The Australian "custody sisters"

[brodski]

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"?

You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?

 

[WildCat]

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.

So in your perfect world the parent willing to cause the most harm to the children automatically gets custody?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

 

[WildCat]

And on a related note, it was quite normal in American Indian warfare for one tribe to take the children of another (or even white settlers) after they had killed their parents and raise them as their own. And the children would recover from this, and even be fiercely loyal to their "new" family.

If those kids can get over something like that, these kids can recover from the airport temper tantrum. Why on earth was the mother allowed to be at the airport anyway? I wonder if the scene would have been quite different if she had been elsewhere (like in a jail cell, but that's just me).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

He didn't bring you back to the question of any other kidnapper. That's pure invention, and if you need it to support your argument, maybe you should think about what that implies.

If you insist on hypotheticals, here's one:

Watch the video at the top of this thread. Then imagine that instead of being dragged off by police officers sworn to uphold the law, the kids were abducted by private agents of the father, and they were now in a place beyond the reach of their mother or the law.

I assume that would alter the perceptions of JREF pundits, but I'm not sure it would be substantially different from the POV of the kids. The essential elements of their experience are that no one cares about their pleas, they have no control over what is happening to them, and they are being forcibly separated from someone they love.

 

[joesixpack]

You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?

Certainly I can, and so does the law. But the argument that "it would be easier on the girls to leave them in the care of the person who kidnapped them and alienated them from one parent" seems to simply hinge more on a restatement of "easier on the girls who are suffering from Stockholm syndrome" more than the biological connection which they have with the perpetrator.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

She made that very clear though she could have been wrong about her assessment. Grandma's lame attempts at supporting the claim told the true story.

 

[Caper]

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.

So you may have or soon may have Grand-kids. Are they up for grabs? Can anyone just grab them take them to a good home and keep them... all the abductors have to do is turn them against your children?

..... and for that they get your support?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You cant see the difference between a person who has joint legal custody (and who will always be a major part of the girls' lives) and a random stranger?

Where is the line that legitimizes kidnapping?

 

[brodski]

Where is the line that legitimizes kidnapping?

I have utterly condemned the mothers actions, that doesn't mean that returning the kids to Italy will magically make everything better, nor does it mean that the traumatic return is not harmful to the girls. Are we to sacrifice their wellbeing for the sake of principle?

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Which is more or less saying "guy/gale you are free to kidnap your kids, if you work on them good enough and attach them strongly enough, you can even get away with it !".

You have no way to know it would be better for the kids to stay there. But at least before the italian court it could be made clear and clean. But hey who cares as long as you can get emotion running high and remove the father its right by a stroke of key.

 

[Caper]

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.

I know. The mother seems crazy... the mother's mother is crazy.... and the mother's mother's mother is crazy.

Seriously though... who would rent a car under their son in laws name and then steal the car? That's nuts.

 

[brodski]

So in your perfect world the parent willing to cause the most harm to the children automatically gets custody?

I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.

 

[Aepervius]

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

No what takes psychic power is the underlying assumption the kids would be better off with the mother, based on the show of emotion.

In fact it could very well be that the mother is not stable emotionally and the father very stable making the childs better off with the father. Sure with a transition period where they might be PO'd off, but later on growing understatnding.

I like that game, I should speculate like you all do on the wellfare of the kids, you can invent any scenario ! Rather than let the italian court decide as proper ! Fun !

 

[Caper]

That was something the grandmother said, and the mother flatly repudiated it on camera, in the presence of the grandmother. Her comments were clear. She is not accusing the father of sexual abuse, and she does not think there is any risk of that.

I saw that... but it didn't score any points with me. To me, she realized that something so stupid would never stick and only hurt her case and even she would go that far.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

"hey my significant other is a bitch emotionally scarring my children, but I am a good guys I will let her go away with it!".

Not.

If I was a father I would rather try to solve the situation than abdict responsibility and let the motehr **** up the kids for good.

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.

Emphasis mine. HOW do you know that the best interrest of the children would not be exactly to be with a law abbiding emotionally stable father?

A little pain now is much better than a great pain later. Which is why even if a child cry at the propesct to give them a vaccination we still force them to get it.

you have no way whatsoever from the media circus to conclude the childs would be better off with the mother.

You are just assuming so.

This is where the claim of psychic power onto your post come from.

 

[Caper]

I have utterly condemned the mothers actions, that doesn't mean that returning the kids to Italy will magically make everything better, nor does it mean that the traumatic return is not harmful to the girls. Are we to sacrifice their wellbeing for the sake of principle?

YES. You can't steal kids.

I cannot go to a third world country and take some parents kid simply because they would be better off....... and lets be clear.... if the child is young and a good western family takes the third world child, they will almost surely be better off........ but it can't be justified.

An argument that you can give a child a better life is not an argument to take a child.

 

[brodski]

Am I the only one who has read the courts rulings related to psychological impact? They are linked in this thread for those who don't share my psychic powers.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.

But you are only ASSUMING they are after their kids happnyness. And *anyway* as my example shows above, immediate happyness is not always the best responsibility of a parents ! A good parents will sometimes forgoe immediate happyness for a long term happyness of a kids (vaccination, punishing them for infraction, teaching them discipline, etc...).

 

[WildCat]

I don't care about a perfect world, as we will never live in one. I still think that a situation where one parent is prepared to put their kids' happiness above their own is better than a situation where neither is, even if this runs against natural justice.

So you automatically award custody to the parent willing to do the most harm to the children, yes?