The Australian "custody sisters"

[banquetbear]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

They were dragged kicking and screaming from Italy? I must have missed that part.

...strawman. Why don't you stick to what I said rather than inventing something I didn't say?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by lionking

You simply have to be kidding. You are saying this with such certainty that you must have some evidence. Please provide such evidence that they know their father loves them more than the mother (and don't use weasel out of this by saying "I didn't say that". Your meaning is crystal clear).

It isn't about greater or lesser love. It is about drama and needyness.

[DreamingNaiad]

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...strawman. Why don't you stick to what I said rather than inventing something I didn't say?

You said force was used to separate them from their father. It's possible deception was used but when was force used?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It isn't about greater or lesser love. It is about drama and needyness.

Another pointless statement lacking of evidence.

[banquetbear]

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

You said force was used to separate them from their father. It's possible deception was used but when was force used?

...you need to understand the multiple meaning of the words "force." The girls were underaged living in another country without the ability to return to their father despite at least one of the girls stating she wanted to go home. There is no evidence that the girls had any options here: the decision to move countries and to have no contact with their father was a decision that was forced on them.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...you need to understand the multiple meaning of the words "force." The girls were underaged living in another country without the ability to return to their father despite at least one of the girls stating she wanted to go home. There is no evidence that the girls had any options here: the decision to move countries and to have no contact with their father was a decision that was forced on them.

Yet another assertion devoid of evidence. Show how this decision was forced on them.

Hatred of the mother by people participating in this thread has led to amazing flights of fantasy.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by lionking

Another pointless statement lacking of evidence.

And we know all the best parents tell their kids to fight thr cops. Best mother ever for making that scene everyone loves so much for its heart warming joy.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And we know all the best parents tell their kids to fight thr cops. Best mother ever for making that scene everyone loves so much for its heart warming joy.

When you have something of substance to say come on back.

[banquetbear]

Originally Posted by lionking

Yet another assertion devoid of evidence. Show how this decision was forced on them.

Hatred of the mother by people participating in this thread has led to amazing flights of fantasy.

...where have I shown hatred of the mother? The answer is I haven't. In fact I've got sympathy for the mother: especially after having watched the 60 minutes documentary and seeing the way the grandmother acted.

I'm not showing any flights of fancy. I'm not claiming the girls were dragged kicking and screaming from Italy. As has been quoted several times:

Quote:

The fact that the youngest child could go from stating in May last year that she wanted to go home to Italy to her home in the Tuscan countryside to now asserting that “Italy’s a scary place. I don’t feel comfortable” and writing that she would stab herself if she was sent back to Italy, when she has not been back to Italy in the meantime, causes me to conclude that she has probably been subjected to considerable influence by persons close to her.

The youngest wanted to return home. She couldn't because of the circumstances of her removal from Italy. This wasn't her choice. If she had had a choice it would have been to go home. From your words in this thread I'm surprised you didn't support her wishes to return to Italy.

The girls were forced by their mum to not return home despite the desire of some of them to do so. This is entirely supported by the weight of the evidence. At some stage after wishing to go home the youngest girl's attitude changed completely. She started writing she would stab herself before returning to Italy. Something happened to change her attitude and it wasn't the actions of the father.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It isn't about greater or lesser love. It is about drama and needyness.

Thank you ponderingturtle, this is it exactly. It's not a question of which parent loves the children more, it's the level of confidence that they have in that parent's love.

"I love you if you throw a fit in front of the cameras for me" vs. "I love you regardless of how you feel about me at the moment"

One of these is parental love, the other is a bit crazy. I'm surprise that lionking is unable to distinguish the difference after allegedly raising children of his own. What I suspect is that he is more of a product of his time than he realizes. A time when men were largely excluded from parenting. Times have changed.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Thank you ponderingturtle, this is it exactly. It's not a question of which parent loves the children more, it's the level of confidence that they have in that parent's love.

"I love you if you throw a fit in front of the cameras for me" vs. "I love you regardless of how you feel about me at the moment"

One of these is parental love, the other is a bit crazy. I'm surprise that lionking is unable to distinguish the difference after allegedly raising children of his own. What I suspect is that he is more of a product of his time than he realizes. A time when men were largely excluded from parenting. Times have changed.

They might not think their mothers love is contingent on their presence but her well being. "I love you so much I will be lost with out you here".

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by banquetbear

The youngest wanted to return home. She couldn't because of the circumstances of her removal from Italy. This wasn't her choice. If she had had a choice it would have been to go home. From your words in this thread I'm surprised you didn't support her wishes to return to Italy.

Well, she hadn't yet been taught that you have to throw a fit in front of TV cameras if you really want something, so that may have something to do with it.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by ehcks

So. About that thing you didn't do.

Exactly - I answered the question.

The fact the nobody else seems willing says a lot about their agenda here, IMO.

[Shiner]

My $0.02,

I don't think it's been established that the girls tantrums before, during and after boarding the plane, were due to "fear of their father". Really? That's hyperbole at best.

What is clear, is that they were convinced (by their mother) that returning to Italy would mean not seeing their mother for an indefinite period. (forever in the minds of children)

The analogy between this case and random child abduction is ridiculous. The father gave permission for his children to leave the country of their birth. He says this in the 60 Minutes interview. (and other interviews)

"The best interests of the child" can only be addressed in the country of their legal residence as determined by the custody agreement. The Hague convention has to be actioned before any other proceedings. The "exceptional circumstances" clause was deemed not applicable in this case.
IMO, (regardless of the traumatic circumstances) the best interests of these children have been met to the letter of the law.

The judges report is quite explicit in it's description of the mothers manipulation of the children and the legal system. I can't see how it would have been "in the best interest of the children" to be left in that environment.


Oh, fwiw, you only see/hear what 60 minutes wants you to see.........

*I can't see how they could've portrayed the grandmother in a good way though*

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Exactly - I answered the question.

Originally Posted by ehcks

You answered it by questioning if that's what actually happened, even though that it happened is one of the few facts we have.

I feel like I've done this already.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Shiner

My $0.02,

I don't think it's been established that the girls tantrums before, during and after boarding the plane, were due to "fear of their father". Really? That's hyperbole at best.

What is clear, is that they were convinced (by their mother) that returning to Italy would mean not seeing their mother for an indefinite period. (forever in the minds of children)

The analogy between this case and random child abduction is ridiculous. The father gave permission for his children to leave the country of their birth. He says this in the 60 Minutes interview. (and other interviews)

"The best interests of the child" can only be addressed in the country of their legal residence as determined by the custody agreement. The Hague convention has to be actioned before any other proceedings. The "exceptional circumstances" clause was deemed not applicable in this case.
IMO, (regardless of the traumatic circumstances) the best interests of these children have been met to the letter of the law.

The judges report is quite explicit in it's description of the mothers manipulation of the children and the legal system. I can't see how it would have been "in the best interest of the children" to be left in that environment.

I don't think there's any real question but that the father has the law on his side. But I still think it would have been in everyone's best interest to leave the police out of it and continue to negotiate, coaxing the children if possible but allowing them the final recourse of refusing to get on that plane.

It seems to me this father is a glutton for punishment. Four girls between 9-14 who don't want to be there? I would have gladly sent a monthly check to the other hemisphere, gone there on vacations, shown the kids a good time, and then handed them back over to mom. And I think this mom is devoted to her kids, whatever character flaws she has.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I don't think there's any real question but that the father has the law on his side. But I still think it would have been in everyone's best interest to leave the police out of it and continue to negotiate, coaxing the children if possible but allowing them the final recourse of refusing to get on that plane.

How would there be any negotiation at all without police involvement? You think psycho mom was going to answer dad's phone calls, letters, emails, etc??

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I don't think there's any real question but that the father has the law on his side. But I still think it would have been in everyone's best interest to leave the police out of it and continue to negotiate, coaxing the children if possible but allowing them the final recourse of refusing to get on that plane.

It seems to me this father is a glutton for punishment. Four girls between 9-14 who don't want to be there? I would have gladly sent a monthly check to the other hemisphere, gone there on vacations, shown the kids a good time, and then handed them back over to mom. And I think this mom is devoted to her kids, whatever character flaws she has.

She wouldn't let him see them when he went there. Why are you throwing out speculations that run exactly contrary to what actually happened? The entire reason for involving the police is that they couldn't work things out without them, and it seems entirely on the mother that that was the case.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

She wouldn't let him see them when he went there. Why are you throwing out speculations that run exactly contrary to what actually happened? The entire reason for involving the police is that they couldn't work things out without them, and it seems entirely on the mother that that was the case.

This^^

The opportunity to do it peacefully was ignored.

Quote:

Back in May, a court ordered the children to be placed on a plane at Brisbane Airport and flown to Italy. They didn’t show up. In fact, the mother, working in concert with her various female relatives, had hidden them and taken their cell phones so they could neither contact anyone nor be contacted. Incredibly, the mother claimed to the court that she had no idea where the girls were or, when they were found, who had secreted them away. For having violated a court order and then flagrantly lied to the court, she was rewarded with custody. The kids were unhappy in foster care and so a judge returned them to their mother whose most noteworthy feature to date had been her frank willingness to violate the law.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/20...back-to-italy/

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Shiner

This^^

The opportunity to do it peacefully was ignored.

Pretty dodgy fathers rights website you linked to.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This article states that they were taken out of foster care and returned to the mother but is unclear when they went into the foster system. I believe it was after she had hidden them after the first time the court ruled that they return to tialy

Correct.

Quote:

Under the terms of the return order, the children, aged between nine and 15, were due to fly back to Italy in May. They refused to go and their family went public with their story.
In an attempt to avoid the return order, the children went on the run with their maternal great-grandmother.
They were found soon after and placed into foster care until worries for their emotional well-being saw them returned to the temporary custody of their Sunshine Coast mother.
Since then, there has been a High Court challenge (essentially arguing minors were entitled to their own, separate legal representation in custody issues), which was rejected on the first day of the hearing, several adjournments and appeals.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...#ixzz2MSAh5Hy6

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by lionking

Pretty dodgy fathers rights website you linked to.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's a link that's been used throughout this thread. Gives a good overview of the story, and doesn't try to hide it's bias.

Try the Brisbane Times court reporting and the judges findings. Or you could just keep stirring the pot....

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Try the Brisbane Times court reporting and the judges findings. Or you could just keep stirring the pot....

Having an alternative opinion is not stirring the pot in my view, but whatever.....

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's a link that's been used throughout this thread. Gives a good overview of the story, and doesn't try to hide it's bias.

No, it certainly does not try to hide its bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

No, it certainly does not try to hide its bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY

Funny. That's about the size of it.

I don't think it's relevant in the context of my use of the quote from the article.

Maybe next time I'll find another source and save myself the trouble.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by lionking

Having an alternative opinion is not stirring the pot in my view, but whatever.....

The position you're arguing;( that it may? have been in the childrens best interests to be left with their mother until custody can be settled ) can only be argued seriously if you completely ignore Australian, Italian, and international law.

Sounds like stirring to me, but whatever.......

"In the child's best interest" is what has happened. They have returned to Italy where any custody dispute needs to be settled.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I don't think there's any real question but that the father has the law on his side. But I still think it would have been in everyone's best interest to leave the police out of it and continue to negotiate, coaxing the children if possible but allowing them the final recourse of refusing to get on that plane.

It seems to me this father is a glutton for punishment. Four girls between 9-14 who don't want to be there? I would have gladly sent a monthly check to the other hemisphere, gone there on vacations, shown the kids a good time, and then handed them back over to mom. And I think this mom is devoted to her kids, whatever character flaws she has.

If I were in a situation where I had four daughters of that age group who had made it abundantly clear that they didn't want to live with me, then I would simply have let them go live with their mother if that is what they wanted.

Actually, unless there are issues of the daughters being in some kind of physical danger with their mother, I question the motives of ANY father who would want to force his teenage daughters to live with him against their will.

[Shiner]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If I were in a situation where I had four daughters of that age group who had made it abundantly clear that they didn't want to live with me, then I would simply have let them go live with their mother if that is what they wanted.

Actually, unless there are issues of the daughters being in some kind of physical danger with their mother, I question the motives of ANY father who would want to force his teenage daughters to live with him against their will.

Touche'. Can't argue that.......but, 'what if?'

..... it was known to you that the children were being deliberately turned against you?
(hypothetically of course)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Touche'. Can't argue that.......but, 'what if?'

..... it was known to you that the children were being deliberately turned against you?
(hypothetically of course)

Well that makes it harder of course, but one thing is for sure. I am not going to force them to live with me if they don't want to, because that will only serve to reinforce whatever their mother is telling them about me, making her appear righteous in the eyes of the children, and giving her the ammunition she needs.

I simply would not play that game; where the children become powerless pawns in a battle between their mother and me.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Shiner

Touche'. Can't argue that.......but, 'what if?'

..... it was known to you that the children were being deliberately turned against you?
(hypothetically of course)

Yes... And let's also add that, two grotesque older pigs... One an auto thief....were to have influence in your daughters development?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well that makes it harder of course, but one thing is for sure. I am not going to force them to live with me if they don't want to, because that will only serve to reinforce whatever their mother is telling them about me, making her appear righteous in the eyes of the children, and giving her the ammunition she needs.

I simply would not play that game; where the children become powerless pawns in a battle between their mother and me.

All you need is time. Their still kids, you can change them into Nazis if you wanted too.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Caper

All you need is time. Their still kids, you can change them into Nazis if you wanted too.

Well I see it this way.

1. You can allow the kids to live with their mother
- It risks the possibility that she might turn them away from you.
- It risks the possibility that some or all of them might suffer some traumatic experience in the future

2. You can have them dragged kicking and screaming away from their mother
- This will guarantee that they turn against you and hate you!
- This will ensure for certain that they suffer that psychologically traumatic experience, now.

At least with choice 1, you have a chance for things to be made right for them. If you take choice 2, you have put yourself in a difficult (IMO impossible) position and cast yourself in the role of the villain in their eyes, confirming exactly what their mother has been saying about you.

The effect of that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome. Even a first year psychology student will tell you that a realisation that comes about as a result of a traumatic experience has a greater tendency to have a lasting effect - you remember your unpleasant lessons better!

With the 14 year old, the father won't have a have lot of time. Under Italian Law, at 16 she is entitled to leave home, and I'll bet she does.

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If I were in a situation where I had four daughters of that age group who had made it abundantly clear that they didn't want to live with me, then I would simply have let them go live with their mother if that is what they wanted.

Actually, unless there are issues of the daughters being in some kind of physical danger with their mother, I question the motives of ANY father who would want to force his teenage daughters to live with him against their will.

The father isn't 'forcing' his children to live with him. They've been returned to Italy so the appropriate court can make a decision on who they should live with; for all we know the court may decide it should be their mother in Australia. The only reason the kids are living with their father at the moment is that their mother didn't return to Italy with them to resume the shared custody agreement.

It can't be in the children's best interests to be systematically alienated from their father and his family (the Italian grandmother has also said that up until a year ago she had good contact with the girls, but that they subsequently refused to speak to her). We could also "question the motives" of a father who would willingly leave his children in a situation where he suspected that was happening. It may not be what you would have chosen to do, but I can't see that the father's actions here are unreasonable.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well I see it this way.

1. You can allow the kids to live with their mother
- It risks the possibility that she might turn them away from you.
- It risks the possibility that some or all of them might suffer some traumatic experience in the future

2. You can have them dragged kicking and screaming away from their mother
- This will guarantee that they turn against you and hate you!
- This will ensure for certain that they suffer that psychologically traumatic experience, now.

At least with choice 1, you have a chance for things to be made right for them. If you take choice 2, you have put yourself in a difficult (IMO impossible) position and cast yourself in the role of the villain in their eyes, confirming exactly what their mother has been saying about you.

The effect of that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome. Even a first year psychology student will tell you that a realisation that comes about as a result of a traumatic experience has a greater tendency to have a lasting effect - you remember your unpleasant lessons better!

With the 14 year old, the father won't have a have lot of time. Under Italian Law, at 16 she is entitled to leave home, and I'll bet she does.

I bet she doesn't. Also, I completely don't by your premise.

Under option one you leave them with their mother and grandmother and great grandmother.... and you risk the girls growing up into miserable hogs, like their grandmother or great grandmother..

Do you think it's a good thing to raise girls to be miserable hogs? I don't.

Also.... if they don't grow up to be miserable hogs... do you think it will be healthy for them to find out they were lied to by their mother and denied a relationship with their father? I quoted a girl earlier who told a similar story of how she was traumatized by her mothers lies about her father.... and felt terrible how she treated him.

[tyr_13]

Providing children the best opportunities in life doesn't always mean they'll like you while you do.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by katy_did

The father isn't 'forcing' his children to live with him.

If having the police drag them screaming away from their mother isn't forcing them, then what is?

Quote:

It can't be in the children's best interests to be systematically alienated from their father and his family

It also cannot be in their best interests to physically and forcibly remove them from their mother, against their obvious protestations.

The Australian Police treated them the same way they treat criminals when they resist arrest. NOTHING justifies the way that these young girls were physically assaulted by the Police.

Originally Posted by katy_did

the Italian grandmother has also said that up until a year ago she had good contact with the girls, but that they subsequently refused to speak to her

And I wonder why that is. Perhaps something happened in Italy that we don't know about.

Originally Posted by katy_did

We could also "question the motives" of a father who would willingly leave his children in a situation where he suspected that was happening. It may not be what you would have chosen to do, but I can't see that the father's actions here are unreasonable.

Leaving them with the mother while the issues are dealt with is a far better option than physically dragging them away when it is clear that they do not want to return to their father.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Providing children the best opportunities in life doesn't always mean they'll like you while you do.

Sanctimonious claptrap. We aren't talking about making them do their homework or assigning them chores. It is about where they live.

Personally, no matter how I felt about my children, or how much I loved them, I would rather they be happy living with their mother, than miserable living with me, and hating me because I forced them to do so.

Originally Posted by Caper

Under option one you leave them with their mother and grandmother and great grandmother.... and you risk the girls growing up into miserable hogs, like their grandmother or great grandmother.

Do you think it's a good thing to raise girls to be miserable hogs? I don't.[/quote]


You are substituting your personal judgement for facts.

I don't judge people by their appearance or how they appear to act in a stressful situation. If you wan't to see a great example of what can happen when the public judge people because they don't act according to the way people expect, look no further that the disgraceful way the Australian courts and public treated Lindy & Michael Chamberlain.

Originally Posted by Caper

Also.... if they don't grow up to be miserable hogs... do you think it will be healthy for them to find out they were lied to by their mother and denied a relationship with their father? I quoted a girl earlier who told a similar story of how she was traumatized by her mothers lies about her father.... and felt terrible how she treated him.

Notwithstanding your biased personal judgement of the mother, I will admit there is a possibility of that happening, but I'll take the possibility over the certainty any day, and the certainty is that physically assaulting young teenagers by dragging them away from their mother will have a lasting traumatic effect that will live long in their memories, and for which the father will probably never be forgiven.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Sanctimonious claptrap. We aren't talking about making them do their homework or assigning them chores. It is about where they live.

Right, something much more important than doing homework. Seriously, have you even considered that you're wrong? That's not a defense of your argument at all.

Quote:

Personally, no matter how I felt about my children, or how much I loved them, I would rather they be happy living with their mother, than miserable living with me, and hating me because I forced them to do so.

False dichotomy and knowing what they couldn't possibly know.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Seriously, have you even considered that you're wrong?

I could be wrong about the mother, but then, so could anyone else posting here. I could be wrong about the father, but then, so could anyone else posting here.

But there is one thing that I know I am right about.

There was absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for the Police to subject four innocent teenage and pre-teen children to the barbaric act of physically assaulting them and dragging them screaming away from their mother.

This situation was appallingly handled by the authorities, and the trauma inflicted on these girls was totally unnecessary. One or both of the parents may have been to blame for the situation but the Police alone are responsible for the brutal way they handled it.

Any half-decent hostage negotiator could have had those children out and on the plane quietly and without any fuss or bother given a few hours. There was no all-fired hurry to get them on the plane to Italy... the courts could simply have waited for them.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I could be wrong about the mother, but then, so could anyone else posting here. I could be wrong about the father, but then, so could anyone else posting here.

But there is one thing that I know I am right about.

There was absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER for the Police to subject four innocent teenage and pre-teen children to the barbaric act of physically assaulting them and dragging them screaming away from their mother.

This situation was appallingly handled by the authorities, and the trauma inflicted on these girls was totally unnecessary. One or both of the parents may have been to blame for the situation but the Police alone are responsible for the brutal way they handled it.

Any half-decent hostage negotiator could have had those children out and on the plane quietly and without any fuss or bother given a few hours. There was no all-fired hurry to get them on the plane to Italy... the courts could simply have waited for them.

No good justification at least. What was it that an officer said at to one of the kids? "You are under arrest"? It was something like that and it sounded odd.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The Australian Police treated them the same way they treat criminals when they resist arrest. NOTHING justifies the way that these young girls were physically assaulted by the Police.

So the girls preventing the execution of a court order isn't a valid reason? And what do you think that the police should have done? Ignored the law because you don't like what they ultimately did?

Quote:

And I wonder why that is. Perhaps something happened in Italy that we don't know about.

Considering that they haven't even been back in Italy for a year I'd say that this is less likely than the girls being influenced by the unsavoury members of the mother's family.

Quote:

Leaving them with the mother while the issues are dealt with is a far better option than physically dragging them away when it is clear that they do not want to return to their father.

So leaving them with the mother and her family members who are manipulating the girls is a good idea?

Quote:

Sanctimonious claptrap. We aren't talking about making them do their homework or assigning them chores. It is about where they live.

Because that doesn't fall under the "what's best for them" category.

Quote:

Personally, no matter how I felt about my children, or how much I loved them, I would rather they be happy living with their mother, than miserable living with me, and hating me because I forced them to do so.

Because screw inconvenient things like the law right? For all we know the girls could look back on this later on in life and find that it was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Quote:

You are substituting your personal judgement for facts.

This coming from Mr "daddy is sexually abusing his daughters".

Quote:

I don't judge people by their appearance or how they appear to act in a stressful situation.

And yet you're more than willing to pass judgement on the father and his family.

Quote:

If you wan't to see a great example of what can happen when the public judge people because they don't act according to the way people expect, look no further that the disgraceful way the Australian courts and public treated Lindy & Michael Chamberlain.

Ah yes the Chamberlains, another case whose public perception was influenced by biased reporting by the media.

Quote:

Notwithstanding your biased personal judgement of the mother, I will admit there is a possibility of that happening, but I'll take the possibility over the certainty any day, and the certainty is that physically assaulting young teenagers by dragging them away from their mother will have a lasting traumatic effect that will live long in their memories, and for which the father will probably never be forgiven.

Prove it. If you know this for a certainty you should be able to provide evidence to back it up.