The Australian "custody sisters"

[joesixpack]

If lionking didn't demonstrate it, I did. Your logic demands that a just law can never have unjust consequences. That is a logic fail.

I think you are mistaken. My logic demands no such thing. Please reread those posts and you will see your error.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think you are mistaken. My logic demands no such thing. Please reread those posts and you will see your error.

I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Wildy]

When did anyone say removing them from Italy was good? I can't see it anywhere in the thread so maybe you can point me to posts that say the kids shouldn't go back and it was right of the mother to take them in the first place.

Sar-cas-m.

Clearly if one parent drags the kids away from their home the other parent can do the same? But the second parent is a hero of course and the first a villain.

Well if you consider that to be the case here then yes. Yes he can, and he has the law on his side in this instance.

 

[WildCat]

And what if the "kidnapping" is justified?

And what if Bigfoot is real!
And what if Sylvia really can talk to the dead!
And what if Saddam really had WMDs!

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas!

 

[Aepervius]

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.

I don't care personally. There is a law and it is the same for everybody. What she did was parental kidnapping. If the father was to blame for something there is the police you can ask. People here seem to automagically think the mother has a right to remove forcefully custody of the kids from the father and that's pretty disgusting.

 

[WildCat]

Italy is no hellhole children would need 'rescuing' from. Australia seems to breed racists readily, hopefully the children will realize that particular training (to hate Italians) is useless.

Have you ever watched an episode of Jersey Shore?

 

[Aepervius]

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.

If italy's law is the same as here, then the law is pretty clear : in case of custody dispute if one member of the family take the kids and flee in another country it is called family kidnapping, and that's why there is the hague convention. You are only assuming it was a rescue.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

She broke the law, and showed her kids the wrong example. If something wrong was going on she could have told 1) the italian court during the custody battle 2) the italian police 3) the aussie court. She did none of those.

I dunno for you but showing your kids you want to break the law when favors you is clearly showing a bad example.

 

[Aepervius]

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

Miother broke the law and fled into another country bypassing the rule of law.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

No. You are getting it as wrong as a creationist trying to get a crocoduck.

We have very few scant fact.

Here are there :
1) she apparentely told the father she would go into holiday during a custody battle before the italian court
2) she never came back
3) she fought tooth and nail to not give the kid back despite the custody dispute still going on
4) she never gave evidence or information pertaining to the kids being in danger with the father to the italian or australian court

Those are facts. Based on those facts the mother broke the law and did a family kidnapping. YOU are tying to muddy the water by adding "what if". Well sorry, but the fact we have do not warrant the conclusion you wish. If you have more fact than those feel free to add them. But as far as I know of the story that is the extent of it.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

The problem is, a single family member kidnapping the child has month, years to psychologically work on them. Please don't tell me that don't happen, I had it happen in my family and it is disgusting to see it at work (no kidnapping involved).

You have no way to know if that's not what the mother did.

But by your post above it seems you see it as OK to make a kidnapping a fait-accomplis ?

Now that's beyond disgusting.

 

[kerikiwi]

Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.

The logic was impeccable.

 

[kerikiwi]

Repeating your faulty logic doesn't make it correct.

The logic was not faulty. It was impeccable.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Turning this round, your implied claim here is that a just law can never have unjust consequences. Is that what you believe?

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

The problem is, a single family member kidnapping the child has month, years to psychologically work on them. Please don't tell me that don't happen, I had it happen in my family and it is disgusting to see it at work (no kidnapping involved).

You have no way to know if that's not what the mother did.

But by your post above it seems you see it as OK to make a kidnapping a fait-accomplis ?

Now that's beyond disgusting.

No, I think their return should have been done in a calmer more civilised manner. There is no way they could legally be allowed to stay.

See my last post for what I think should have happened I'm not typing it out again.

This has happened in my family too. One parent kept the child, refused to let her see the other and badmouthed them. When she was 16 she found the other parent and has the greatest bond with them now. That same side of the family threatened to do the same to me.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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.

That isn't love!

That's love, Manson-style!

Fitz

 

[lionking]

* Clearly you don't know many mothers. They are not imbued with mystical powers of infallibility simply by giving birth. They are quite human and suffer the same defects as the rest of us mortals.

Again, your emotional involvement makes a sensible debate with you difficult, and your reading comprehension isn't the best either, but let me comment on this. If you have a look at my user profile you will see my age. I've made it clear in many posts that I have a lot of kids and am part of a large family. My work also puts me in direst contact with many mothers. This "clear" comment is as "clear" as many of others you have made, that is, not at all.

The hatred you display for the mother in question is quite telling.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

You would think they would have checked with the father before giving her plane tickets since they knew the kids have dual citizenship. If I were her I would have believed it was legal to do this because the embassy surely wouldn't take part in anything illegal.

 

[brodski]

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

if the argument is that the mother did not kniwingly break the law, how do you account for the second illigal disappearance of the girls?

 

[Sideroxylon]

That is indeed the implication. But in this case, it is beside the point, because the Australian embassy facilitated her exodus. They set her up with one-way tickets out of Italy and even changed the schedule to an earlier flight, to mitigate the risk that the father might interfere. Watch the 60 Minutes link Katy posted if you doubt any of this.

Watching that now and I think the people involved need a kick up the bum.

A reasonable person in her situation would assume that embassy personnel understand the law - especially as it pertains to international travel - and would not aid and abet a violation of the law.

Therefore, she had reason to believe, at that time, that what she was doing was lawful.

No, a reasonable person could still believe that the Aussie Embassy was taking a contemptuous attitude to local law (perhaps international) while holding the children's interests as primary. (Note I am not advocating any normative claims of my own on that.)

60 Minutes tried to contact the embassy about this. The embassy had every opportunity to say, "ah, but she misled us! We didn't know what was really going on!"

But they didn't. They simply refused to comment.

Has there been a review of their actions yet? If not, not commenting would be prudent.