The Australian "custody sisters"

[joesixpack]

Has anyone actually said she was right to abscond with the children? Or have people just been saying their removal from Australia was unnecessarily violent?

Many have said that it was wrong to return them to their father. I'm not certain how this is different than approving of kidnapping as no one has been able to clarify that point. Maybe they believe that there should be an 18 month statute of limitations? If you get the child and keep him away from his or her parent for 18 months you win?

 

[joesixpack]

Sweetie, it's the weekend. And there's not a damn bit of point in arguing further. Everybody's already decided what they think and refused to consider otherwise.

Yes, principles are suspended on weekends, just like parental rights are suspended when someone manages to kidnap a child. Finders keepers? Possession is nine tenths? You snooze you lose? Something like that?

 

[joesixpack]

Are you saying I'm anti-father? You couldn't be more wrong.

It looks like you were on the wrong end of a custody dispute, and if so, you have my sympathies. But I can disagree with you without warranting a label, as much as labels (like kidnapper and unfit mother) are popular in this thread.

It seems that pretty early on you alluded to the idea that the mother is the more fit parent. I don't know if I misread you there but I haven't seen anything you've said to distance yourself from that position.

And no, I was on the right end of a custody dispute (thank you for your sympathies just the same). I am in a position where I could legally terminate all of my ex's parental rights but I don't because I recognize that it would not be to my son's benefit. I have a great many reasons to hate his mother but I have managed to put those aside for the sake of a child. I'm wondering why there is no recognition that this is the best arrangement for the children when a mother takes the kids.

Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Suppose the father was living in Australia and then snatched the kids and brought them to Italy? Would you have felt so negatively towards the mother winning her children back in the Italian courts?

 

[smartcooky]

There is a hell of a lot of assuming going on, here.

Yep

Many people are assuming that they know all about this family; assuming that the father is blameless in any of this; assuming that the mother is unfit.

Yes, a lot of assuming is going on alright.

 

[katy_did]

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.

The problem is that what the kids want and what is in their best interests aren't necessarily the same thing. That's not to say their wishes shouldn't factor into the decision in a major way, and I think the court took that into account. For example, the judge seemed to imply that if he'd only been making a decision on the two older kids, he may have allowed them to stay on the grounds that they were nearly old enough to decide for themselves anyway, but that he had to make a single decision for all the children as neither party wanted to separate them. So he had to balance the best interests of the younger children, who still had a large portion of their childhood ahead of them, with the stated wishes of the older ones. At least the younger kids will now have a chance to rebuild their relationship with their father, even if too much damage has been done for the older ones to ever restore that bond.

To me it looks like the court decision took into account the children's specific circumstances and their wishes, as well as the possible implications for other abducted children if Australia were to ignore the Hague Convention on this one case (which the court could however have done if there were exceptional reasons for them to stay). In contrast, as joesixpack has said, the argument they should've been allowed to stay seems mainly based on the emotional scene where they were taken to the airport, not on a consideration of all the circumstances in their entirety. Which of course, is exactly the reaction the mother and her family were hoping for.

 

[kerikiwi]

Yep

Many people are assuming that they know all about this family; assuming that the father is blameless in any of this; assuming that the mother is unfit.

Yes, a lot of assuming is going on alright.

There is evidence of the mother's unfitness: she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence of the father's unfitness.
No assumptions there, just statements of fact.

 

[slow lurker]

I don't know if anyone else has seen the 60 Minutes program on the case? It has interviews with the father and with the mother's family. I just watched it and it's...revealing, let's say.

Thank you.
Very interesting.

There is a lot of hurt for all, no matter the final outcome.

 

[lionking]

There is evidence of the mother's unfitness: she kidnapped the children.

Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.

 

[Wildy]

No, its not not hard to grasp, but without knowing the family circumstances, we should not even be attempting to make judgements about the fitness of the mother. No-one on this forum knows the detailed circumstances of this family, and if they claim they do, then they are lying!

Making your children safe from harm might include having to remove them from the person harming them, and that might include kidnapping them. You do what you have to do!

And yet when push came to shove she didn't bother telling the courts that as a reason to get the return order overturned. So I guess that means she's in on it, or that this whole "daddy is a child molester" thing is just apologia on your part for whatever strange reason you happen to hold.

 

[ehcks]

Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit.

The mother kidnapped the kids and held them hostage for two years. She's made it clear that she wanted this to become a media circus and trained the kids specifically for that.

The father has as yet done nothing wrong that anyone knows of.

By the evidence, the mother is less fit than the father.

 

[lionking]

Less fit for what?

She defied a court. That doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.

ETA "Hostage"??? Some are really letting their emotions get out of control.

 

[kerikiwi]

Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.

The fact is she kidnapped the children. It is not personal bias. It is fact. It has nothing to do with her motives. By the definition of 'kidnapped' that is what she did.
That is the evidence of her unfitness.
What there is not evidence of is the father's unfitness.

 

[kerikiwi]

Less fit for what?

She defied a court. That doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.
ETA "Hostage"??? Some are really letting their emotions get out of control

You are indeed, doing that when you replace 'kidnapped' (which is founded in fact) with 'rescued' (which is founded in unsubstantiated emotion)

 

[Damien Evans]

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.

This is insane.

 

[lionking]

The fact is she kidnapped the children. It is not personal bias. It is fact. It has nothing to do with her motives. By the definition of 'kidnapped' that is what she did.
That is the evidence of her unfitness.
What there is not evidence of is the father's unfitness.

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so. And her motives are certainly relevant. If the mother thought, based on the feelings of her children, that she was doing the right thing by them, how does that make her an unfit mother?

She defied a court order. That doesn't in any way make her an unfit mother.

 

[lionking]

You are indeed, doing that when you replace 'kidnapped' (which is founded in fact) with 'rescued' (which is founded in unsubstantiated emotion)

My comment was related to the children being held hostage. Do you think they were?

 

[kerikiwi]

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so. And her motives are certainly relevant. If the mother thought, based on the feelings of her children, that she was doing the right thing by them, how does that make her an unfit mother?

She defied a court order. That doesn't in any way make her an unfit mother.

What if the moon is made of green cheese?
I was talking of what there is evidence for.
There is evidence that the mother is unfit, since she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence that the father is unfit.

 

[kerikiwi]

My comment was related to the children being held hostage. Do you think they were?

My comment was related to your replacing 'kidnapped' with 'rescued'.
That is based on emotion, which you found undesirable from another poster, but seem happy to indulge in yourself

 

[lionking]

What if the moon is made of green cheese?
I was talking of what there is evidence for.
There is evidence that the mother is unfit, since she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence that the father is unfit.

Again, completely wrong. The mother's action do not ipso facto make her an unfit mother. Your claim, prove it.

 

[joesixpack]

Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.

And what was she rescuing her children from exactly? Do you have some evidence that the Australian courts didn't have about the horrible sort of person their father was?

You suggest that it's plausible that she was rescuing her children from abuse therefore it must be so?