The Australian "custody sisters"

[lionking]

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

I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.

 

[joesixpack]

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

Why is it that you don't have to prove that the father is unfit? We're supposed to just accept that? Did you read the Australian judge's decision?

 

[kerikiwi]

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

It is proven by the fact that she kidnapped the children.
That is not to say she is totally unfit: there are degrees of unfitness. But kidnapping the children is a start.
Unfit she is, and there is no evidence of the father's unfitness.

 

[joesixpack]

I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.

It has been pretty clearly proven that she broke the laws of both Australia and Italy, and that she has actively alienated the children from their father. At the same time, given ample opportunity, she has produced not one single reason as to why the father should be denied access to his children.

You are only defending a fictionalized version of this woman. The real one is a kidnapper.

Please provide some evidence that her actions were a rescue and not a kidnapping.

 

[lionking]

Why is it that you don't have to prove that the father is unfit? We're supposed to just accept that? Did you read the Australian judge's decision?

I haven't been talking about the father. I didn't say he was unfit, I have been countering the argument that the mother is unfit because, and only because, she tried to keep her daughters. I have seen no evidence of this.

Do you realise that this story is months old? Soon enough the older girls will be able to decide where to live. My money's on them deciding on the mother.

 

[joesixpack]

I haven't been talking about the father. I didn't say he was unfit,

The **** you say. You are the one who suggested that they were "rescued"

I have been countering the argument that the mother is unfit because, and only because, she tried to keep her daughters

...from ever seeing their father." You should have finished that sentence.

. I have seen no evidence of this.

Because you haven't made an honest effort. Simply read the judge's decision posted above. It's based on evidence.

Do you realise that this story is months old? Soon enough the older girls will be able to decide where to live. My money's on them deciding on the mother.

My money's on them realizing what a ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy mother they have once they become adults and/or have spent some time in therapy. Any connection that they maintain with her will be out of pity.

 

[lionking]

The **** you say. You are the one who suggested that they were "rescued" ...from ever seeing their father." You should have finished that sentence.
Because you haven't made an honest effort. Simply read the judge's decision posted above. It's based on evidence.


My money's on them realizing what a ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy mother they have once they become adults and/or have spent some time in therapy. Any connection that they maintain with her will be out of pity.

You are too emotionally involved to have a sensible debate with at the moment. All of these comments are questionable, to say the least. If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I never said the mother rescued the girls from the father. And ******* crazy mother? That's a reasonable way to continue a debate?

I think I'll leave you with your absolute certainties. At least some others see shades of grey.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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?

Not all. What I meant was, I'm not going to be responding very much or looking at this site every ten minutes to continue arguing with you because it's the weekend and I have other things to do, so addressing me personally and demanding I answer you will avail you naught.

But by all means, continue arguing with the strawman version of what you think I said, if it entertains you.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The problem is that what the kids want and what is in their best interests aren't necessarily the same thing.

Do you really think that what was done to them last fall was in their best interest? You'll never convince me. I don't even think the court system believes they served the best interest of the kids. They saw it as fulfilling the requirements of the law, under which the father has rights, and the kids don't.

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

Hmmm. They were dragged kicking and screaming from their home against their wishes, they were separated from their mother against their wishes, they were flown to the other side of the planet against their wishes, and they were put under the control of their father against their wishes. But the judge "seemed to imply" something or other, which proves that he cares about their wishes and that he really and truly factored their wishes into his decision.

Really?

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.

Perhaps. But the police played into her hand with great enthusiasm, wouldn't you say?

"We are the police! You are UNDER ARREST!"

Everyone in this saga has made choices, and that was their choice - to wrestle hysterical children to the ground in front of a news camera.

That wasn't scripted by the mother, or the kids, or the crazy grandmother.

BTW, I watched the 60 Minutes episode; thanks for the link. It largely confirmed what I already knew or suspected about the people involved. What I hadn't realized was the extent to which the Australian embassy abetted this drama. That is interesting.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

Take a look at the 60 Minutes clip Katy linked. The kids' mother - at the cost of making a liar out of her own mother - drew a line on this, and made it clear she does not think the father would sexually abuse the kids.

 

[Wildy]

And that makes what smartcooky said even less likely.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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?

So the answer to my first question was no. People aren't saying they should be allowed to stay because what the mother did was ok. Only that the kids should have had some say. Your saying that because she dragged them half way around the world illegally that they should be dragged back in order to make things right. But it's not about the mother or the father, it's about the kids. And this incident was certainly not in their best interests psychologically.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where in that post did I say this whole situation wasn't the mother's fault? Just because she started this chain of events doesn't mean the police handled it well. Or that the way the kids removal degenerated was entirely her fault. I've even already agreed that the court was right to remove the kids from her custody. She sounds unstable and untrustworthy and I doubt she'll get any unsupervised access after pulling this stunt.

What should they have done other than give up and let her keep the kids?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

You are forgetting the obvious evidence of his unfitness, being a father instead of a mother.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Kids need to be raise by relatives that hate their ethnicity to make them know their worth. Lying scumbag Italians.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

At least she was doing everything she could to poison them against their father like all responsible parents.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.

So as kidnapping your kids blocking access and turning your kids against their other parent isn't evidence of being unfit what is?

 

[This is The End]

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so.

You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.

Because if it was not illegal she could just go tell the authorities the reason for the kidnapping, they would take care of it in the appropriate manner, and it would then cease to be a kidnapping.

Therefore, again, you must be saying it is justified and illegal, both at the same time.

And it follows from that that you must be saying that the current law is unjust.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So the answer to my first question was no. People aren't saying they should be allowed to stay because what the mother did was ok. Only that the kids should have had some say. Your saying that because she dragged them half way around the world illegally that they should be dragged back in order to make things right. But it's not about the mother or the father, it's about the kids. And this incident was certainly not in their best interests psychologically.

So whay do you think about pulling kids away from the only family they knew? Like the example of the mother winning in the courts against the father who took them to islamic countries? Clearly that is as wrong to tear them away from the only family they knew.

 

[lionking]

You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.

Because if it was not illegal she could just go tell the authorities the reason for the kidnapping, they would take care of it in the appropriate manner, and it would then cease to be a kidnapping.

Therefore, again, you must be saying it is justified and illegal, both at the same time.

And it follows from that that you must be saying that the current law is unjust.

Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.