The Australian "custody sisters"

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by AlBell

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?

We often joke that our marriage has lasted so long solely because we agreed that whoever leaves first has to take the kids and leave the dogs. The kids don't laugh as hard as the dogs do.

[TragicMonkey]

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...

Yes. If I had kids I would make whatever sacrifices I had to, whether they were fair or rational or not. Because my goal would be the happiness and wellbeing of the kids, not my score on the test of how well I followed the rules or what public opinion said about me.

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.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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

I'm just trying to stay with the actual story. While the kidnapper being the children's mother shouldn't mean anything legally, it seems to make people give really weird statements about how the kidnapping was just fine.

[Dr. Keith]

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 think you had a valid point in noting that when the process includes kids being forced against their will, kicking and screaming, onto a plane something has gone horribly wrong. In that, I think most here would agree.

But, it looking at what has gone horribly wrong you seem to have skimmed the facts, at best, and not put much thought into the long term consequences of just leaving the kids where they now want to be.

The kids should have a happy life. Their mother has made it hard for them to do so.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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.

*cough*

There IS a judge "out there," in Italy, that will determine the outcome of this case. This is a legal custody case that will be determined by law. The law requires that this specific case be carried out in Italy, but the mother decided to cheat by kidnapping the kids and holding them in Australia to alienate and indoctrinate them against their father.

[WildCat]

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 Italian law didn't even get a chance to determine who gets custody, because Australia's Mother of the Year kidnapped the kids and took them to Australia in an effort to avoid having the court decide custody arrangements.

[WildCat]

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.

Thay'll have every opportunity to convince the court they're better off with their kidnapper mother.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I think you had a valid point in noting that when the process includes kids being forced against their will, kicking and screaming, onto a plane something has gone horribly wrong. In that, I think most here would agree.

But, it looking at what has gone horribly wrong you seem to have skimmed the facts, at best, and not put much thought into the long term consequences of just leaving the kids where they now want to be.

The kids should have a happy life. Their mother has made it hard for them to do so.

Really? Your certain the kids were unhappy with their mother? I think people here want very much for the kids to have been unhappy with their mother because she's the villain. But life isn't Disney. You can be happy with bad people and unhappy with good. Thats why I would let the kids decide rather than rule on the merits of which parent followed the rules the most.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Yes. If I had kids I would make whatever sacrifices I had to, whether they were fair or rational or not.

I'm not certain it would even be legal for him to move to Australia. It is not like they just hand out work visa's. That doesn't even take into account the financial viability of such an option or whether the mother would allow him access to the children. The court in Australia has no jurisdiction over an Italian divorce, they can't compel visitation and she seems hell bent on denying him access to his kids. He could move there and still never see his kids.

Quote:

Because my goal would be the happiness and wellbeing of the kids,

And you really think placating their kidnapping mother will further that goal?

[WildCat]

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?

Tha father wasn't awarded custody, the mother kidnapped the kids prior to the custody hearing.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

*cough*

There IS a judge "out there," in Italy, that will determine the outcome of this case. This is a legal custody case that will be determined by law. The law requires that this specific case be carried out in Italy, but the mother decided to cheat by kidnapping the kids and holding them in Australia to alienate and indoctrinate them against their father.

I see. The law is better at arranging people's lives and families than the family members themselves.

If you discovered tomorrow that you had been kidnapped as an infant, would you stop loving your "parents" and have them prosecuted and jailed? Because that's what the rules say?

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I see. The law is better at arranging people's lives and families than the family members themselves.

When one of the parents thinks kidnapping and indoctrination is the proper course of child-rearing, yes.

Quote:

If you discovered tomorrow that you had been kidnapped as an infant, would you stop loving your "parents" and have them prosecuted and jailed? Because that's what the rules say?

I do believe I would, yes.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I'm not certain it would even be legal for him to move to Australia. It is not like they just hand out work visa's. That doesn't even take into account the financial viability of such an option or whether the mother would allow him access to the children. The court in Australia has no jurisdiction over an Italian divorce, they can't compel visitation and she seems hell bent on denying him access to his kids. He could move there and still never see his kids.



And you really think placating their kidnapping mother will further that goal?

I'm not certain it wouldn't. As I've said, life isn't Disney. Someone does something wrong isn't necessarily a font of total evil, a horror to be with, to be escaped asap.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Yes. If I had kids I would make whatever sacrifices I had to, whether they were fair or rational or not. Because my goal would be the happiness and wellbeing of the kids, not my score on the test of how well I followed the rules or what public opinion said about me.

Why on earth would you presume that the children's well being would be best protected by being in the care of a parent who actively attempts to alienate your children from you?

Quote:

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.

I see many here, when faced with injustice and setbacks, can think of nothing better than to employ the law as recourse. Life is neither fair nor unfair. People, on the other hand, can behave in selfish and horrible ways. Often these actions are harmful enough to others that they have been made illegal. There is nothing religious about insisting that the law be applied equally and fairly.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by 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"?

I don't assert that it must be the best course of action, just as I do not assert that it must not be the best course of action. I assert that it might be.

And I ask you very simply - what will you say if, in the fullness of time, it turns out that ripping these children away from their mother by force was the wrong thing to do? What if it turns out that they have been horribly traumatised, and will now live out a life of abject misery until they are of age and can escape?

You seem dead set on not answering that question, for some reason.

Quote:

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"?

No. But then some kids cry and beg and plead when they're being sexually abused too, does that mean their abuser should just ignore it and carry on?

Originally Posted by 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.

That's nice. My question was, what if this is not one of those times?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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

Do you? I certainly didn't say that, are you relying on your psychic ability?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

When one of the parents thinks kidnapping and indoctrination is the proper course of child-rearing, yes.



I do believe I would, yes.

Really? I'm very fond of my mother. I wouldn't give a damn if she had kidnapped me, I'd be very grateful.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

And I ask you very simply...

And I ask you very simply- what will you say if, in the fullness of time, it turns out that ripping these children away from their father by force was the wrong thing to do? What if it turns out that they have been horribly traumatised, and will now live out a life of abject misery until they are of age and can escape?

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Really? I'm very fond of my mother. I wouldn't give a damn if she had kidnapped me, I'd be very grateful.

You can not absolve kidnapping by treating your hostages nicely.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Really? Your certain the kids were unhappy with their mother?

No, but they also loved living in Italy just a few years ago. As the judge noted, the kids have been subjected to lots of negative thinking towards their home country and their father over the last two years. That is not healthy.

Quote:

I think people here want very much for the kids to have been unhappy with their mother because she's the villain.

No, we all acknowledge that the kids were probably happy with their life in Australia with the villain. They may not have been. Clearly they were attached to their mother and would want to stay with her whether happy or not.

Quote:

But life isn't Disney.

Of course not, just look at their wardrobe. Disney would not abide such.

Quote:

You can be happy with bad people and unhappy with good.

No doubt.

You can also be attached to people who make your life miserable. As a society should we stick minors in miserable lives just because they lack the perspective to see how miserable they are?

There is no evidence that these kids were happy or miserable, just that they were attached to their mother and knew that they would be unlikely to see her again if they left. I'm sure she convinced them of that.

Quote:

Thats why I would let the kids decide rather than rule on the merits of which parent followed the rules the most.

I would rather put the kids with the parent who has put the children's interest above their own and tried to provide a stable home for them. The mother has treated them as pawns in her little game and the father is just trying to stop her from continuing that treatment.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by ehcks

And I ask you very simply- what will you say if, in the fullness of time, it turns out that ripping these children away from their father by force was the wrong thing to do?

I've already answered that question in this thread.

ETA - although we do not know that the mother did this "by force" do we? Did she drag them kicking and screaming away from him, as has been done to her? In any case, I DID answer the question when put to me. Nobody seems willing to answer the converse. I even asked first, too.

[WildCat]

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.

I don't even have children, I just saw how ugly divorces affected my friends while growing up. And none of them were taken to a foreign country for over 2 years by one parent and denied visitation with the other.

I'm just flabbergasted that people side with the mother, particularly given what Australia's own courts found.

So the girls threw a temper tantrum at the airport, boo hoo. They'll get over it, and the father gets a chance to mend the wounds. The kids will be fine, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they decide they want to stay in Italy after all when all is said and done.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

I've already answered that question in this thread.

ETA - although we do not know that the mother did this "by force" do we? Did she drag them kicking and screaming away from him, as has been done to her? In any case, I DID answer the question when put to me. Nobody seems willing to answer the converse. I even asked first, too.

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

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

You can not absolve kidnapping by treating your hostages nicely.

Absolution? Are you sure this isn't being treated as a religious matter?

If you love someone, laws do not matter to you. I'd break the law for my mom. I'd lie, cheat, steal, murder, and genocide for her.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Really? Your certain the kids were unhappy with their mother? I think people here want very much for the kids to have been unhappy with their mother because she's the villain. But life isn't Disney. You can be happy with bad people and unhappy with good. Thats why I would let the kids decide rather than rule on the merits of which parent followed the rules the most.

Like Ma Barker and her boys, that was one happy close-knit family. And that's good.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't understand why people blame the mother for using the kids as pawns but assume the father isn't doing the same thing. She just grabbed them first. Does that automatically mean he's only capable of unselfish love, and she's incapable of it? Maybe they're both jerks, but she was just faster out the starting gate.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

I don't assert that it must be the best course of action, just as I do not assert that it must not be the best course of action. I assert that it might be.

And I ask you very simply - what will you say if, in the fullness of time, it turns out that ripping these children away from their mother by force was the wrong thing to do? What if it turns out that they have been horribly traumatised, and will now live out a life of abject misery until they are of age and can escape?

You seem dead set on not answering that question, for some reason.

I'm dead set on not answering exceptionally stupid questions, but I'll answer it for you if you insist. If it later comes to pass that in a couple of years the older girls express anger about being reunited with their father I'll think that one of two things is the reason, the first being that the mother was too stupid to take her chances with the Italian legal system and demonstrate the father's unfitness as a parent OR that two years of constant vilification of the father has resulted in alienating the daughters from a father who's only crime was to insist that the law be obeyed and who's only mistake was to have children with a woman who would do such a thing. It's unfathomable why anyone would defend the actions of a woman who would do something lie this to her children. The fact that people here are incapable of seeing kidnapping and parental alienation as a crime against the children demonstrates a total lack of critical thought.

Quote:

No. But then some kids cry and beg and plead when they're being sexually abused too, does that mean their abuser should just ignore it and carry on?

I must have missed the part where it was demonstrated that the father was sexually abusing the children. Please post a link and I'll eat my words

Quote:

That's nice. My question was, what if this is not one of those times?

Please demonstrate for me that it isn't.

[Seismosaurus]

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.

No, I didn't.

What I said is that it would be a very sad thing. To elaborate, I'd want to know how it happened, and why, and what could be done to stop it from happening again.

And I note, yet another person who flatly refuses to answer the question. I've asked it quite a few times now.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

And I ask you very simply - what will you say if, in the fullness of time, it turns out that ripping these children away from their mother by force was the wrong thing to do?

And what would you say, in the fullness of time, the kids had been left with mama and it turns out that was the wrong thing to do?

See how speculation works? Anyone can do it. That's why no one is answering your question, you'll have to first demonstrate that there's any evidence at all that they're better off with their mother. Indeed, the Australian courts had nothing good to say about mama. And we know nothing at all about the father.

So if you have some special insight into this case that the courts in either country haven't heard you should share it, otherwise your purely speculative question can be dismissed for the evidence-free speculation it is.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I don't understand why people blame the mother for using the kids as pawns but assume the father isn't doing the same thing. She just grabbed them first. Does that automatically mean he's only capable of unselfish love, and she's incapable of it? Maybe they're both jerks, but she was just faster out the starting gate.

Maybe but probably not. One of the parents committed a crime, the other did not. Until I see evidence to the contrary I'll have to assume that only one of them has demonstrated any fitness as a parent.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Absolution? Are you sure this isn't being treated as a religious matter?

If you love someone, laws do not matter to you. I'd break the law for my mom. I'd lie, cheat, steal, murder, and genocide for her.

Absolve was a better word for "make of for," and as for to whom, I mean me.

Perhaps I don't make the same kinds of personal relationships you do, or other people in general. I've always been able to simply forget and not care about people I move away from. I don't get friends that last beyond the close proximity forced upon me by coincidence. I don't even think about my father very much, because he lives in another state. I even like the guy, when I'm visiting. Perhaps I should see a psychiatrist about this.

But as for now, I get a nice outside view. I don't care about the people. I see two legal guardians of multiple minors. They were given legal joint custody after their divorce, as they waited for their custody court case. One of them decided to skip that and kidnap the kids and indoctrinate them against the other guardian. The other wants to solve this by law.

Because I don't give any weight to their non-legal circumstances, all I see is that one broke the law and thus should lose custody; unless they can prove the other parent was actually abusive. In court. Where this should have all ended two years ago.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So the girls threw a temper tantrum at the airport, boo hoo. They'll get over it, and the father gets a chance to mend the wounds.

Or re-open them, of course.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I don't understand why people blame the mother for using the kids as pawns but assume the father isn't doing the same thing. She just grabbed them first. Does that automatically mean he's only capable of unselfish love, and she's incapable of it? Maybe they're both jerks, but she was just faster out the starting gate.

So you're now claiming it was a pre-emptive kidnapping?

Evidence? Of course you don't have any, you're just making [feces] up now because you have no actual argument.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I'm just flabbergasted that people side with the mother, particularly given what Australia's own courts found.

It defies comprehension that anyone would support leaving the children with the mother in light of what the Australian court found in their decision.

ETA; From katy-did's quote of the ruling judge's decision;

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.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Or re-open them, of course.

The mother is the only parent we know for certain opened wounds.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

No, I didn't.

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

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

So. About that thing you didn't do.

[joesixpack]

Can someone explain to me why kidnapping and alienating a child from one of his/her parents is NOT child abuse?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Can someone explain to me why kidnapping and alienating a child from one of his/her parents is NOT child abuse?

She really loved them and they cried when they were taken away? That seems to be the sum total.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I don't understand why people blame the mother for using the kids as pawns but assume the father isn't doing the same thing. She just grabbed them first. Does that automatically mean he's only capable of unselfish love, and she's incapable of it? Maybe they're both jerks, but she was just faster out the starting gate.

One has actually done it while the other hasn't. At least not yet.

We try to treat people according to their actions, usually.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Can someone explain to me why kidnapping and alienating a child from one of his/her parents is NOT child abuse?

I doubt you'll get a rational answer, hell one of the mother's supporters here would even justify her committing genocide to keep the father from seeing his kids.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

She really loved them and they cried when they were taken away? That seems to be the sum total.

No, if she really loved them she would not have poisoned them against their father. I know you're playing devils advocate here but I can't let that claim go by even when meant sarcastically.

In the state of Washington (and I assume most other states), badmouthing the other parent is illegal, and for good reason. It is abusive to the child. Any parent who does it is placing their own anger above the emotional needs of their child.