The case of Camelia Jalaskoski (Smicală) and her two children, Mihai and Maria, only in appearance seems to be known to the public in Romania. That is because once entered into the legal details of this case, one reaches the conclusion that there is a legal death and that, while following it as it intervenes under our eyes, it becomes as implacable as the physical death.
Here are the last legal details provided by Camelia Smicală, hallucinatory details of the psychological torture that a Romanian mother and her two children are subjected to in a state in Europe, without the Romanian authorities trying to save them:
On January 6th, 2018, being in the placement center after he was violently kidnapped from his family, Mihai Smicală turned 12. At this point he became – according to Finnish law – the right holder to be heard and to express his opinion on the measures that concern him. Immediately after this age, Mihai Smicală applied to the Supreme Administrative Court, the court competent to supervise the social service and the measures taken by the ministry, asking to be heard by a judge because the measure of placement in a children’s center was taken by the social service without his hearing and without asking for his opinion. Here’s Mihai’s request:
„To the District Court, Honorable Judge, I, the undersigned Mihail Jalaskoski, hereby file the present REQUEST FOR THE HEARING OF THE UNDERSIGNED AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, understanding that I am at the age of 12 and kindly asking you to respect my legal right to be heard. Finland is a country that claims to respect both the best interests of the child and human rights. According to the Finnish law, the child has the right to be heard about his condition from the age of 12.
According to Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: 1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
Therefore, the Convention also defines the cases that justify the best interests of the child, while I am separated from my mother for reasons outside the provision of the law. In view of the above, I request my urgent hearing on the basis of this absolute right provided by both the Finnish Law at the age of 12 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Article 12. I request you to order the Social Services to present myself urgently in front of you for hearing. This application is based on the following provisions of the law: – Child Protection Act no. 417/2007; amendments up to to 1292/2013 included – art. 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
The Supreme Administrative Court denied the request, together with mass rejection of the other requests made by the Smicală family.
In the autumn of 2018, Mihai Smicală returns with a new court request and demands the revocation of the placement measure, as well as being heard by a judge. This request has never been answered.
In May 2019, Mihai Smicală requires again, for the third time, this time through a Public Defender, to be heard by a judge as a matter of urgency, as well as to have the revocation of the measure resolved as a matter of urgency, due to the damage caused to him by being kept away from his mother and the rest of the family. Although this latter request was formulated by a lawyer based on an urgent procedure which, according to the Finnish Public Defender, comes under the legal procedure that imposes for a term for the hearing to be set within two weeks, he still has not received the term for the hearing.
Instead, The People’s Advocate – an institution also competent in this area of supervision of juvenile justice in Finland – sent a reply through which he rejected in mass all Mihai Smicală’s requests, expressing his regrets regarding the fact that the the child does not feel good at the children’s center where he is kept against his will.
The two minors are deprived of their liberty because they are held against their will in different centers – in order to not meet with each other. The two minors are also completely isolated from their mother, whom they can only see for a few hours every three weeks. The two minors are not allowed to receive any other visits from the people close to them or from the representatives of the Romanian state in Finland (according to their mother’s statement).
On the other hand, halucinately, the Romanian state did not respond to the requests – in a number of three – launched by Camelia Smicală for her and the two minors, regarding the repatriation to Romania, on the grounds that the Finnish authorities oppose the repatriation of the family on the ground that the father – namely the person that has caused for the children to be in the center for three years – does not give his consent for repatriation. This happened despite the rights guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child for the two children.
In the list provided by the Ministry for Romanians Abroad containing the steps that have been taken in this case (which were in fact steps made by the Ambassador of Romania in Finland – the only one who made something concrete in this case, far too little being done by other competent authorities in Romania), it is specified that the minors would be in court proceedings before the courts in Finland, that is contradicted precisely by the refusal of the Finnish authorities to hear the minors.
Have the authorities responsible in Romania requested the hearing of a minor by a Finnish judge, respecting the exclusive competence of this much-invoked state? Or, on the contrary, the mother of the children is right and they have been abandoned exclusively in the competence of the Social Service – a matter confirmed by all the above mentioned refusals to be heard by a judge in a judicial procedure?! Jurisdiction is determined by the „habitual” residence of the minor (according to EC Regulation 2201/2003), not by a forced custody, against which the three – the mother and the children – are desperately struggling . Are these people prisoners? Because if the two minors are being held imprisoned against their will, this is their real status. The situation is extremely serious these days, as Mihai Smicală has desperately launched numerous appeals on social networks. Research revealed that these appeals have been triggered by the fact that recently, as a consequence of his latest judicial requests insistently addressed in order to be heard by a judge, Mihai Smicală was threatened that he will be taken to psychiatry, more precisely to the section that applies psychiatric medication and deprivation of liberty, where doors have no doorknobs for total isolation.
The legal story of a Romanian mother, a regular reader used to such cases could say. Or is it the cruel experience of a systematical death applied to children who are being held in centers away from their mother, far from the country where they desperately want to return, under the indifferent eyes of their state of citizenship, namely the Romanian state? Because in this case in which the Romanian state repudiates the problem by motivating that these children are already subject of an undergoing legal proceedings in Finland, while the Finnish authorities are constantly refusing them exactly this thing (n. the access to legal proceedings), the cynicism of this situation fits exactly into the cynicism with which the Romanian people must have already got accustomed. And all these are taking place during an election year for the European Parliament and for the presidency of Romania.
Av. Ana-Corina Săcrieru