The Australian "custody sisters"

[Caper]

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.

Sooo, why does that apply only to the kidnapper? Why not say to the kids, "life isn't fair"... it's the law, your going to Italy? Why does the "life isn't fair" part only apply to one of the victims of the kidnapping?

 

[joesixpack]

Really? If your mother asked you to commit genocide.... you would?

It seems to be an unhealthy sort of attachment. I can't imagine any situations where I'd feel compelled to abandon any principles, and very few where I'd break the law, for the sake of a filial obligation.

 

[brodski]

So far all the pro-mother side here can argue is that if the facts were different then the kidnapping was justified.

That's nice, but wy are you defending this kidnapping in this particuilar case?

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

 

[brodski]

Sooo, why does that apply only to the kidnapper? Why not say to the kids, "life isn't fair"... it's the law, your going to Italy? Why does the "life isn't fair" part only apply to one of the victims of the kidnapping?

Beceause the entire process is meant to be about the welfare of the children.

 

[ehcks]

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm?

 

[joesixpack]

That's talking about the return of "a wrongfully removed" child. The removal was still wrongful. It's just that the return may not be necessary.

And yet see how this law is written so as to prevent unjust outcomes?

 

[Matthew Best]

And yet see how this law is written so as to prevent unjust outcomes?

That's interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[brodski]

So then we're back to the question of any other kidnapper. A complete stranger takes your kids and after two years has them not wanting to see you again. Do you still try to get them back, or do you stop because you think it would just cause them more harm?

Remember that there is still a chance that the Italian courts will decude to award dole custerdoy to the mother, it is unlikely that the mother will be legally prevented from having any future contact with her children. The situation is quite, quite, distinct from othet types of kidnapping.

 

[ehcks]

Remember that there is still a chance that the Italian courts will decude to award dole custerdoy to the mother, it is unlikely that the mother will be legally prevented from having any future contact with her children. The situation is quite, quite, distinct from othet types of kidnapping.

Sure. That's what the court case is for, though the mother certainly reduced her chances with this. But a complete stranger kidnapping kids from an actually abusive home could also win. What matters is the evidence. You can't just let a kidnapper get away with the crime because it might hurt the victims more to take them back.

The mother kidnapped and alienated the children, the father has not been shown to do anything illegal or harmful. Those are the facts we have. The court will get more, but so far, the father looks like he should win.

 

[WildCat]

The other argument is that even though the removal to Australia was wrong, illegal and harmful, you can't turn back the clock and that a traumatic return to Italy will only cause further harm to the children rather than repair the harm whuch has already been caused.

Sure you can say that, if you're able to see into the future. If that's the case, can you tell me next week's Lotto numbers?

 

[joesixpack]

That's interesting, but irrelevant to the point I was making.

Yes, your earlier point was an equivocation being passed off as a syllogism. Logic fails when a premise is faulty.

 

[brodski]

Sure you can say that, if you're able to see into the future. If that's the case, can you tell me next week's Lotto numbers?

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

 

[brodski]

Sure. That's what the court case is for, though the mother certainly reduced her chances with this. But a complete stranger kidnapping kids from an actually abusive home could also win. What matters is the evidence. You can't just let a kidnapper get away with the crime because it might hurt the victims more to take them back.

The mother kidnapped and alienated the children, the father has not been shown to do anything illegal or harmful. Those are the facts we have. The court will get more, but so far, the father looks like he should win.

Im pretty sure that a stranger who kidnaps kids is never going to be awarded custody of the kids.

 

[Caper]

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.

Thanks for the link. The mother's mother is batsh** crazy.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Thanks for the link. The mother's mother is batsh** crazy.

Toxic is the word that came to my mind. What about the threat to tell lies about the husband watching his daughters undress. And the piss weak story she told to support the claim.

 

[joesixpack]

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

Yes, it actually does, unless you're an unbiased child psychologist involved with the case.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, your earlier point was an equivocation being passed off as a syllogism. Logic fails when a premise is faulty.

Well it wasn't MY premise, so I can hardly be blamed for that.

 

[joesixpack]

Im pretty sure that a stranger who kidnaps kids is never going to be awarded custody of the kids.

Yes but you're avoiding the question. The argument that the children will feel less stress could as easily apply to non-biologically related kidnappers as well. Where is the difference?

If a rich woman steals a poor woman's child, is there no recourse for the poor woman if the children are poisoned against her and given a "better life"?

 

[WildCat]

Beceause predicting the likely results on children of a highly charged, nasty, protracted and very public custody dispute takes psychic powers, right?

Wow, therer's some serious goalpost moving there!

So now you are claimimng not that this incident at the airport affected the children, but that custody disputes in general do? And what is your solution for that?

 

[brodski]

Wow, therer's some serious goalpost moving there!

So now you are claimimng not that this incident at the airport affected the children, but that custody disputes in general do? And what is your solution for that?

My position on this has not shifted at all. My argument is that if one parent is ramping up the dispute to the point that it is causing psychological harm to the children (as noted by the judge) then the other parent has the choice to be the better parent and sacrifice their happiness in order to protect the interests of their children.

This is nit going to have a happy ending for all concerned, and natural justice cannot be served, so how best to defuse the situation and protect the interests of the children? Given that the prospect if them needing to be taken into foster care in itsly (due to the behaviour of the older girls) has been raised by their father's family, I'm pretty confident that the current situation is not in their best interests.