The past months one of the big stories in the media in Denmark has been the possible deportation of a six-year-old. Even though he has lived his entire life in the country, the Danish authorities seem determined to send the little boy on a plane to Thailand as the case has now been appealed by the government’s independent legal adviser on behalf of the Immigration Board who wish to see the trial in the High Court.
According to Berlingske, the decision to appeal the case was actually made by the new Immigration Complaints Committee. The committee wished to appeal the case in order set precedent regarding the extent to which a person can claim family reunification with children that they are neither biologically related to nor have adopted.
How the court rules may end up affecting many other families in similar cases.
The trial has raised public protests and outrage. Supporters have created a different Facebook pages to support six-year-old year old Fimm Na Thiban where people can express their support. All in all the pages have more than 8000 members.
Although not his biological father, Dane Ole Heegaard has since Fimm’s first months been acting as his guardian. Ole Heegaard and his wife from Thailand, Noppore Na Thiban, divorced and she moved back to Thailand. However, she wished her son to stay in Denmark with Ole Heegaard as he has been as a father for the boy from the beginning. She did not feel that she could care for the boy if he was deported to Thailand and that a foster home might have been the only alternative.
“I wish him to stay with Ole. He has a better future in Denmark than with me in Thailand. He is much closer to his dad than he is to me,” said Noppore Na Thiban to TV2-News.
During question time this Wednesday at the Danish Parliament, Minister for Justice, Morten Bødskov, was asked why the Ministry had decided to appeal the case, but he denies any involvement in the depression.
“I have not been involved in the appeal, nor have I been informed of it. It is a misunderstanding,” the minister said.
He also declined to comment on the case as long a ruling is still pending.