The Australian "custody sisters" - Page 10

Caper · 24th February 2013, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I have the impression that many here, when faced with injustice or setbacks, can think of nothing but complaining about unfairness. Life isn't fair. You have to cope with it anyway. Even if you can prove to the world, and get a whole message board to agree with you that you were unfairly treated, that doesn't fix the situation. That's religious thinking, that there's a referee, a judge out there, and if you can prove your case he will fix it for you. There's no god to do that. The law isn't always fast or fair. You have to cope anyway.

Sooo, why does that apply only to the kidnapper? Why not say to the kids, "life isn't fair"... it's the law, your going to Italy? Why does the "life isn't fair" part only apply to one of the victims of the kidnapping?

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Really? If your mother asked you to commit genocide.... you would?

It seems to be an unhealthy sort of attachment. I can't imagine any situations where I'd feel compelled to abandon any principles, and very few where I'd break the law, for the sake of a filial obligation.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

So far all the pro-mother side here can argue is that if the facts were different then the kidnapping was justified.

That's nice, but wy are you defending this kidnapping in this particuilar case?

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Sooo, why does that apply only to the kidnapper? Why not say to the kids, "life isn't fair"... it's the law, your going to Italy? Why does the "life isn't fair" part only apply to one of the victims of the kidnapping?

Beceause the entire process is meant to be about the welfare of the children.

ehcks · 24th February 2013, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm?

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

That's talking about the return of "a wrongfully removed" child. The removal was still wrongful. It's just that the return may not be necessary.

And yet see how this law is written so as to prevent unjust outcomes?

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

And yet see how this law is written so as to prevent unjust outcomes?

That's interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by ehcks

So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm?

Remember that there is still a chance that the Italian courts will decude to award dole custerdoy to the mother, it is unlikely that the mother will be legally prevented from having any future contact with her children. The situation is quite, quite, distinct from othet types of kidnapping.

ehcks · 24th February 2013, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Remember that there is still a chance that the Italian courts will decude to award dole custerdoy to the mother, it is unlikely that the mother will be legally prevented from having any future contact with her children. The situation is quite, quite, distinct from othet types of kidnapping.

Sure. That's what the court case is for, though the mother certainly reduced her chances with this. But a complete stranger kidnapping kids from an actually abusive home could also win. What matters is the evidence. You can't just let a kidnapper get away with the crime because it might hurt the victims more to take them back.

The mother kidnapped and alienated the children, the father has not been shown to do anything illegal or harmful. Those are the facts we have. The court will get more, but so far, the father looks like he should win.

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

Sure you can say that, if you're able to see into the future. If that's the case, can you tell me next week's Lotto numbers?

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

That's interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

Yes, your earlier point was an equivocation being passed off as a syllogism. Logic fails when a premise is faulty.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Sure you can say that, if you're able to see into the future. If that's the case, can you tell me next week's Lotto numbers?

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

brodski · 24th February 2013, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by ehcks

Sure. That's what the court case is for, though the mother certainly reduced her chances with this. But a complete stranger kidnapping kids from an actually abusive home could also win. What matters is the evidence. You can't just let a kidnapper get away with the crime because it might hurt the victims more to take them back.

The mother kidnapped and alienated the children, the father has not been shown to do anything illegal or harmful. Those are the facts we have. The court will get more, but so far, the father looks like he should win.

Im pretty sure that a stranger who kidnaps kids is never going to be awarded custody of the kids.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by katy_did

I don't know if anyone else has seen the 60 Minutes program on the case? It has interviews with the father and with the mother's family. I just watched it and it's...revealing, let's say.

Thanks for the link. The mother's mother is batsh** crazy.

Sideroxylon · 24th February 2013, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Thanks for the link. The mother's mother is batsh** crazy.

Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

Yes, it actually does, unless you're an unbiased child psychologist involved with the case.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Yes, your earlier point was an equivocation being passed off as a syllogism. Logic fails when a premise is faulty.

Well it wasn't MY premise, so I can hardly be blamed for that.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Im pretty sure that a stranger who kidnaps kids is never going to be awarded custody of the kids.

Yes but you're avoiding the question. The argument that the children will feel less stress could as easily apply to non-biologically related kidnappers as well. Where is the difference?

If a rich woman steals a poor woman's child, is there no recourse for the poor woman if the children are poisoned against her and given a "better life"?

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

Wow, therer's some serious goalpost moving there!

So now you are claimimng not that this incident at the airport affected the children, but that custody disputes in general do? And what is your solution for that?

brodski · 24th February 2013, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wow, therer's some serious goalpost moving there!

So now you are claimimng not that this incident at the airport affected the children, but that custody disputes in general do? And what is your solution for that?

My position on this has not shifted at all. My argument is that if one parent is ramping up the dispute to the point that it is causing psychological harm to the children (as noted by the judge) then the other parent has the choice to be the better parent and sacrifice their happiness in order to protect the interests of their children.

This is nit going to have a happy ending for all concerned, and natural justice cannot be served, so how best to defuse the situation and protect the interests of the children? Given that the prospect if them needing to be taken into foster care in itsly (due to the behaviour of the older girls) has been raised by their father's family, I'm pretty confident that the current situation is not in their best interests.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Yes but you're avoiding the question. The argument that the children will feel less stress could as easily apply to non-biologically related kidnappers as well. Where is the difference?

If a rich woman steals a poor woman's child, is there no recourse for the poor woman if the children are poisoned against her and given a "better life"?

You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

My position on this has not shifted at all. My argument is that if one parent is ramping up the dispute to the point that it is causing psychological harm to the children (as noted by the judge) then the other parent has the choice to be the better parent and sacrifice their happiness in order to protect the interests of their children.

This is nit going to have a happy ending for all concerned, and natural justice cannot be served, so how best to defuse the situation and protect the interests of the children? Given that the prospect if them needing to be taken into foster care in itsly (due to the behaviour of the older girls) has been raised by their father's family, I'm pretty confident that the current situation is not in their best interests.

So in your perfect world the parent willing to cause the most harm to the children automatically gets custody?

Charlie Wilkes · 24th February 2013, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim.

That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 10:15 AM

And on a related note, it was quite normal in American Indian warfare for one tribe to take the children of another (or even white settlers) after they had killed their parents and raise them as their own. And the children would recover from this, and even be fiercely loyal to their "new" family.

If those kids can get over something like that, these kids can recover from the airport temper tantrum. Why on earth was the mother allowed to be at the airport anyway? I wonder if the scene would have been quite different if she had been elsewhere (like in a jail cell, but that's just me).

Charlie Wilkes · 24th February 2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by ehcks

So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm?

He didn't bring you back to the question of any other kidnapper. That's pure invention, and if you need it to support your argument, maybe you should think about what that implies.

If you insist on hypotheticals, here's one:

Watch the video at the top of this thread. Then imagine that instead of being dragged off by police officers sworn to uphold the law, the kids were abducted by private agents of the father, and they were now in a place beyond the reach of their mother or the law.

I assume that would alter the perceptions of JREF pundits, but I'm not sure it would be substantially different from the POV of the kids. The essential elements of their experience are that no one cares about their pleas, they have no control over what is happening to them, and they are being forcibly separated from someone they love.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?

Certainly I can, and so does the law. But the argument that "it would be easier on the girls to leave them in the care of the person who kidnapped them and alienated them from one parent" seems to simply hinge more on a restatement of "easier on the girls who are suffering from Stockholm syndrome" more than the biological connection which they have with the perpetrator.

Sideroxylon · 24th February 2013, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

She made that very clear though she could have been wrong about her assessment. Grandma's lame attempts at supporting the claim told the true story.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Again, your emotional involvement makes a sensible debate with you difficult, and your reading comprehension isn't the best either, but let me comment on this. If you have a look at my user profile you will see my age. I've made it clear in many posts that I have a lot of kids and am part of a large family. My work also puts me in direst contact with many mothers. This "clear" comment is as "clear" as many of others you have made, that is, not at all.

The hatred you display for the mother in question is quite telling.

So you may have or soon may have Grand-kids. Are they up for grabs? Can anyone just grab them take them to a good home and keep them... all the abductors have to do is turn them against your children?

..... and for that they get your support?

ponderingturtle · 24th February 2013, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?

Where is the line that legitimizes kidnapping?

brodski · 24th February 2013, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Where is the line that legitimizes kidnapping?

I have utterly condemned the mothers actions, that doesn't mean that returning the kids to Italy will magically make everything better, nor does it mean that the traumatic return is not harmful to the girls. Are we to sacrifice their wellbeing for the sake of principle?

Aepervius · 24th February 2013, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

Which is more or less saying "guy/gale you are free to kidnap your kids, if you work on them good enough and attach them strongly enough, you can even get away with it !".

You have no way to know it would be better for the kids to stay there. But at least before the italian court it could be made clear and clean. But hey who cares as long as you can get emotion running high and remove the father its right by a stroke of key.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim.

I know. The mother seems crazy... the mother's mother is crazy.... and the mother's mother's mother is crazy.

Seriously though... who would rent a car under their son in laws name and then steal the car? That's nuts.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

So in your perfect world the parent willing to cause the most harm to the children automatically gets custody?

I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.

Aepervius · 24th February 2013, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

No what takes psychic power is the underlying assumption the kids would be better off with the mother, based on the show of emotion.

In fact it could very well be that the mother is not stable emotionally and the father very stable making the childs better off with the father. Sure with a transition period where they might be PO'd off, but later on growing understatnding.

I like that game, I should speculate like you all do on the wellfare of the kids, you can invent any scenario ! Rather than let the italian court decide as proper ! Fun !

Caper · 24th February 2013, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

I saw that... but it didn't score any points with me. To me, she realized that something so stupid would never stick and only hurt her case and even she would go that far.

Aepervius · 24th February 2013, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

My position on this has not shifted at all. My argument is that if one parent is ramping up the dispute to the point that it is causing psychological harm to the children (as noted by the judge) then the other parent has the choice to be the better parent and sacrifice their happiness in order to protect the interests of their children.

"hey my significant other is a bitch emotionally scarring my children, but I am a good guys I will let her go away with it!".

Not.

If I was a father I would rather try to solve the situation than abdict responsibility and let the motehr **** up the kids for good.

Quote:

This is nit going to have a happy ending for all concerned, and natural justice cannot be served, so how best to defuse the situation and protect the interests of the children? Given that the prospect if them needing to be taken into foster care in itsly (due to the behaviour of the older girls) has been raised by their father's family, I'm pretty confident that the current situation is not in their best interests.

Emphasis mine. HOW do you know that the best interrest of the children would not be exactly to be with a law abbiding emotionally stable father?

A little pain now is much better than a great pain later. Which is why even if a child cry at the propesct to give them a vaccination we still force them to get it.

you have no way whatsoever from the media circus to conclude the childs would be better off with the mother.

You are just assuming so.

This is where the claim of psychic power onto your post come from.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I have utterly condemned the mothers actions, that doesn't mean that returning the kids to Italy will magically make everything better, nor does it mean that the traumatic return is not harmful to the girls. Are we to sacrifice their wellbeing for the sake of principle?

YES. You can't steal kids.

I cannot go to a third world country and take some parents kid simply because they would be better off....... and lets be clear.... if the child is young and a good western family takes the third world child, they will almost surely be better off........ but it can't be justified.

An argument that you can give a child a better life is not an argument to take a child.

brodski · 24th February 2013, 10:47 AM

Am I the only one who has read the courts rulings related to psychological impact? They are linked in this thread for those who don't share my psychic powers.

Aepervius · 24th February 2013, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.

But you are only ASSUMING they are after their kids happnyness. And *anyway* as my example shows above, immediate happyness is not always the best responsibility of a parents ! A good parents will sometimes forgoe immediate happyness for a long term happyness of a kids (vaccination, punishing them for infraction, teaching them discipline, etc...).

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.

So you automatically award custody to the parent willing to do the most harm to the children, yes?

24th February 2013, 09:02 AM	#361
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I have the impression that many here, when faced with injustice or setbacks, can think of nothing but complaining about unfairness. Life isn't fair. You have to cope with it anyway. Even if you can prove to the world, and get a whole message board to agree with you that you were unfairly treated, that doesn't fix the situation. That's religious thinking, that there's a referee, a judge out there, and if you can prove your case he will fix it for you. There's no god to do that. The law isn't always fast or fair. You have to cope anyway. Sooo, why does that apply only to the kidnapper? Why not say to the kids, "life isn't fair"... it's the law, your going to Italy? Why does the "life isn't fair" part only apply to one of the victims of the kidnapping?
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970

24th February 2013, 09:03 AM	#362
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by Caper Really? If your mother asked you to commit genocide.... you would? It seems to be an unhealthy sort of attachment. I can't imagine any situations where I'd feel compelled to abandon any principles, and very few where I'd break the law, for the sake of a filial obligation.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 09:06 AM	#363
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by WildCat So far all the pro-mother side here can argue is that if the facts were different then the kidnapping was justified. That's nice, but wy are you defending this kidnapping in this particuilar case? The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 09:07 AM	#364
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by Caper Sooo, why does that apply only to the kidnapper? Why not say to the kids, "life isn't fair"... it's the law, your going to Italy? Why does the "life isn't fair" part only apply to one of the victims of the kidnapping? Beceause the entire process is meant to be about the welfare of the children.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 09:10 AM	#365
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,694	Originally Posted by brodski The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused. So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm?
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,694	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

24th February 2013, 09:12 AM	#366
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by Matthew Best That's talking about the return of "a wrongfully removed" child. The removal was still wrongful. It's just that the return may not be necessary. And yet see how this law is written so as to prevent unjust outcomes?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 09:14 AM	#367
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,147	Originally Posted by joesixpack And yet see how this law is written so as to prevent unjust outcomes? That's interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

24th February 2013, 09:15 AM	#368
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by ehcks So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm? Remember that there is still a chance that the Italian courts will decude to award dole custerdoy to the mother, it is unlikely that the mother will be legally prevented from having any future contact with her children. The situation is quite, quite, distinct from othet types of kidnapping.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 09:20 AM	#369
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,694	Originally Posted by brodski Remember that there is still a chance that the Italian courts will decude to award dole custerdoy to the mother, it is unlikely that the mother will be legally prevented from having any future contact with her children. The situation is quite, quite, distinct from othet types of kidnapping. Sure. That's what the court case is for, though the mother certainly reduced her chances with this. But a complete stranger kidnapping kids from an actually abusive home could also win. What matters is the evidence. You can't just let a kidnapper get away with the crime because it might hurt the victims more to take them back. The mother kidnapped and alienated the children, the father has not been shown to do anything illegal or harmful. Those are the facts we have. The court will get more, but so far, the father looks like he should win.
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,694	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor Last edited by ehcks; 24th February 2013 at 09:22 AM.

24th February 2013, 09:22 AM	#370
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	Originally Posted by brodski The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused. Sure you can say that, if you're able to see into the future. If that's the case, can you tell me next week's Lotto numbers?

24th February 2013, 09:24 AM	#371
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by Matthew Best That's interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making. Yes, your earlier point was an equivocation being passed off as a syllogism. Logic fails when a premise is faulty.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 09:34 AM	#372
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by WildCat Sure you can say that, if you're able to see into the future. If that's the case, can you tell me next week's Lotto numbers? Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 09:35 AM	#373
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by ehcks Sure. That's what the court case is for, though the mother certainly reduced her chances with this. But a complete stranger kidnapping kids from an actually abusive home could also win. What matters is the evidence. You can't just let a kidnapper get away with the crime because it might hurt the victims more to take them back. The mother kidnapped and alienated the children, the father has not been shown to do anything illegal or harmful. Those are the facts we have. The court will get more, but so far, the father looks like he should win. Im pretty sure that a stranger who kidnaps kids is never going to be awarded custody of the kids.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 09:35 AM	#374
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970	Originally Posted by katy_did I don't know if anyone else has seen the 60 Minutes program on the case? It has interviews with the father and with the mother's family. I just watched it and it's...revealing, let's say. Thanks for the link. The mother's mother is batsh** crazy.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970

24th February 2013, 09:40 AM	#375
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,635	Originally Posted by Caper Thanks for the link. The mother's mother is batsh** crazy. Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

24th February 2013, 09:42 AM	#376
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by brodski Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right? Yes, it actually does, unless you're an unbiased child psychologist involved with the case.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 09:43 AM	#377
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,147	Originally Posted by joesixpack Yes, your earlier point was an equivocation being passed off as a syllogism. Logic fails when a premise is faulty. Well it wasn't MY premise, so I can hardly be blamed for that.

24th February 2013, 09:48 AM	#378
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by brodski Im pretty sure that a stranger who kidnaps kids is never going to be awarded custody of the kids. Yes but you're avoiding the question. The argument that the children will feel less stress could as easily apply to non-biologically related kidnappers as well. Where is the difference? If a rich woman steals a poor woman's child, is there no recourse for the poor woman if the children are poisoned against her and given a "better life"?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 09:55 AM	#379
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	Originally Posted by brodski Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right? Wow, therer's some serious goalpost moving there! So now you are claimimng not that this incident at the airport affected the children, but that custody disputes in general do? And what is your solution for that?

24th February 2013, 10:06 AM	#380
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by WildCat Wow, therer's some serious goalpost moving there! So now you are claimimng not that this incident at the airport affected the children, but that custody disputes in general do? And what is your solution for that? My position on this has not shifted at all. My argument is that if one parent is ramping up the dispute to the point that it is causing psychological harm to the children (as noted by the judge) then the other parent has the choice to be the better parent and sacrifice their happiness in order to protect the interests of their children. This is nit going to have a happy ending for all concerned, and natural justice cannot be served, so how best to defuse the situation and protect the interests of the children? Given that the prospect if them needing to be taken into foster care in itsly (due to the behaviour of the older girls) has been raised by their father's family, I'm pretty confident that the current situation is not in their best interests.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 10:08 AM	#381
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by joesixpack Yes but you're avoiding the question. The argument that the children will feel less stress could as easily apply to non-biologically related kidnappers as well. Where is the difference? If a rich woman steals a poor woman's child, is there no recourse for the poor woman if the children are poisoned against her and given a "better life"? You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 10:10 AM	#382
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	Originally Posted by brodski My position on this has not shifted at all. My argument is that if one parent is ramping up the dispute to the point that it is causing psychological harm to the children (as noted by the judge) then the other parent has the choice to be the better parent and sacrifice their happiness in order to protect the interests of their children. This is nit going to have a happy ending for all concerned, and natural justice cannot be served, so how best to defuse the situation and protect the interests of the children? Given that the prospect if them needing to be taken into foster care in itsly (due to the behaviour of the older girls) has been raised by their father's family, I'm pretty confident that the current situation is not in their best interests. So in your perfect world the parent willing to cause the most harm to the children automatically gets custody?

24th February 2013, 10:14 AM	#383
Charlie Wilkes Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,013	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim. That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

24th February 2013, 10:15 AM	#384
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	And on a related note, it was quite normal in American Indian warfare for one tribe to take the children of another (or even white settlers) after they had killed their parents and raise them as their own. And the children would recover from this, and even be fiercely loyal to their "new" family. If those kids can get over something like that, these kids can recover from the airport temper tantrum. Why on earth was the mother allowed to be at the airport anyway? I wonder if the scene would have been quite different if she had been elsewhere (like in a jail cell, but that's just me).
	Last edited by WildCat; 24th February 2013 at 10:16 AM.

24th February 2013, 10:19 AM	#385
Charlie Wilkes Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,013	Originally Posted by ehcks So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm? He didn't bring you back to the question of any other kidnapper. That's pure invention, and if you need it to support your argument, maybe you should think about what that implies. If you insist on hypotheticals, here's one: Watch the video at the top of this thread. Then imagine that instead of being dragged off by police officers sworn to uphold the law, the kids were abducted by private agents of the father, and they were now in a place beyond the reach of their mother or the law. I assume that would alter the perceptions of JREF pundits, but I'm not sure it would be substantially different from the POV of the kids. The essential elements of their experience are that no one cares about their pleas, they have no control over what is happening to them, and they are being forcibly separated from someone they love.

24th February 2013, 10:19 AM	#386
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by brodski You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger? Certainly I can, and so does the law. But the argument that "it would be easier on the girls to leave them in the care of the person who kidnapped them and alienated them from one parent" seems to simply hinge more on a restatement of "easier on the girls who are suffering from Stockholm syndrome" more than the biological connection which they have with the perpetrator.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 10:22 AM	#387
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,635	Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that. She made that very clear though she could have been wrong about her assessment. Grandma's lame attempts at supporting the claim told the true story.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

24th February 2013, 10:23 AM	#388
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970	Originally Posted by lionking Again, your emotional involvement makes a sensible debate with you difficult, and your reading comprehension isn't the best either, but let me comment on this. If you have a look at my user profile you will see my age. I've made it clear in many posts that I have a lot of kids and am part of a large family. My work also puts me in direst contact with many mothers. This "clear" comment is as "clear" as many of others you have made, that is, not at all. The hatred you display for the mother in question is quite telling. So you may have or soon may have Grand-kids. Are they up for grabs? Can anyone just grab them take them to a good home and keep them... all the abductors have to do is turn them against your children? ..... and for that they get your support?
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970

24th February 2013, 10:25 AM	#389
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,433	Originally Posted by brodski You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger? Where is the line that legitimizes kidnapping?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

24th February 2013, 10:33 AM	#390
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Where is the line that legitimizes kidnapping? I have utterly condemned the mothers actions, that doesn't mean that returning the kids to Italy will magically make everything better, nor does it mean that the traumatic return is not harmful to the girls. Are we to sacrifice their wellbeing for the sake of principle?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 10:34 AM	#391
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,764	Originally Posted by brodski The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused. Which is more or less saying "guy/gale you are free to kidnap your kids, if you work on them good enough and attach them strongly enough, you can even get away with it !". You have no way to know it would be better for the kids to stay there. But at least before the italian court it could be made clear and clean. But hey who cares as long as you can get emotion running high and remove the father its right by a stroke of key.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

24th February 2013, 10:36 AM	#392
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim. I know. The mother seems crazy... the mother's mother is crazy.... and the mother's mother's mother is crazy. Seriously though... who would rent a car under their son in laws name and then steal the car? That's nuts.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970

24th February 2013, 10:37 AM	#393
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by WildCat So in your perfect world the parent willing to cause the most harm to the children automatically gets custody? I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

24th February 2013, 10:38 AM	#394
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,764	Originally Posted by brodski Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right? No what takes psychic power is the underlying assumption the kids would be better off with the mother, based on the show of emotion. In fact it could very well be that the mother is not stable emotionally and the father very stable making the childs better off with the father. Sure with a transition period where they might be PO'd off, but later on growing understatnding. I like that game, I should speculate like you all do on the wellfare of the kids, you can invent any scenario ! Rather than let the italian court decide as proper ! Fun !
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

24th February 2013, 10:38 AM	#395
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970	Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that. I saw that... but it didn't score any points with me. To me, she realized that something so stupid would never stick and only hurt her case and even she would go that far.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,970