The Australian "custody sisters"

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

Do you have some evidence that the father is a danger to his children? If he's not a danger then why is he denied his parental rights?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

The opposite of what is usually the case? You mean the mother is the more fit parent ipso facto? Based on what, popular vote?

She demonstrated a level of unfitness by taking them away from their OTHER parent. How is she the best parent?


ETA, no one is saying that they're better off with their father, they're better off with both parents but the mother has shown that she shouldn't be left unsupervised with them, so we have to settle for paternal custody. Who's fault is that?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That's for the court in Italy to decide, not the mother and not some peanut gallery of Australian tabloid readers.

Actually, the children should have a BIG say in this.

The society we live in today grants all sorts of rights to children. It gives them access to prescription drugs, contraception and psychological counselling without the knowledge or permission of their parents, and yet these rights do not extend to self determination in allowing them to choose which parent they live with.

If the children wish to live with one particular parent, then it should be incumbent upon the court not to go against that wish unless there are very extreme circumstances; at the very least it should take physical, psychological or sexual abuse by one parent before the children's wishes are overturned.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

Interesting point and one I was pondering reading through this last part of the thread. It's so easy to get some things through Italian courts and those courts claim jurisdiction over the entire world and anything affecting Italians. They like to make 'statements' with their courts sometimes, filing charges on scientists for earthquakes, soldiers for tragedies in Iraq, individual intelligence agents for actions that had to be approved of by the US and Italian governments, google officials for 'bullying' youtubes, authors and reporters for stories prosecutors disapprove of, strippers for being seen or touched by boys they could legally have sex with...it's just too easy to get some crap through Italian courts.

I watched the video but didn't follow any of the rest the links, has anyone read about the circumstances in which this father was awarded custody? Was the process fair to the mother and the girls?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I don't have any children. I have never wanted them.

But if I did have a child, and he or she were kidnapped by their mother, and after two years the child wanted to stay with their mother rather than come home, I might take a moment to ask myself why that is. And I'm not sure I would be content with glib answers that turn on the premise that children don't know what is best for them.

I can also say with confidence that I would never condone a process that ended with the child being dragged away by the police, kicking and screaming.

I would think, "this is barbaric, it cannot possibly be in the kid's best interest, and the kid will hate me when he/she grows up."

Probably sooner. Thus longer.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

Well, we could start with the fact that their father isn't a kidnapper, and their mother is.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Actually, the children should have a BIG say in this.

The society we live in today grants all sorts of rights to children. It gives them access to prescription drugs, contraception and psychological counselling without the knowledge or permission of their parents, and yet these rights do not extend to self determination in allowing them to choose which parent they live with.

If the children wish to live with one particular parent, then it should be incumbent upon the court not to go against that wish unless there are very extreme circumstances; at the very least it should take physical, psychological or sexual abuse by one parent before the children's wishes are overturned.

Well we can certainly tick that off in this case.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Holy crap, thinly veiled accusations of pedophilia for speculating that teenage girls might have boyfriends?

It's your theory, and you brought it up twice. It would take mind reading to know why, but presumably either you like the idea or in your mind it's the exemplar of a bad reason to want to stay in Australia which ought to be overruled. Either seems weird to me.

Quote:

What person's "clearly stated preferences"? The mother's? Grandma's? You've seen interviews with the girls?

If someone throws such a tantrum that they are taken off a plane then speculating that they might not have a clear preference not to go is somewhat far-fetched. As I said earlier you can fantasise and speculate about whatever you like, but based on the available evidence the older girls very much do not want to go to Italy and have made that absolutely clear.

I do find it bizarre how the interests of the child are put on a pedestal as overruling all other concerns by the family courts in some cases, such as when men are the victims of paternity fraud, but in this case the interests of the child are apparently given absolutely zero weight.

As others have said, I think that these girls clearly know their own mind about the matter and that forcing them to do something they so clearly do not want to do is utterly counterproductive. This looks to me like a clear-cut misuse of police and court effort.

[Magenta]

Originally Posted by lionking

Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

The Australian courts made no such ruling (that the children were better off with their father) - they upheld the Hague Convention. The custody issue has to be decided in Italy.

You can read what a retired Family Court judge had to say about the way this matter was handled:

Quote:

The mother was given the opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence which she did in detail. The Court determined that, on all of the evidence, including that relating to the children's preferences and concerns, a case was not made out to the necessary high standard required to justify setting aside our international treaty obligations with Italy.

It is almost inexplicable that so much of the reporting was to the effect that the children had not been heard or had not been listened to. Such assertions are wrong. The children were interviewed and given an opportunity to express their wishes. On any fair view of the history, the children's connection to Italy was far more substantial than to Queensland. To claim in headlines that the children will be forced to live in Italy displays a clear misunderstanding, if not misrepresentation, of the reality of the court's decision.

Front page no place for kids caught in family disputes [pdf]

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I'm no expert Charlie but I certainly know a lot about it. I have had a lot of personal experience with it and I've read extensively on it because of a custody battle I've faced. Children do best when they have access to both parents. My child's mother has a variety of problems related to mental illness and addiction, and when she lost primary custody she began an active campaign of alienation against me. This amounted to nothing because I had custody of my child through the school week so any attempts she made to portray me in a negative light wouldn't really take.

In spite of his mother's personal problems, I have never tried to poison his relationship with her. This is at the advice of two separate child psychologists and the state's CPS. I could take full custody and limit his mother's time with him to one weekend a month easily. But I don't because it wouldn't be in his best interest. As I have told my son, "You have every right and reason to love your mother. She and I don't get along but that's no reason for you to be forced to choose."

As soon as one parent takes a child and denies access to the other parent they are no longer acting in the child's best interest. I don't see how you could possibly think that the child would be best served by not only denying them access to a loving parent but leaving them in the care of a demonstrably unfit parent. The girls are throwing a fit? Fine, my son shed some tears too, but it never lasted more than 45 seconds after he was out of his mother's sight (yes, I timed it). It all boils down to an unhealthy parent/child relationship where the child feels responsible for their parent's happiness.

You seem to be saying that children between the ages of 9 and 14 should not be listened to or taken seriously because they are fickle and overly dramatic and don't mean what they say. I don't agree.

As for the 45 seconds bit, are you aware that two of the girls had to be hauled off a commercial flight because they were implacable in resisting their forced repatriation? This was well after they had been separated from their mother.

Have you seen the video taken after the girls were in Italy, where one of them comes to the gate of the compound where they were being held, and begs reporters to rescue them, until she is dragged away by her father?

This is a matter of opinion, and mine is no better than anyone's, perhaps not as worthy as some because I have no children. But I feel strongly that the well-being of these kids ought to be more important than the father's parental rights, and more important than making sure the mother isn't "rewarded" for bad behavior. I think the kids are old enough so they should be listened to. And if they in turn won't listen to reason, they should be cajoled, bribed, pleaded with, sternly admonished, or whatever, but the police and the state have no business using that kind of force. Ever. To handle terrified and hysterical children that way is flatly barbaric. I don't give a good godd__m what the law has to say. You do not do, you do not do. Daddy can come to Australia if he's so fired up to be with them.

Just my opinion.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's your theory, and you brought it up twice. It would take mind reading to know why, but presumably either you like the idea or in your mind it's the exemplar of a bad reason to want to stay in Australia which ought to be overruled. Either seems weird to me.



If someone throws such a tantrum that they are taken off a plane then speculating that they might not have a clear preference not to go is somewhat far-fetched. As I said earlier you can fantasise and speculate about whatever you like, but based on the available evidence the older girls very much do not want to go to Italy and have made that absolutely clear.

I do find it bizarre how the interests of the child are put on a pedestal as overruling all other concerns by the family courts in some cases, such as when men are the victims of paternity fraud, but in this case the interests of the child are apparently given absolutely zero weight.

Exactly men don't have rights only responsibilities that is why there is nothing wrong with women kidnapping the kids.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Exactly men don't have rights only responsibilities that is why there is nothing wrong with women kidnapping the kids.

And if the kids are taken to another country he should have to move to that country and not bother with laws and things like that.

[Seismosaurus]

Question to those who support taking these kids away from their mother like this :

If a few years from now the adult girls come back into the spotlight and say "that was the worst thing that ever happened to me, being forced to live with my father was pure hell on Earth and the only thing that kept me going was the thought that the second I came of age I could jump on a flight and go straight back to my mother. Screw the courts and police for doing this to me, and screw my father too."

...what would your reaction to that be?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

You seem to be saying that children between the ages of 9 and 14 should not be listened to or taken seriously because they are fickle and overly dramatic and don't mean what they say. I don't agree.

You should address what I'm actually saying, not what I seem to be saying. I'm saying that children are easily manipulated by a parent. It's very clear to me that you don't have children. They are instinctively aware of their dependency upon the adults in whose care they are in. They will form deep and loyal emotional attachments to their parents, and if one parent is removed (no matter the cause) they will form stronger attachments to the remaining one.

Quote:

As for the 45 seconds bit, are you aware that two of the girls had to be hauled off a commercial flight because they were implacable in resisting their forced repatriation? This was well after they had been separated from their mother.

Have you seen the video taken after the girls were in Italy, where one of them comes to the gate of the compound where they were being held, and begs reporters to rescue them, until she is dragged away by her father?

I's say two years of an active campaign of alienation against the father would probably produce the same sort of result. My ex only had a couple of days at a time to create the idea in my son's mind that she needed him and that I was a *****. Since he got five days with me and he knew otherwise and he quickly learned that looking sad for his mother was something she needed when he left her. What these girls need is serious therapy, not to be reunited with their mother (who is a kidnapper, by the way).

Quote:

This is a matter of opinion, and mine is no better than anyone's, perhaps not as worthy as some because I have no children. But I feel strongly that the well-being of these kids ought to be more important than the father's parental rights, and more important than making sure the mother isn't "rewarded" for bad behavior. I think the kids are old enough so they should be listened to. And if they in turn won't listen to reason, they should be cajoled, bribed, pleaded with, sternly admonished, or whatever, but the police and the state have no business using that kind of force. Ever. To handle terrified and hysterical children that way is flatly barbaric. I don't give a good godd__m what the law has to say. You do not do, you do not do. Daddy can come to Australia if he's so fired up to be with them.

Just my opinion.

This IS about the well being of the kids. There is nothing to demonstrate that the father is an unfit parent and everything to demonstrate that the mother is. You feel strongly about this because watching kids cry is heart wrenching. Honestly you should really think about what you're advocating. You're suggesting that children who are brainwashed should be allowed to remain with their captors rather than being returned to their family. The state has EVERY right to intervene against the CHILD'S wishes.

I should add this, and it's not from personal experience but from talking to adults who were alienated from a parent at a young age. They never forgive the parent who took them. They come to understand the act of alienation as a betrayal of trust and a total failure to act as a responsible parent.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Question to those who support taking these kids away from their mother like this :

If a few years from now the adult girls come back into the spotlight and say "that was the worst thing that ever happened to me, being forced to live with my father was pure hell on Earth and the only thing that kept me going was the thought that the second I came of age I could jump on a flight and go straight back to my mother. Screw the courts and police for doing this to me, and screw my father too."

...what would your reaction to that be?

My question to the supporters of the mother is how would you feel to have your child taken from you and then actively alienated from you for two years? What is the meaning of this question? Do you know ANYTHING about ugly divorces and children who are caught in the middle? You don't see anything wrong with stealing children? If I kidnap a child and keep her for two years then I'm somehow above the law?

Just what are you people advocating here?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

My question to the supporters of the mother is how would you feel to have your child taken from you and then actively alienated from you for two years?

I'd feel awful. IF that is what has happened here. Which we don't know.

Quote:

What is the meaning of this question?

It means what it says. What if this is exactly what it looks like on the surface - that these girls genuinely want to be with their mother and not with their father, and will forever look back on this period as a living hell. What if that is the reality of this situation?

Do you have an answer?

Quote:

Do you know ANYTHING about ugly divorces and children who are caught in the middle?

A little.

Quote:

You don't see anything wrong with stealing children? If I kidnap a child and keep her for two years then I'm somehow above the law?

I think my view of the stealing of children is largely contextual. I primarily want what is best for the children. If leaving them with their mother is best for them, in spite of the fact that she "stole" them, then in this case I am in favour of the stealing of children, yes.

Indeed it seems to me that focusing on a legal principle and insisting that it must reign supreme even if the girls it's meant to protect must be ground underfoot to do that, is a rather strange attitude.

Quote:

Just what are you people advocating here?

That what should be done is what is best for the children.

[joesixpack]

If what you want done is what's best for the children, then how do you square "Leaving them with the parent who has kidnapped them" as being "best"? Is it because the children are crying? Some kids cry when they don't get ice cream for supper, would that make feeding them ice cream for supper "best"?

[joesixpack]

And Seismosaurus please read my earlier post. Adult children of these situations almost universally agree that the parent who took them did the wrong thing.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

I'd feel awful. IF that is what has happened here. Which we don't know.

At least we know you wouldn't try to get them back or have a relationships with them.

[katy_did]

The court's written judgment setting out the reasons for returning the kids to Italy is online here. An interesting read - the judge is very critical both of the public campaign waged by the mother's family, and of the way he believes their views have influenced the children:

Quote:

The very public nature of the campaign has been very disturbing. I am satisfied that they have definitely not been shielded from the dispute and have clearly, I find, been significantly influenced in their views and their conduct by their mother and other members of her family. Examples of extremely inappropriate and sometimes bizarre things said to and in the presence of the children can be found in statements made by the maternal great-grandmother that were recorded by police in the immediate aftermath of the children being found after being hidden by her. Unashamedly, she was recorded saying to one of the children “How exciting. Who’s going to play you in the movie? They will have to find a good little dark-haired actress to play you when they make the movie.” She also said to the police, in the presence of the children, “everyone is on their side except their father .......He doesn’t love them. He just owns them. They’re chattels.” She then went on to say “... because he is a liar – please tell me you’re not Italian – because he is a liar, and all Italians are bloody liars...”.

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. That could have been her mother, or her older sisters, or other members of her extended maternal family. It does not really matter who. Having regard to the sorts of things the maternal great-grandmother was saying to and in the presence of the children, even in the company of police, I am satisfied that little restraint in respect of these matters is likely to have been demonstrated around these children and that this has impacted upon them in significant ways.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by katy_did

The court's written judgment setting out the reasons for returning the kids to Italy is online here. An interesting read - the judge is very critical both of the public campaign waged by the mother's family, and of the way he believes their views have influenced the children:

Thank you again katy-did.

So far the ONLY basis for opposition to the children's return to Italy is that they cried a lot at the airport. Sorry if I don't give children crying that much weight.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Might it also be the case that the children are illegally in Australia, and Australia is well within its rights to deport them?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Might it also be the case that the children are illegally in Australia, and Australia is well within its rights to deport them?

No. That forms no part of the court ruling, indeed the judge states that the proceedings in Italy may allow the girls to live in Australia.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

I watched the video but didn't follow any of the rest the links, has anyone read about the circumstances in which this father was awarded custody? Was the process fair to the mother and the girls?

The mother took the children before there was a custody hearing. So, no the process was not fair to the children, in that it has yet to occur. It will now likely be unfair to the mother in that the husband has agreed not to press charges so she will be able to present her case without a criminal record, which is patently unfair.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's your theory, and you brought it up twice. It would take mind reading to know why, but presumably either you like the idea or in your mind it's the exemplar of a bad reason to want to stay in Australia which ought to be overruled. Either seems weird to me.

It is weird to me that you think teenage girls do not have boyfriends. Or friends or other connections in a country they have lived in for two years.

The mother is responsible for their pain, not the father. That they don't see this is immaterial.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Question to those who support taking these kids away from their mother like this :

If a few years from now the adult girls come back into the spotlight and say "that was the worst thing that ever happened to me, being forced to live with my father was pure hell on Earth and the only thing that kept me going was the thought that the second I came of age I could jump on a flight and go straight back to my mother. Screw the courts and police for doing this to me, and screw my father too."

...what would your reaction to that be?

That it is too bad the mother forced the courts to side with the father. Frankly, if he is such an ass and the kids hated him so much she could have waited for the custody hearing and presented his many flaws at that time. The kids could have stated their clear preference and their preference would have been considered. But, instead, she decided to force the court into deciding between a concerned father and a manipulating kidnapper. She painted this picture and her true colors came out in bright fashion. Any damage to the kids is her fault.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Might it also be the case that the children are illegally in Australia, and Australia is well within its rights to deport them?

With an Australian parent they likely have the legal right to live in Australia. My Australian friend has Aussie passports for her American born kids.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Sorry, tell me where all your righteous indignation was when she decided to take the kids from their father? You didn't give a **** then, but somehow now he's an ass because he wants access to his kids. Do you have kids? Would you want them stripped away from you? I somehow doubt it.

I hadn't heard of any of this until this thread.

And if I were in his situation I'd move to Australia, concluding that who is right in the law is a hell of a lot less important than the happiness of the kids.

I'm less hung up on right and wrong than some, caring more about the outcome.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I hadn't heard of any of this until this thread.

And if I were in his situation I'd move to Australia, concluding that who is right in the law is a hell of a lot less important than the happiness of the kids.

I'm less hung up on right and wrong than some, caring more about the outcome.

So you're only concerned because the girls cried at the airport. The facts in the case be damned, you just don't like seeing kids cry.

Can you give me some rationale other than their tears why they should be left with a demonstrably unfit parent?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

So you're only concerned because the girls cried at the airport. The facts in the case be damned, you just don't like seeing kids cry.

Can you give me some rationale other than their tears why they should be left with a demonstrably unfit parent?

No, I don't think I'm going to engage with you further. Your personal experience is rendering you somewhat irrational on this topic, and I find your repeated attempts to misrepresent what I've said to be as insulting as they are sad. I'm sorry you had a bad custody experience, but do not take it out on strangers on the internet.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

No, I don't think I'm going to engage with you further. Your personal experience is rendering you somewhat irrational on this topic, and I find your repeated attempts to misrepresent what I've said to be as insulting as they are sad. I'm sorry you had a bad custody experience, but do not take it out on strangers on the internet.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile and unfair. You're absolutely correct that it is an issue which is close to me (and a few of my friends as well).

Having said that, I would welcome any logical argument that would support your position. And if your position is NOT that they should be allowed to remain with their mother, please clarify it for me.

[BenBurch]

This mother did a hideous thing and should have her parental rights ended. The damage to those children is entirely her doing.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

So you're only concerned because the girls cried at the airport. The facts in the case be damned, you just don't like seeing kids cry.

Can you give me some rationale other than their tears why they should be left with a demonstrably unfit parent?

Don't you see fitness of parents is immaterial to the argument. They cried so therefor doing what made them cry is bad. It doesn't matter how horrible the mother is or how much she created the whole situation.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

This mother did a hideous thing and should have her parental rights ended. The damage to those children is entirely her doing.

While agree that it was hideous, I would not go so far as to terminate all of the mother's parental rights (which I suppose really hinges on what is circumscribed by "parental rights"). I would certainly allow supervised visitation to continue from this point, and eventually allow unrestricted access as the children grow older and as she demonstrates an increasing understanding as to what good parenting is (based on a court appointed evaluator).

I am very opposed to cutting off contact with one parent except in cases of exceptional abuse (which the mother comes dangerously close to with her actions, I should add).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Don't you see fitness of parents is immaterial to the argument. They cried so therefor doing what made them cry is bad. It doesn't matter how horrible the mother is or how much she created the whole situation.

I'm waiting for this pile of straw to cone alive and join Dorothy on the way to the Emerald City.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Don't you see fitness of parents is immaterial to the argument. They cried so therefor doing what made them cry is bad. It doesn't matter how horrible the mother is or how much she created the whole situation.

What I see is people witnessing histrionic displays of emotion and having their critical thinking overwhelmed by their own emotional reaction to that display. I'd be willing to bet that most of those who oppose the children's return to their father don't actually have children themselves and have very little contact with children outside of short stints of babysitting for a niece or nephew.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm waiting for this pile of straw to cone alive and join Dorothy on the way to the Emerald City.

You don't. Own it. Look at how hard the judge spanked her in the report, and you don't care. A kid cried and that is it for you. The kidnapper wins by not only avoiding years in prison but by keeping the kids.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm waiting for this pile of straw to cone alive and join Dorothy on the way to the Emerald City.

I am honestly trying to understand what your argument actually is. You haven't been very clear. I'll admit to filling in the blanks myself, and perhaps unjustly. Please explain what you think would be best for the children and why. I certainly don't want to argue against a strawman or against someone with whom I agree.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

What I see is people witnessing histrionic displays of emotion and having their critical thinking overwhelmed by their own emotional reaction to that display. I'd be willing to bet that most of those who oppose the children's return to their father don't actually have children themselves and have very little contact with children outside of short stints of babysitting for a niece or nephew.

Or say experience how going home from summer camp can cause teen girls to cry a lot.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I hadn't heard of any of this until this thread.

And if I were in his situation I'd move to Australia, concluding that who is right in the law is a hell of a lot less important than the happiness of the kids.

I'm less hung up on right and wrong than some, caring more about the outcome.

So you'd tear yourself away from your home and family and resettle in another country, just to attempt to satisfy the whims of your ex-wife after she kidnapped your children? That seems fair and rational...

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ehcks

So you'd tear yourself away from your home and family and resettle in another country, just to attempt to satisfy the whims of your ex-wife after she kidnapped your children? That seems fair and rational...

Why limit yourself to ex wife, any kidnapper who successfully indoctrinates them should cause this I am sure.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Sigh. I'll try again: it doesn't matter to the children which one, if either, is "good" or "bad". What matters to them is which one they want to be with. You may be the sort of person who would insist they be miserable because you have judged one parent worthy and the other "evil and horrible". I wouldn't. I'd leave the kids with whichever parent they wanted to stay with. Even if they pick the "bad" one.

Comedian: When I was 10yrs old my mom called me into the bedroom; mom: "Dad and I have agreed to divorce and want to know who you will choose to live with?"
me: "Dad".

Dad: "I don't want a divorce."

too soon?