The Australian "custody sisters"

[Dr. Keith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

*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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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?

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

But life isn't Disney.

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

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.

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]

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.