Kirsten Chesnut’s
ex-husband could not get his way in the USA
But when he accused his
ex-wife of child abduction and got the Danish Department of Justice involved
things went quite smoothly
By Berit Holbek Jensen (The Liberal Press, DK) dated July 3rd,
2002
Three documents, a load of claims and massive pressure from the American
authorities and an attorney, American as well. This is what started, during the
summer of 1998, the avalanche that resulted in Kirsten Chesnut being convicted
of child abduction and robbed of her son.
It has taken Kirsten Chesnut and her attorney more
than three years to disclose what actually happened.
In the meantime, minutes of telephone calls have disappeared, letters have been shredded, and the Bailiff concerned has apparently disappeared. Even so, from the gathered material it has been possible to piece together a clear picture of a very frightening story.
The story’s main character is Ronald Chesnut who, for
a whole year before his Danish ex-wife’s trip, had unsuccessfully attempted to
prevent her and their son to go on that summer holiday to Denmark which he has
been ordered by the court to help pay for and which he knows, she has made
plans for.
When he and his attorney, a fact now proven, make no
progress with the American Court, they use a method, which turns out to be
fateful for the Danish woman but very lucrative to the American. As Kirsten and their son go on holiday, they
accuse her of child abduction.
Ronald Chesnut and attorney Dveirin prepared well.
Already the day before Kirsten Chesnut goes on holiday attorney Dveirin makes
contact with the Sheriff and the court. As soon as the plane is in the air,
Ronald Chesnut cries foul.
When 7 days later the case arrives in the Danish Department of Justice – to be specific: The Danish Department of Private Law – a seemingly upset Ronald Chesnut claims that his child has been abducted.
He alleges that Kirsten Chesnut has threatened to
remain in Denmark with their son, unless she gets all she wants in connection
with the divorce.
Furthermore, he puts forward three so-called pieces of
documentation for his claim of abduction, which are:
* The parties’ consent
agreement regarding joint custody
* The last two pages of
Kirsten’s petition for divorce on which a judge has noted by hand that neither
parent may remove the child from Louisiana.
* A so-called ”order”,
which places a temporary restraint on either parent from travelling outside
Louisiana without joint, written consent.
What Ronald Chesnut does not tell to the American nor
to the Danish authorities is that Kirsten Chesnut has in reality not done
anything illegal.
The handwritten note by the judge became void the very
moment the parties entered a consent agreement, and the so called “order” is
not really a court order, but merely one of the countless petitions which
Ronald Chesnut’s attorney has sent to the ex-wife’s attorney. The Department of
Private Law believes they are holding a “court order” in their hands, and when
later the case is shipped to Aalborg, this is the document singled out by the
Department.
Five days later another fax arrives from the USA. Now
the American authorities put pressure on the Department of Private Law. They do
not want the same thing to happen as in the two other cases, the fax says, and
furthermore, they write, there is reason to believe, that Kirsten Chesnut is in
contact with organized groups, who help parents to go underground. Apparently,
no documentation is forwarded in support of these claims, but the claims will
have a huge impact on the case’s further course.
Finally, there is a suggestion from attorney Dveirin,
not to waste time on translating the forwarded documents.
Obvious
The Department of Private Law does not translate the
documents before evaluating the case. Director of the Department, Dorrit
Sylvest, explains, “the Department could understand the documents”.
She does not think it is a misconception, when the
department reads a petition for an order, as if it were a final “court order”.
“No, it is not a misconception. But it is for the
court to evaluate. Our only obligation is to evaluate if quite obviously this
is not a case of child abduction,” she says.
To my question, whether three American documents,
which in translated form clearly do not contain a valid restraint against
Kirsten Chesnut travelling outside USA, can really be enough to initiate a case
of child abduction, Dorrit Sylvest answers:
“You know
what, I will not stoop to that level of discussion. I simply will not. It is
not WE, who weigh it. It is not WE, who step in and say that Christian is to be
returned to the USA. That is the BAILIFF’S COURT, and it has been in the HIGH
COURT of the Western Division.
Dorrit Sylvest explains, that she finds difficult, as
she puts it, that ” there is so much pressure put on her department” in
connection with the Chesnut case.
“The boy was reported missing by the father, when the
mother left on her trip and the American authorities initiate action. And then
should it be obvious that this is not a case of child abduction. I really have
a hard time understanding that”.
Secrecy
The Department of Private Law did not only forward the
case to the Bailiff’s Court in Aalborg. The Department, directly and decidedly,
ordered the in-experienced young Bailiff to contact the State Authority (the
Department of Private Law), before doing anything at all with the case and that
she daily keep the department updated.
Dorrit Sylvest admits, that this is not normal
procedure on the part of the Department.
“The American Central Authority and the father were
nervous that something would go wrong, and that the mother would go
underground. Therefore, many calls came from the USA. Calls came almost daily,”
she explains.
In the meantime, she refuses to identify the two other
cases used by the Americans to speed up this case.
“I cannot comment on those cases, but those were also
two different child abduction cases, which took a long time to solve, Dorrit
Sylvest explains.
Two weeks after the initial request came from the USA,
the Aalborg Police, attorneys, the aspiring Bailiff, and the Social Services
rolled into action after many days of secret correspondence back and forth
between the USA, Aalborg and Copenhagen.
Among other things, it is part of this correspondence
in the form of minutes of telephone conversations and letters, which has now
mysteriously been shredded or has simply disappeared.
The avalanche is now rolling, and the following events
are unstoppable. Kirsten Chesnut asks for safe passage, which is denied to her,
and she hides with familymembers to another to avoid losing her son.
Ronald Chesnut forwards even more mysterious
documents, which along with his testimony and Kirsten Chesnut’s inability to
attend, become fatal for the case, which is tried with lightening speed, first
by the Bailiff’s Court and 8 days later by the High Court, Western Division.
Director Dorrit Sylvest, the Department of Private Law, denies that the department’s (subsequent) wrongful translation of Ronald Chesnut’s documents, the pressure from the USA, and the fear of repetition of prior mishaps (by the Department), may have caused that a mother, who was merely on vacation, ended up with a wrongful conviction of child abduction.
“Kirsten Chesnut has, after all, met with former Minister of Justice (Frank Jensen (S), red.) three or four times (twice, red.) so, of course one must consider, whether a mistake has been made. But I am convinced that we have not, “ says Dorrit Sylvest.
It has not been possible to get a comment from the aspiring Bailiff Helle Thor, who tried the case in Aalborg. She no longer works there, and the Court does not know where she has moved. The Court Administration informs that she now lives at a protected address.
Kirsten
Chesnut’s life is in danger
Chief
physician shaken by hunger striker’s weight loss.
Four years ago, Kirsten Chesnut was convicted of child
abduction while she was on holiday in
Denmark with her son Christian. She believes
the Ministry of Justice is guilty of wrong doing, and since May 1st,
she has been on hunger strike to achieve an independent investigation of the
case to be initiated. The photo of her and Christian is the last one taken of
them together. Kirsten Chesnut has not seen him since February 1999.
By Berit Holbek Jensen (The Liberal Press, DK)
The
Danish woman Kirsten Chesnut, who has been on hunger strike since May 1st this
year, in front of Christiansborg (the Danish Parliament)in order to have the
attention of the authorities may be facing death. This is the opinion of chief
physician Marianne Hertz from Rigshospitalet’s (The State Hospital) anorexia
ward.
Kirsten Chesnut, who survives on water, dextrose and multivitamins has lost more than 16 kilograms and now weighs 59 kilograms.
“16 kilograms is a lot in such a short time and the problem is that even though she feels OK, she may, at any point, lose conscience and either die or develop a brain damage,” says Marianne Hertz, who is daily treating anorexia patients.
“One of the dangers of total fasting is that one may believe one has a lot of fat deposits to take from. But fat can only burn in a fire of sugar, and for the body to get enough sugar it must have proteins. If it does not get proteins, it will begin to eat from its own tissues – for example the liver and the muscles.”
Kirsten Chesnut has felt weakness for a while and she has problems lifting things. That is a sign of danger Marianne Hertz believes.
“The brain and the heart need sugar, and one may be in a situation where there is not enough sugar to take from. Then fat can no longer burn and that may be a tricky situation. A person may drop dead even though there may still be fat deposits present in the body,” says Marianne Hertz.
Continues.
Kirsten Chesnut is not unknowing about the risk she is taking, but no-one can make her stop her hunger strike. The Parliament now is in recess and has closed down its sessions for the summer, but Kirsten Chesnut fears that the politicians will not think she “means business”, if she stops now.
“This is not fun and I am quite shaken at the fact that none of them has bothered to dig into this case.
Does not anyone inside there think this case must come to an end?” she asks.
The Ministry of Justice is tired of the case. Kirsten Chesnut’s hunger strike has not been entirely without effect. Among other things, it has prompted several questions from single politicians and from the Parliament’s Council of Law, in particular regarding the role of The Department of Private Law in the case.
One of those, who have asked questions, is Member of Parliament, Gudrun Laub (V).
“But the answers I have received from the Ministry (of Justice) only raise more questions,” she says.
Another is Anne Baastrup (SF), who is the Chairman of the Parliament’s Council of Law. She has been involved in the Chesnut Case on several occasions, and the Council has now asked the Minister of Justice, Lene Espersen (C), if she will agree to an independent investigation of the case.
Silent minister.
It has not been possible to get a comment from Lene Espersen. Her Press Secretary, Morten Langager, informs us that as a matter of principle the Minister will not comment to the press on personal cases in consideration of protection of personal data, in this case of Kirsten Chesnut’s.
“But this does not mean that the Minister has not familiarized herself in-depth with the case, which she has, and the Parliament’s Council of Law will receive an answer in the very near future,” Morten Langager informs.
The Minister will not say, whether she or the Ministry of Justice has a moral responsibility if Kirsten Chesnut’s condition deteriorates.
Kirsten Chesnut’s attorney, Jytte Thorbek, is very worried about her client’s health condition and at the same time she is resentful, that the overwhelming documentation which she has uncovered and presented has so far been swept off the field by the Ministry of Justice.
“I do hope that the new Minister of Justice will show a different attitude than did the former Minister (Frank Jensen (S), red.), who was of no help at all,” says Jytte Thorbek.
She also says that Kirsten Chesnut will apply for funds from the “Varelotteriet” to sue the Department of Private Law.