The Australian "custody sisters"

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of insisting the mother can only be motivated by selfish reasons and the father only by unselfish ones, based entirely on the fact that the mother broke the law.

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

I believe most people reading this realize what an absurd and ridiculous remark that is.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

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.

I think others have answered. I know I have.

I will add that your question is not very probative. The "What if" question has very little meaning when there is so much evidence of what actually is. Sure, you can ignore all of the facts and ask what if there was no-plane or what if there was an intruder in the toilet, but here we actually do have facts that you are not addressing. Those facts were reviewed by a court and point to a manipulative person who schemed to deny her kids access to their father for no reason other than "Italians are all liars" and then proceeded to turn them against their father over a two year period of estrangement.

What if he sells them into slavery?

What if he treats them poorly?

What if they hate him?

What if their mother treated them like ******

Oh wait, one of those already happened . . .

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of insisting the mother can only be motivated by selfish reasons and the father only by unselfish ones, based entirely on the fact that the mother broke the law.

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of insisting the mother can only be motivated by selfish reasons and the father only by unselfish ones, based entirely on the fact that the mother broke the law.

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

Do you have any proof that the children were in any sort of danger that would have justified spiriting them away? If not, then please explain your defense of (or at lest your failure to condemn) the mother's actions.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

Or just hasn't been caught yet.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

Indeed.

I only wish I could be half as creative as you. Being polite is easy by comparison.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I believe most people reading this realize what an absurd and ridiculous remark that is.

Yep.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

I'm pretty sure most legal and ethical systems (and I an not conflating the two) do indeed hold that intent and motivation matter.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Or just hasn't been caught yet.

So we should just assume that he has, that the mother acted heroically, and return the kids to Australia? Is this how critical thinking looks to you?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm pretty sure most legal and ethical systems (and I an not conflating the two) do indeed hold that intent and motivation matter.

Please tell me her intent.

ETA, I have to laugh at your invocation of mens rea as a defense of her actions. Are you suggesting that she accidentally kidnapped her daughters?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court.

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Or just hasn't been caught yet.

So, we should asume the father broke the law even though it appears that he has done everything within the law and even the mother has not accused him of breaking the law? Nice.

BTW, I think intent and motivation do matter. But there is no evidence that her intent was good or that her motivation was the children's best interest. In fact, the Australian judge found just the opposite.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Do you have any proof that the children were in any sort of danger that would have justified spiriting them away? If not, then please explain your defense of (or at lest your failure to condemn) the mother's actions.

I never said they were in danger, and I never justified spiriting them away. My position is only concerned with the current state of affairs, regardless of how they got that way. Which is why I don't care about the law being broken, or who did what. What I consider to be of primary importance is what the children want to do. Whether their mother was wrong to take them or poisoned their minds is less important. I may, you may, everyone may feel that the mother is a vile person who did terrible things, and that the children ought to feel the same way. But if they don't they don't, and it doesn't matter a heap of beans because its their lives, not their parents, not the courts, not the Internet's.

As for my "failure to condemn" the woman, I don't feel it necessary to either judge people or announce my judgments if I have them. If anything, I feel the woman is abysmally stupid. She would have been wiser to become a widow than an exwife, but hindsight is 20/20.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Please tell me her intent.

ETA, I have to laugh at your invocation of mens rea as a defense of her actions. Are you suggesting that she accidentally kidnapped her daughters?

I was only responding to what seemed to be an assertion that intent never matters. I wasn't commenting specifically on this case.

[Wildy]

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:

Thanks for that. I haven't read all of it yet but it already is an interesting read.

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?

I wouldn't think so since their mother is an Australian. For all we know they might have made sure their kids have dual citizenship by registering with the Australian government.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

She would have been wiser to become a widow than an exwife, but hindsight is 20/20.

Through this entire post I was getting more and more angry at you, to the point I said you were a horrible person to my monitor.

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for civility.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I never said they were in danger, and I never justified spiriting them away. My position is only concerned with the current state of affairs, regardless of how they got that way. Which is why I don't care about the law being broken, or who did what. What I consider to be of primary importance is what the children want to do. Whether their mother was wrong to take them or poisoned their minds is less important. I may, you may, everyone may feel that the mother is a vile person who did terrible things, and that the children ought to feel the same way. But if they don't they don't, and it doesn't matter a heap of beans because its their lives, not their parents, not the courts, not the Internet's.

OK, so having given you ample opportunity you've made your position clear. I suppose it's slightly different than the strawman that's been made of it, but not by much. It's based on an absolute ignorance of child rearing, parenting, and developmental psychology. You are also pretty ignorant of the law as well, so I suppose it's good that you don't base your argument on that. All you really argue is that a couple of teenage girls have a strong opinion so we should go with it.

Quote:

As for my "failure to condemn" the woman, I don't feel it necessary to either judge people or announce my judgments if I have them. If anything, I feel the woman is abysmally stupid. She would have been wiser to become a widow than an exwife, but hindsight is 20/20.

So before I create a strawman of your argument, please clarify, are you advocating that she should have murdered her ex?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Through this entire post I was getting more and more angry at you, to the point I said you were a horrible person to my monitor.

Edited by jhunter1163:

Moderated content removed.

Chillax. At least you now have something good to say about the mother: if she were truly as bad as she could be, she would have murdered her ex and thus avoided all this mess. See? She's not a Disney villain after all.

At least, nor a smart one.

As for me and my ethics, I don't believe I've ever claimed to have any. I would never be in that particular position, as I don't believe in monogamy and don't want children, but if I were in her shoes I might well consider murder an option, if I had expected such trouble. But I doubt it would have been necessary, murder is fairly far down on the list of things to resort to.

And you really think I'm a horrible person (before the murder remark) simply because I'd let the kids choose and accept their choice even if it seemed to award a "win" to someone who broke a law? How odd. Unless its because anyone who disagrees with you is a horrible person, in which case life must be quite a valley of woe.

[damoe]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Edited by jhunter1163:

Moderated content removed.

Well ehcks, TragicMonkey also said this:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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.

Seems to be fairly representative of the ethics of the pro Mother side.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I would never be in that particular position, as I don't believe in monogamy and don't want children, but if I were in her shoes I might well consider murder an option, if I had expected such trouble.

What such trouble? That kidnapping your own children is illegal and gets the police after you? No one has actually shown that there was a reason for the kidnapping. No one has shown any evidence of a bad father, or any other reason why the kids would need to be illegally removed from him.

Also, murder would have gotten the kids taken away by the Australian DCP just about instantly. Not after two years.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

OK, so having given you ample opportunity you've made your position clear. I suppose it's slightly different than the strawman that's been made of it, but not by much. It's based on an absolute ignorance of child rearing, parenting, and developmental psychology. You are also pretty ignorant of the law as well, so I suppose it's good that you don't base your argument on that. All you really argue is that a couple of teenage girls have a strong opinion so we should go with it.

So before I create a strawman of your argument, please clarify, are you advocating that she should have murdered her ex?

I just care less about law, developmental psychology, and peoples opinions on childrearing than I do about letting people chose their own path to happiness. You may call me evil and ignorant if you like, but fortunately I'm not in a position that I'm required to win approval from you.

As for murder, I never said she should have, merely that it may have been wiser if she had. If you can't see the difference between considering a possibility and advocating it, then perhaps you should stay out of philosophical discussions.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by damoe

Well ehcks, TragicMonkey also said this:




Seems to be fairly representative of the ethics of the pro Mother side.

Even more ridiculous. I'm hardly representative of any factions views. I recognize that my ethics are rather atypical in this culture. I find it amusing that I can be used to demonize an entire side in a debate.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

So we should just assume that he has, that the mother acted heroically, and return the kids to Australia? Is this how critical thinking looks to you?

No, but that is how a straw man looks to me.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

So, we should asume the father broke the law even though it appears that he has done everything within the law and even the mother has not accused him of breaking the law? Nice.

There seems to be a danger of a fire around here with all this straw building up.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

What such trouble? That kidnapping your own children is illegal and gets the police after you? No one has actually shown that there was a reason for the kidnapping. No one has shown any evidence of a bad father, or any other reason why the kids would need to be illegally removed from him.

Also, murder would have gotten the kids taken away by the Australian DCP just about instantly. Not after two years.

I meant the custody dispute. If she had murdered him before the separation there would never have been a custody dispute, and hence no kidnapping. And I presumed she would have been clever enough to vet away with it, were she calculating enough to have thought of it in the first place. But obviously she didn't so there's no need to talk about it. I'm heartily sorry I ever made what I thought was an offhand remark. I didn't guess everyone would be so upright about murder.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I just care less about law, developmental psychology, and peoples opinions on childrearing than I do about letting people chose their own path to happiness.

The only one who got to make that choice here was the mother.

[damoe]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I find it amusing that I can be used to demonize an entire side in a debate.

You are explicitly saying that love can justify criminal behavior. Many here are implicitly saying this in excusing the mother's behavior. It might amuse you, but its true.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I didn't guess everyone would be so upright about murder.

Yeah, who could have predicted that?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by timhau

The only one who got to make that choice here was the mother.

That was the case, yes. Now, however, the choice can be offered to the children. The fact that the mother got her way before doesn't, to me, mean that the father should automatically get his way now, to balance it out.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I meant the custody dispute. If she had murdered him before the separation there would never have been a custody dispute, and hence no kidnapping.

Well, sure, in that she gets no custody and gets to live in prison for a long time.

Quote:

And I presumed she would have been clever enough to vet away with it, were she calculating enough to have thought of it in the first place.

Yeah, ok. The Power of Love will protect her from the law and its investigators after she kills her husband and kidnaps her kids simply to avoid a custody case. I thought someone said this world wasn't Disney.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That was the case, yes. Now, however, the choice can be offered to the children. The fact that the mother got her way before doesn't, to me, mean that the father should automatically get his way now, to balance it out.

Of course not, that's what the custody court case is for.

Though kidnapping and alienating the kids from the other parent will probably reduce her chance of gaining custody.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by damoe

You are explicitly saying that love can justify criminal behavior. Many here are implicitly saying this in excusing the mother's behavior. It might amuse you, but its true.

I never said a thing like it. I don't believe in justification. I will do what I feel best, and I don't see the need to excuse it to others. I'm fully capable of recognizing right from wrong, and choosing either without asserting that wrong us right if I chose it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Well, sure, in that she gets no custody and gets to live in prison for a long time.



Yeah, ok. The Power of Love will protect her from the law and its investigators after she kills her husband and kidnaps her kids simply to avoid a custody case. I thought someone said this world wasn't Disney.

Yeah, because I'm so full of sentiment. Do you really think nobody's ever gotten away with murder?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I just care less about law, developmental psychology, and peoples opinions on childrearing than I do about letting people chose their own path to happiness. You may call me evil and ignorant if you like, but fortunately I'm not in a position that I'm required to win approval from you.

As for murder, I never said she should have, merely that it may have been wiser if she had. If you can't see the difference between considering a possibility and advocating it, then perhaps you should stay out of philosophical discussions.

How exactly is going to prison and killing the remaining parent in the child's best interest?

Would the children have chose to have a dead father? As you have said, you have no ethics (other than the obvious one of allowing teen aged girls to chose what parent they wish to live with, which is actually an ethical choice on your part) so why do you care what happens here? Did you just want to stop the girls from crying. Is your position based on anything other than your unformed idealist musings?

I think not.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ehcks

Of course not, that's what the custody court case is for.

Though kidnapping and alienating the kids from the other parent will probably reduce her chance of gaining custody.

Agreed. She's not been very smart about this.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

There seems to be a danger of a fire around here with all this straw building up.

Well I can tell you one thing we won't have to worry about, there's really no danger of you presenting a coherent and principled opinion, just sniping from the sidelines.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

How exactly is going to prison and killing the remaining parent in the child's best interest?

Would the children have chose to have a dead father? As you have said, you have no ethics (other than the obvious one of allowing teen aged girls to chose what parent they wish to live with, which is actually an ethical choice on your part) so why do you care what happens here? Did you just want to stop the girls from crying. Is your position based on anything other than your unformed idealist musings?

I think not.

I think you make a number of assumptions here. That murder is always found out, that there can only be two platforms for decisions, legal vs "emotional", that my position is otherwise than I've repeatedly stated, that my beliefs must necessarily entail added on cultural baggage that they don't simply because you can't imagine someone thinking differently than yourself.

But I can see this is pointless, I cannot explain my position better than I already have, and too many people are now invested in attacking my ethics (which I cannot explain to a completely hostile and, I fear, very hidebound traditional audience) rather than my position. Which is bring constantly mischaracterized.

[ponderingturtle]

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.

You love your strawmen a lot I can tell. If the father was like this why is he not taking advantage of the felonies she committed and getting her locked up as she deserves?

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

To say "the girls cried at the airport" grotesquely understates the trauma they experienced. By trivializing what happened to them, by comparing it to children who cry when they don't get ice cream, you reveal more about yourself than you may realize. Indeed, your comments throughout this thread are telling. I can see that you are wound up, all but choking with rage, and it's not pretty.

[Charlie Wilkes]

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:

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.

Interesting.

So much of the discussion here, as well as the court's decision, is framed around a perception of the mother. She's a kidnapper, she's a villain, etc., so anything done to wrest her children away is by definition in their best interest.

I don't accept that glib syllogism. I'm quite willing to consider that the mother and her family may have handled this situation badly. But the way to counter that is not to pour gasoline on the fire, unleashing the police with instructions to use whatever force is necessary. We might see that as the administration of the law. For the kids, it was a physical assault and a vivid confirmation of their worst fears. If the mother indoctrinated the kids, the police ended up validating the doctrine: fear your father, fear his power to control your lives, fear the agents who do his bidding.

It cannot have been the only option available. If the court felt that the mother and her family had used the powers of persuasion to manipulate the kids, perhaps they should have made a civilized effort at counter-persuasion. Perhaps this father could have flown to Australia to re-unite with his children in a mediated environment where everyone felt safe.

Almost anything would have been better than what they ended up doing.

[smartcooky]

I don't see where all this BS about her being an unfit mother comes from when we don''t even know either the family or personal circumstances of these people.

Scenario:
Two separate families have similar circumstances; the parents are separated and the father has custody of all the daughters. Recently, the oldest daughters in each family have finally confided to their mothers that her fathers been sexually abusing them for many years, and are now turning their interests towards the next oldest daughters.

In Family "A" both the mother and the oldest daughter are afraid that the pattern will continue with the younger daughter, so they formulate a and execute a plan to get all the daughters away from the father and to safety in another country.

In Family "B". the mother tells the daughter she is a liar, and she carries on in denial of what she can see has been happening right in front of her for many years.

Who's the unfit mother now, A or B?

Now I'm not saying that this is what is happening with THIS family, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios that fits the picture, especially with the two oldest daughters being the most upset about having to go back to their father.