The Australian "custody sisters"

[joesixpack]

Fascinating responses.

I suppose the fundamental question here is whether children are in any sense human beings, and the consensus is "no."

The children are children. We don't reward kidnappers by letting them keep the kids they kidnap simply because they've turned the children against their parents. What sort of world would that be?

Do you not see that a crime was committed? Do you not see that children are victimized by being denied access to both parents? Why does the mother get to decide that the father should no longer play a part in his children's lives. The injustice here is that the mother was able to keep the children for so long, not that they are finally being returned to their other parent.

 

[joesixpack]

It's too bad his children want nothing more than to get away from him.

You should probably look up Parental alienation syndrome. It is very real.

 

[joesixpack]

Well, then, tell those girls to switch off their affections because you don't like their mother.



Not even going to bother with this bit. The problem with people like you is that once you decide what the principles are, you leave reality behind.

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.

 

[joesixpack]

I think the mother has behaved horribly, not only in abducting the kids initially but in not preparing them in any way for the possibility of returning, and inviting the media to witness their distress! She could have made things so much easier for them herself, had she chosen to. I'm not convinced that leaving the kids in the custody of someone who's behaved as she has - separating them from the family and country they were brought up in, and preventing them from seeing their father for years - would be the best thing for them anyway. The court will decide (and I'm sure will take the kids' feelings at that stage into account), but she certainly hasn't done herself any favours.

Here's another fairly recent case, where the father took his daughter to Pakistan when she was three while the mother thought they were going on a day trip. She was eventually found three years later and returned, by this stage of course having little memory of her mother and not even speaking English. Should she have been allowed to stay in Pakistan? Given the choice, I'm sure it's what she would have preferred.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. The very idea that a criminal should be rewarded for criminal behavior is so mind numbingly stupid that I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would defend it.

The mother is the culprit here, the mother is the one who kidnapped the children and spent the last two years vilifying the father and creating drama. I'd lay odds she's a classic cluster "B" personality. Everything she's done has been detrimental to the children, yet she's portrayed as some sort of heroine. She's nothing but a kidnapper.

 

[joesixpack]

No, the parent who takes the kids to a foreign country to avoid having a court decide custody is always wrong.

No, if a mother kidnaps her child, it's totally alright. Fathers are all emotionally distant abusers and worthless as parents.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The children are children. We don't reward kidnappers by letting them keep the kids they kidnap simply because they've turned the children against their parents. What sort of world would that be?

Do you not see that a crime was committed? Do you not see that children are victimized by being denied access to both parents? Why does the mother get to decide that the father should no longer play a part in his children's lives. The injustice here is that the mother was able to keep the children for so long, not that they are finally being returned to their other parent.

If you insist on calling the mother a kidnapper, then it's only fair to call the police abductors, given that they dragged these kids forcibly from their home and transported them to the other side of the world against their will.

I'm not saying the mother should get to decide. I'm saying the kids themselves should have a say in the matter, and be treated as people rather than personal property.

As for access to both parents... the children now have compulsory "access" to the parent they don't want to be with, and no access to the parent they do want to be with.

 

[WildCat]

If you insist on calling the mother a kidnapper, then it's only fair to call the police abductors, given that they dragged these kids forcibly from their home and transported them to the other side of the world against their will.

No, because the mother actually broke laws. Part of the agreement to return the kids to Italy was that the father and Italy not press charges against the mother.

 

[joesixpack]

If you insist on calling the mother a kidnapper, then it's only fair to call the police abductors, given that they dragged these kids forcibly from their home and transported them to the other side of the world against their will.

I call her a kidnapper because that's exactly what she did. She broke the law and fled the country with the children. She took them from their father.

I'm not saying the mother should get to decide. I'm saying the kids themselves should have a say in the matter, and be treated as people rather than personal property.

Actually you are saying that the mother should get to decide. You have allowed her to sequester the children from their father and poison them against him. Why do you think this is acceptable?

As for access to both parents... the children now have compulsory "access" to the parent they don't want to be with, and no access to the parent they do want to be with.

You have no clue what parent they want to be with. They are histrionic in their mother's presence. We see this often with parents who form unhealthy bonds with their children.

 

[joesixpack]

Furthermore, allowing the children to decide is actually not at all the best policy. This places an onerous responsibility on children. Children are best served when the parents and court settle on a regular and predictableschedule of visitation.

 

[Damien Evans]

No, the parent who takes the kids to a foreign country to avoid having a court decide custody is always wrong.

For once I agree with you.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I call her a kidnapper because that's exactly what she did. She broke the law and fled the country with the children. She took them from their father.
Actually you are saying that the mother should get to decide. You have allowed her to sequester the children from their father and poison them against him. Why do you think this is acceptable?

I have allowed? I heard about it on the news.

You have no clue what parent they want to be with. They are histrionic in their mother's presence. We see this often with parents who form unhealthy bonds with their children.

"We see this often..." I guess you're an expert in child and family psychology, eh?

I shouldn't be surprised. It seems like almost everyone I meet on the Internet is a world-class expert on every topic that comes up.

 

[lionking]

I wonder how many would be saying "criminal mother!!" if she was hiding the children from a Saudi father who wanted to take the girls back to the life of a medieval servant and early arranged marriage?

All I'm saying is that just because something is according to the law in one country, it doesn't mean it is beyond question. I'd rather see an argument about how the girls are better off in the father's custody rather than "it's just, like, the law, man".

 

[WildCat]

I wonder how many would be saying "criminal mother!!" if she was hiding the children from a Saudi father who wanted to take the girls back to the life of a medieval servant and early arranged marriage?

How about we just stick with the story as it actually is, m'kay?

All I'm saying is that just because something is according to the law in one country, it doesn't mean it is beyond question. I'd rather see an argument about how the girls are better off in the father's custody rather than "it's just, like, the law, man".

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

 

[lionking]

How about we just stick with the story as it actually is, m'kay?


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

So another "it's just, like, the law, man". Gotcha. Let's see how consistent you are in future.

 

[fuelair]

Thank you for being a voice of reason. The very idea that a criminal should be rewarded for criminal behavior is so mind numbingly stupid that I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would defend it.

The mother is the culprit here, the mother is the one who kidnapped the children and spent the last two years vilifying the father and creating drama. I'd lay odds she's a classic cluster "B" personality. Everything she's done has been detrimental to the children, yet she's portrayed as some sort of heroine. She's nothing but a kidnapper.

joe - I am curious - and obviously you are not required to answer - if something like this happened to you at some point. I say this because reading the articles I am under the impression (for good reason based on the articles about the Italian end) that the mother and likely the daughters have very good reason to suspect the fairness of the Italian courts - especially if they are local to the father's family -as appears to be the case.
And you appear inordinately against the children and the mother.

 

[WildCat]

So another "it's just, like, the law, man". Gotcha. Let's see how consistent you are in future.

Yes, it's the law. Italy is not Saudi Arabia or some weird country where they circumcize girls or marry them off when they're 11 years old or sell them to settle a debt.

 

[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.

 

[joesixpack]

joe - I am curious - and obviously you are not required to answer - if something like this happened to you at some point. I say this because reading the articles I am under the impression (for good reason based on the articles about the Italian end) that the mother and likely the daughters have very good reason to suspect the fairness of the Italian courts - especially if they are local to the father's family -as appears to be the case.
And you appear inordinately against the children and the mother.

I am not at all against the children. I am against the mother. Her unilateral actions were not in the best interests of the children at all. I do have personal experience with custody battles and attempts at parental alienation.

I am curious what would have been unfair on the Italian end? What is the reason for this presumption? In my experience US courts don't favor the US parent outside trying to guarantee the parent's continued access to his/her child.

 

[joesixpack]

So another "it's just, like, the law, man". Gotcha. Let's see how consistent you are in future.

So wait, he's going to make the girls his servant and marry them off at a young age?

No, he's not. He lives in Europe in a modern state and he wants access to his children. Why is it OK for the mother to be the sole arbiter of how much access he has to his own children?

 

[lionking]

I am not at all against the children. I am against the mother. Her unilateral actions were not in the best interests of the children at all.

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.