The Australian "custody sisters"

[Caper]

Which is why even if a child cry at the propesct to give them a vaccination we still force them to get it.

haha... that struck a cord with me. My sons last vaccinations, I had to go with him and my wife... because the last time she went, she couldn't hold him and he jerked his leg causing a bit more blood from the needle. He had to get three needles, all real quick..... the look he shot at me after the first needle and I just pinned his leg down, was one I'll never forget.... man he cried.... for about 2 minutes.... then he was laughing again.

 

[brodski]

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.

Except that if you already have joint custody an argument that you can give the child a better life is often enough. Thats why this case is so different from your hypothetical, the mother may still be awarded sole custody. You're comparing apples and orangutans.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Yes I have. Have you read the judge ruling about the psychological manipulation ? Kid katty had them backthread.

The fact that the youngest child could go from stating in May last year that she wanted to go home to Italy to her home in the Tuscan countryside to now asserting that “Italy’s a scary place. I don’t feel comfortable” and writing that she would stab herself if she was sent back to Italy, when she has not been back to Italy in the meantime, causes me to conclude that she has probably been subjected to considerable influence by persons close to her. That could have been her mother, or her older sisters, or other members of her extended maternal family. It does not really matter who. Having regard to the sorts of things the maternal great-grandmother was saying to and in the presence of the children, even in the company of police, I am satisfied that little restraint in respect of these matters is likely to have been demonstrated around these children and that this has impacted upon them in significant ways.

Now what part of the ruling you think favor in letting the kids with their mother rather than let an italian court judge ?

 

[brodski]

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

You resolve the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable, rather than sacrificing their maximal wellbeing to notions of principle and natural justice. In some cases this will mean that the "bad" parent "wins". The real world sucks like that sometimes.

 

[banquetbear]

You resolve the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable, .

...which is exactly what happened in this case. Whats your problem?

 

[brodski]

...which is exactly what happened in this case. Whats your problem?

Teenage children driven by their parents to thoughts of self harm, in and out of foster care and subject to a protracted and very punlic duspute (which us still ongoing) is very far from resolving the issue, let alone in the best interests of the girls.

 

[Aepervius]

You resolve the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable, rather than sacrificing their maximal wellbeing to notions of principle and natural justice. In some cases this will mean that the "bad" parent "wins". The real world sucks like that sometimes.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that sometimes it is better to inflict a bit of pain now to have to avoid further pain down the line. The mother family may actually be a bad environment for the kids to continue to live in. Read what i quoted above. The motehr family seems to be warping the kids head.

Sometimes the wellbeing of kids needs their imemdiate happyness to be sacrified for a betetr outcome.

And frankly, what you more or less are saying, is that parental kidnapping is OK. Just make sure you fill the kids heads and allow them more freedom, who cares if the kids are ********** up , you won, the other parent will not get the kids ever, because that could make them a bit unhappy temporary.

 

[Aepervius]

Teenage children driven by their parents to thoughts of self harm, in and out of foster care and subject to a protracted and very punlic duspute (which us still ongoing) is very far from resolving the issue, let alone in the best interests of the girls.

My 15 year old niece threatened to kill herself and jumped out of a moving car (ETA: car might have been moving slow as my niece was not very deeply wounded).
For some stupid stuff I don't remember , might have been about buying expansive clothes and my sister refused. That was I think 3 months ago.

What the kids may need is to have a psychological follow up, but not automagically have their wish fulfilled. Only a child psychologist could tell the better way. But giving is not the best solution as you may push it.

 

[banquetbear]

Teenage children driven by their parents to thoughts of self harm, in and out of foster care and subject to a protracted and very punlic duspute (which us still ongoing) is very far from resolving the issue, let alone in the best interests of the girls.

...you claim to have read the courts rulings related to psychological impact. Can you point how this case hasn't been resolved the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable?

You've just claimed that the parents have driven the teenage children to thoughts of self harm. The father hasn't had physical contact with the kids for two years. How can you claim he has driven them to thoughts of self harm? For two years they have been in the custody of their mum and their grandmother. And if you had watched the 60 minutes documentary posted earlier: the grandmother is toxic.

As posted upthread earlier for your comments:

The fact that the youngest child could go from stating in May last year that she wanted to go home to Italy to her home in the Tuscan countryside to now asserting that “Italy’s a scary place. I don’t feel comfortable” and writing that she would stab herself if she was sent back to Italy, when she has not been back to Italy in the meantime, causes me to conclude that she has probably been subjected to considerable influence by persons close to her. That could have been her mother, or her older sisters, or other members of her extended maternal family. It does not really matter who. Having regard to the sorts of things the maternal great-grandmother was saying to and in the presence of the children, even in the company of police, I am satisfied that little restraint in respect of these matters is likely to have been demonstrated around these children and that this has impacted upon them in significant ways.

Why are you ignoring these judges comments?

 

[Caper]

Except that if you already have joint custody an argument that you can give the child a better life is often enough. Thats why this case is so different from your hypothetical, the mother may still be awarded sole custody. You're comparing apples and orangutans.

No. Your point and the point of many others is that above ALL else, what's best for the child is what should be done. I'm saying that shouldn't be the case.

 

[brodski]

...you claim to have read the courts rulings related to psychological impact. Can you point how this case hasn't been resolved the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable?

You've just claimed that the parents have driven the teenage children to thoughts of self harm. The father hasn't had physical contact with the kids for two years. How can you claim he has driven them to thoughts of self harm? For two years they have been in the custody of their mum and their grandmother. And if you had watched the 60 minutes documentary posted earlier: the grandmother is toxic.

As posted upthread earlier for your comments:



Why are you ignoring these judges comments?

Im not ignoring those comments. The psychological harm has been caused, and continues to be caused, almost exclusively by the mother and her family in an attempt to "win" the dispute. But there are two parties who can end the dispute instantly, it's a shame that both of those people seem more interested in winning rather than preventing the kids from suffering more.

 

[brodski]

No. Your point and the point of many others is that above ALL else, what's best for the child is what should be done. I'm saying that shouldn't be the case.

Then we fundamentally dusagree on first principles and are unlikely ever to convince each other to change our minds.

 

[Caper]

Then we fundamentally dusagree on first principles and are unlikely ever to convince each other to change our minds.

Sorry what is the fundamental first principal (the disagreement)?

 

[banquetbear]

Im not ignoring those comments. The psychological harm has been caused, and continues to be caused, almost exclusively by the mother and her family in an attempt to "win" the dispute. But there are two parties who can end the dispute instantly, it's a shame that both of those people seem more interested in winning rather than preventing the kids from suffering more.

...so you agree that the psychological harm has been caused, and continues to be caused, almost exclusively by the mother and her family.

But you don't think that removing the girls from people who are causing ongoing psychological harm is resolving the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable?

 

[WildCat]

You resolve the situation in the best interests of the children so far as is practicable, rather than sacrificing their maximal wellbeing to notions of principle and natural justice. In some cases this will mean that the "bad" parent "wins". The real world sucks like that sometimes.

You have certainly not demonstrated that the children are best left with the kidnapper mother and her psychotic family, nor explained how there's a societal interest in rewarding parents who kidnap their children in custody cases. It appears you're basing this on your psychic abilities?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. For clarity of discussion, I transcribed the comments made by the mother after the interviewer confronts the grandmother with her phone message accusing the father of watching the girls undress.

Mother: "I don't believe, no, I don't believe he would ever, ever do anything like that. I think what -

Interviewer: "But your mother is prepared to tell everyone that's exactly what he's done."

Mother: "I would not support that if it wasn't true. I don't believe he would do that."

 

[Caper]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. For clarity of discussion, I transcribed the comments made by the mother after the interviewer confronts the grandmother with her phone message accusing the father of watching the girls undress.

Mother: "I don't believe, no, I don't believe he would ever, ever do anything like that. I think what -

Interviewer: "But your mother is prepared to tell everyone that's exactly what he's done."

Mother: "I would not support that if it wasn't true. I don't believe he would do that."

Even the mother realized that lame story wouldn't fly.... all she did was dissociate herself from such a stupid story.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here is the consensus opinion on this matter as I understand it after 10+ pages of commentary:

In 2010, these four girls got on a plane with their mother and flew to Australia, with the aid and support of the Australian embassy in Rome. That was a criminal act of kidnapping that proves the mother is a villain and is solely or primarily responsible for all the bad things that have happened.

In 2012, the same four girls were dragged from their home by police, separated from their mother against their will, forced onto a plane against their will, flown back to Italy and returned to the custody of their father against their will.

That was lawful and just, and it served the best interest of the kids. If they were kicking and screaming, well, that's just how kids are. They'll do whatever gets them favors or attention. They'll be fine. It's no worse than a vaccination, or not getting ice cream after dinner.

QED, per the inestimable reasoning of JREF's compassionate skeptics. To me it seems glib and fatuous, and I cannot imagine anyone here would countenance such treatment of themselves or their own children.

 

[Caper]

Here is the consensus opinion on this matter as I understand it after 10+ pages of commentary:

In 2010, these four girls got on a plane with their mother and flew to Australia, with the aid and support of the Australian embassy in Rome. That was a criminal act of kidnapping that proves the mother is a villain and is solely or primarily responsible for all the bad things that have happened.

No. It does not prove she was villain. She's a kidnapper.

In 2012, the same four girls were dragged from their home by police, separated from their mother against their will, forced onto a plane against their will, flown back to Italy and returned to the custody of their father against their will.

That's the control kidnappers have. From Elisabeth Smart to Jaycee Dugard. Are you actually surprised the victims of a kidnapping want to stay with the kidnapper?

That was lawful and just, and it served the best interest of the kids.

In this case it most likely did serve the best interest of the kids.... Did you see that Grandmother? But it doesn't matter, the father could be a miserable SOB for all I care. They are his kids and they were kidnapped, his rights were violated. Return the kids.

If they were kicking and screaming, well, that's just how kids are.

Most of us can put that in context. Elian Gonzalez was also dragged kicking and screaming. His views changed when he was placed with the father.

They'll do whatever gets them favors or attention. They'll be fine. It's no worse than a vaccination, or not getting ice cream after dinner.

I don't think anyone said that... or made that case.

QED, per the inestimable reasoning of JREF's compassionate skeptics. To me it seems glib and fatuous, and I cannot imagine anyone here would countenance such treatment of themselves or their own children.

If someone kidnapped my child and turned them against me... then yes.... that first step would have to be taken.

 

[lionking]

No. Your point and the point of many others is that above ALL else, what's best for the child is what should be done. I'm saying that shouldn't be the case.

I can't believe this comment. What's best for the child is exactly what should be done. Always.