Re: Answer

It can only be applied after an independent investigation of psychiatrists AND a court order.
Child welfare has no authority whatsoever to take such measurements and therefore her claim seems highly unlikely to me.

I disagree, and I'll tell you why. Under ordinary circumstances the courts likely would've avoided putting her through the ringer, but they understood that this case was going to be high profile when they realized what her plans were. I suspect they had no intention of actually trying to hold her, but they subjected her to inquiries (which I'm sure was within their jurisdiction) in order to try to intimidate her out of sailing solo. She called their bluff and went sailing. They didn't stop her, but they managed to shake her up quite a bit in the process.

Had this happened in the US, England or Canada, they probably would have removed her from her father's custody. In the scheme of things she got off pretty light, but the Dutch government saved face in case the worst happened and she died at sea. That way they could claim that they did all they could but she was bound and determined and no one could really fault them. I don't really disagree with what they did. Whenever anyone undertakes a knowingly dangerous activity and it is going to be well-publicized, I think the state arguably has an interest in making sure that person knows what they're doing and isn't off their proverbial rocker. I think in very rare instances they should intervene, but I mean VERY rare.

This is a case where everyone did more or less what they were supposed to do, but Laura still wound up being a bit traumatized by the process, which is understandable. It was all new for her and she did not know what to expect. Sailing is something she's done all her life; contending with potentially hostile child welfare agents was probably a first. There was a lot at stake there if things had gone differently. Pretty much any 13-year-old kid would've been seriously disturbed by that experience.

Is she exaggerating the harm she experienced? Maybe. I really don't know. But, even if she is, her message is sound and should be well-heeded by any government or organization that feels it is their business to interfere at the drop of a hat. I'm not saying that was the case here, but I hope the message resonates so that governments get the point that they CAN potentially poison their own medicine. They often seem entirely oblivious to that fact.