The Australian "custody sisters"

[Caper]

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

No absolutely not.

In your world any wealthy individual should be able to walk into any poor area of town and simply take peoples children because that is what is best for the child.

I should be able to go to Ethiopia walk into a hut and simply take the children I want on your premise...... that above all else, we should do what's best for the child.

The examples I used are easily backed by statistical evidence, that if If I were to take young children out of these types of homes the would almost surely be better off.

I don't live in your world.... A world where you can simply take peoples children, because you can statistically prove the child would be better off.

 

[lionking]

No absolutely not.

In your world any wealthy individual should be able to walk into any poor area of town and simply take peoples children because that is what is best for the child.

I should be able to go to Ethiopia walk into a hut and simply take the children I want on your premise...... that above all else, we should do what's best for the child.

The examples I used are easily backed by statistical evidence, that if If I were to take young children out of these types of homes the would almost surely be better off.

I don't live in your world.... A world where you can simply take peoples children, because you can statistically prove the child would be better off.

Your (almost certainly deliberate) mischaracterising of my point is breathtaking. We are talking about a custody dispute in this thread. In a custody dispute, what's best for the child is the overwhelming criteria.

If you want to start a thread about third world child stealing, knock yourself out.

 

[Caper]

Your (almost certainly deliberate) mischaracterising of my point is breathtaking. We are talking about a custody dispute in this thread. In a custody dispute, what's best for the child is the overwhelming criteria.

If you want to start a thread about third world child stealing, knock yourself out.

But why should take the child's best interest in one situation and not the other?

And me taking a 3rd world child and declaring it my own.... Is very much a custody dispute. Why in my case should the child's best interests not be put first?

 

[lionking]

But why should take the child's best interest in one situation and not the other?

And me taking a 3rd world child and declaring it my own.... Is very much a custody dispute. Why in my case should the child's best interests not be put first?

This post is disingenuous, and I think you know it.

 

[kerikiwi]

This post is disingenuous, and I think you know it.

Not really. It gets right to the heart of your argument.
Either you think the best interests of the child should be the only criterion or you don't.

 

[brodski]

Not really. It gets right to the heart of your argument.
Either you think the best interests of the child should be the only criterion or you don't.

Only if you think that financial/ economic considerations are the sole measure of the welfare of a child.

 

[Caper]

This post is disingenuous, and I think you know it.

If it is explain it to me.


This is your position.

"Always do what is in the best interest of the child in a custody dispute".

So I ask. If I go into a third world country..... or a bad neighborhood... or to the home of an uneducated single mother and take their young child.... say an infant..... and for arguments sake, say I then give the child to the 2012 parents of the year...... Should the former parents wants or desires have any place in the custody dispute?..... Or as you say.... should the interests of the child be the ONLY factors considered.... in other words you always do what is in the best interests of the child.

Surely you can't make the argument that the third world mother with AIDS (might as well giver her AIDS to) could give a better life to a child then the parents of the year....... the best interests of the child would always be to be with the better parents.

All I'm doing is following your logic.

Please tell me where I'm misrepresenting your position that, in a custody dispute the best interests of the child is what matters.

 

[Caper]

Not really. It gets right to the heart of your argument.
Either you think the best interests of the child should be the only criterion or you don't.

EXACTLY.


The very heart of his argument is WRONG.

 

[banquetbear]

Only if you think that financial/ economic considerations are the sole measure of the welfare of a child.

...how about if psychological harm has been caused, and continues to be caused, almost exclusively by one side of the family? Don't you think that would be an important consideration?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I'm at a loss here. Deciding which parent it's in the child's best interest to live with means you can kidnap Ethiopians?

I'm pretty sure that in custody cases they look at what situation would be best for the child. Not financially, psychologically. How else would they decide custody if they don't look at the child's well-being? What the heck?! What is all this gibberish about strangers taking kids because they're rich?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not really. It gets right to the heart of your argument.
Either you think the best interests of the child should be the only criterion or you don't.

And emotionally manipulative people are always the best to raise children, the fit they pitched is proof of that to everyone.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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

That's not the scenario I'm asking you to imagine. But, if you're comparing this situation to that of Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard, I won't impose a further tax on your powers of cognition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm at a loss here. Deciding which parent it's in the child's best interest to live with means you can kidnap Ethiopians?

Why do you think living in Australia with their kidnapping mother is in their best interest? When did tearing them away from their life become acceptable vs abuse when their mother did it? Would lying to them now be better like their mother be better?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not the scenario I'm asking you to imagine. But, if you're comparing this situation to that of Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard, I won't impose a further tax on your powers of cognition.

If they wanted to stay with their kidnapper why should it be viewed so differently?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm at a loss here. Deciding which parent it's in the child's best interest to live with means you can kidnap Ethiopians?

I'm pretty sure that in custody cases they look at what situation would be best for the child. Not financially, psychologically. How else would they decide custody if they don't look at the child's well-being? What the heck?! What is all this gibberish about strangers taking kids because they're rich?

They want to put this case on the same footing as a stranger abduction, because if it were a stranger abduction, their arguments would make sense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They want to put this case on the same footing as a stranger abduction, because if it were a stranger abduction, their arguments would make sense.

Why should the footing be so different?

 

[joesixpack]

They want to put this case on the same footing as a stranger abduction, because if it were a stranger abduction, their arguments would make sense.

For the same reason we put "Marital Rape" on the same footing as "rape". The simple fact of someone's biological (or legal) relationship to the victim does not alter the nature of the crime.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Why do you think living in Australia with their kidnapping mother is in their best interest? When did tearing them away from their life become acceptable vs abuse when their mother did it? Would lying to them now be better like their mother be better?

I wasn't talking about that. I'm wondering why the best interests of the child being taken into account in custody cases means I can kidnap stranger's kids.

Why do people keep trying to put words in my mouth? I've already agreed that legally they had to go back no matter how unfair it was to the kids. But no doubt someone will accuse me of being pro-kidnap/mother in a few pages again.

Of course it was unfair and detrimental to them when she did it, but if you think she was wrong to uproot them why is it ok that the father did it? Tit for tat? Two wrongs make a right?

None of us can say which parent is best, we don't have enough info, but dragging them hysterical through the airport can't have been in their best interests can it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wasn't talking about that. I'm wondering why the best interests of the child being taken into account in custody cases means I can kidnap stranger's kids.

Why do people keep trying to put words in my mouth? I've already agreed that legally they had to go back no matter how unfair it was to the kids. But no doubt someone will accuse me of being pro-kidnap/mother in a few pages again.

You are fine with kidnapping provided enough time passes that they want to stay. Own your position. So why shouldn't non familial kidnappers who bond properly with the child get to keep them too? It was wrong but it would be more wrong to take them away, two wrongs don't make a right after all. There should at least be months of custody fights in court before you can take the kid away from the kidnappers.

None of us can say which parent is best, we don't have enough info, but dragging them hysterical through the airport can't have been in their best interests can it?

Sure it can.

 

[Caper]

I'm at a loss here. Deciding which parent it's in the child's best interest to live with means you can kidnap Ethiopians?

I'm pretty sure that in custody cases they look at what situation would be best for the child. Not financially, psychologically. How else would they decide custody if they don't look at the child's well-being? What the heck?! What is all this gibberish about strangers taking kids because they're rich?

His point is this. You always do what is in the best interest of the child and that is his only condition. I'm simply following his line of thinking to its logical end.