelli e cercato di contattare il piccolo ma senza successo. Anche in Slovacchia sono in corso due processi contro la donna. Procedimenti partiti dalla denuncia di Marco Di Marco che chiedeva solo di poter fare il padre, di poter abbracciare suo figlio e di poterlo veder crescere.  L’obiettivo del sambenedettese è che anche il tribunale slovacco emetta un’ordinanza di rimpatrio del bambino in Italia attenendosi a quanto disposto dai giudici di Ascoli nella causa di divorzio.

Il giudice Bartoli ha condannato la donna ad altri nove mesi di reclusione (pena sospesa) riconoscendola colpevole del reato di diffamazione per aver partecipato ad una trasmissione condotta da Barbara D’Urso nella quale aveva accusato il marito di aver portato via il bambino. Il minore era invece in vacanza insieme al padre a Napoli. Una vacanza pianificata e per la quale c’era l’assenso della madre. Al rientro dalla Campania, il fisioterapista consegnò il bambino alla donna, come stabilito in precedenza. Qualche tempo dopo la scomparsa di madre e figlio che fecero rientro in patria.

14 maggio 2016 11:01—Bimbo-sottratto,-il-tribunale-condanna-una-donna-slovacca.aspx

google translate in Deutsch
Kindesentführung‬ Italien – Mutter in der Slowakei bekommt 3 Jahre Haft!


Parental Child Abduction – Complaint – President European Parliament




Dear President Schultz,


Thank you for your answer to our complaint about the Mediator of the European Parliament for cases of international child abductions. We take knowledge of your position. Nevertheless, We are concerned to clarify the following:

· We noticed that you addressed your letter only to Mr Marco Di Marco, while the letter was addressed to you by multiple parents, all signatories of the letter thereof.

· We never considered the Office of the Mediator as “our personal legal advisor”, WE never even thought at a public service in these terms, as you inexplicably suggest in your letter. Precisely, the Mediator’s Office is, it should be, and it has always been, before Ms McGuinness arrival, a public service helping children in the dramatic situation of a parental child abduction trough the assistance of legally qualified civil servants, according to what it is stated by your own web site.

· Of course, We don’t pretend to choose a specific “staff member”as legal advisor, as you suggest, but we claim, the least, that the European Parliament should guarantee the continuity of such a sensitive service, in the superior interest of our children and to defend such major interests against the arbitrarious and unwarrented decision of the same Mediator, that caused serious prejudice to the stage of development of our procedures, removing Ms Mangiante, without notice and nor ensuring a valuable alternative. The question we ask you is : based on which service’s interest this decision has been taken? Because who payed the consequences of that are our children!

· We trust you understand that the nature of our complaint is not “personal”.We were equally happy with Mr Pasquale Ciuffreda and other servants that preceded him, as well as with Ms Angelilli, but we are definetly not happy with Ms McGuinness “management” of the Office and absolutely not happy with Ms Irene Hennigan, clearly uncapable to take care of our legal cases whatsoever ( as proved by her poor assistance). You might be interested to know that WE didn’t receive any assistance since Ms Mangiante left the Office and this is scandalous!How do you explain that?

· You “assure” ,in your letter, that the Mediator’s Office will continue to “supply it with competent staff”. Therefore, why a competent staff member has been removed?The EP removes the good official under MEP’s whims?How do you guarantee, on this basis, the quality of a service dealing with children?By reason of trasparency We would like to ask you the qualifications and legitimation to work in such service of Irene Hennighan(currently managing the Office), (as we know for Mr Ciuffreda, Ms Kleim and Ms Mangiante), because we have reasons to suspect that Ms Hennigan doesn‘ t have any!

· If you want to place your “friends” at the EP, please don’t do that in a service that deals with CHILDREN! Are you aware of the sensitiveness of the interests involved? Is that too much to ask for the most basic guarantees?

· For many citizens involved with such dramatic situations, the Mediator’s Office is a fundamental service, as , basically, offered legal advises and guidance for free, being a public service. Not everyone can afford to pay private lawyers. With Ms Mcguinness it is not the case anymore and apparently You, President of the European Parliament, are fine with that. The applicants themselves address to you to witness a scandalous situation concerning an EP service, and you, President of the European Parliament, defend your colleague and not the INSTITUTION you represent, nor the rights of our children.

· Who better then US know either or not Ms McGuinness is a “committed, councious and helpful “Mediator? Which is our interest in making a complaint against her if she were “conciuous” as you say in your letter, and committed? Why do you ignore our witness?

· The European Parliament is by definition the physical place where the “elected representatives” are called to act in the common interest of the citizens they have been invested to represent trough our votes!. Nevertheless, by your reply , it appears that you are more concerned by defending your colleague reputation, despite her objective scandalous behaviour, instead then taking awarness and action in the interest of an EP service that involves CHILDREN, our children, EUROPEAN children.


At the light of the above, We guess: is the Parliament at the service of its politicians or at the service of the citizens? We are afraid your reply to our compliants clearly answer this question.


Best regards,

Marco Di Marco, 2-3-2016



Tags:  Brussels II Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – binationale Ehe Paare – Europaparlament – HKÜ – Haager – Richter –  Kindesentführung – Beschwerde – Italia – Brief – Eltern – Rechtsberater – Mediator – Beamten – Skandal – Mcguinness – Europa – EU Regulation 2201/2003 – Rückführungsverordnung

Hello dear readers of Family and Family Law !

As a first, I would like to thank your interest in family law. It will be posted contributions from Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland. During special events and stories from other countries, such as England, America and even this rebloggt Allowed framing“.
At present (Feb. 2017), 157 people entered the automatically receive new posts by email. And 60 fixed Worpress users follow this blog. Secondly, I want to show you the new function of language change announce Top left is Home-Language-NewsYou have to select the Language-select country ‚button Here are various languages of the countries in Europe. Many products often involve two countries, therefore, is very important, for example, transparency, * with binational parents with children * Custody battle or child abduction Here is the direct link is to select your language for this page:

Select your Language !

thanks, if you like it please share this page: 1…y-and-family-law/


Tags: Family court –  parental alienation – fatherless children