The Australian "custody sisters"

[DreamingNaiad]

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.


Sure it can.

In which post did I say I was fine with kidnapping?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In which post did I say I was fine with kidnapping?

You are, provided they pitch a fit being removed then isn't removal more traumatic than leaving them? So in the interest of what is best for them they should stay with the kidnapper.

 

[kerikiwi]

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.

If it were a stranger abduction and the children wanted to stay with their abductor, how would it be different from a parental abduction and the children wanting to stay with their abductor?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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.

So by that logic, if someone says marital rape is ok they are saying it is ok to rape strangers in other countries? I'm honestly not seeing the logic leap between parents kidnapping their kids and someone abducting a stranger. They both fall under the heading 'abduction' but that seems to be it.

Killing someone in self-defense and murder both fall under the category 'killing' but saying the former is ok doesn't make the latter ok.

Yes, she legally kidnapped them but that is entirely different from dragging a strange child off.

Gets accused of supporting kidnap and saying they should have remained in mother's custody in 3...2...1...

 

[lionking]

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.

No you're not, you are distorting my point to an absolutely ridiculous degree. As others have said, this thread is not about kidnapping an Ethopian child. If you want to start a thread about this, please do so.

As for "my only condition", it should be obvious to everyone with half a brain that I was talking about the best interests of a child in the context of this thread, that is a custody dispute between two parents. If you want to imagine a child being better off if kidnapped by Santa Claus, go ahead. Just don't do it in this thread.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So by that logic, if someone says marital rape is ok they are saying it is ok to rape strangers in other countries? I'm honestly not seeing the logic leap between parents kidnapping their kids and someone abducting a stranger. They both fall under the heading 'abduction' but that seems to be it.

But then you are saying that what is best for the kid is not the only thing that matters, biological parents get some extra consideration for some reason.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You are, provided they pitch a fit being removed then isn't removal more traumatic than leaving them? So in the interest of what is best for them they should stay with the kidnapper.

In other words you couldn't find a post because it doesn't exist. Apology accepted.

I haven't said they should remain in her custody, only that they way they were dragged around was barbaric. See post #299 specifically paragraph 3.

My view is that this situation is such a mess it is impossible for everyone involved to get what they feel is 'fair'.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No you're not, you are distorting my point to an absolutely ridiculous degree. As others have said, this thread is not about kidnapping an Ethopian child. If you want to start a thread about this, please do so.

As for "my only condition", it should be obvious to everyone with half a brain that I was talking about the best interests of a child in the context of this thread, that is a custody dispute between two parents. If you want to imagine a child being better off if kidnapped by Santa Claus, go ahead. Just don't do it in this thread.

Why does their best interest suddenly disappear if they are kidnapped by a stranger or more distance relative?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In other words you couldn't find a post because it doesn't exist. Apology accepted.

I haven't said they should remain in her custody, only that they way they were dragged around was barbaric. See post #299 specifically paragraph 3.

My view is that this situation is such a mess it is impossible for everyone involved to get what they feel is 'fair'.

So why do you care about fair suddenly when it is a stranger kidnapping the kids? It isn't about fairness or justice it is about what is best for the kids right?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

But then you are saying that what is best for the kid is not the only thing that matters, biological parents get some extra consideration for some reason.

I am talking about it in terms of a custody case. Caper, and apparently you, are talking about it in some odd way that has rich people stealing babies. Next you'll be saying that killing poor kids so they don't suffer is in their best interests. You know, for when we run out of rich kidnappers.

 

[joesixpack]

So by that logic, if someone says marital rape is ok they are saying it is ok to rape strangers in other countries?

What? No, I'm saying kidnap is kidnap, just like rape is rape. Crossing international borders doesn't have to enter into the picture. The biological and legal relationship between the parties doesn't alter the nature of the crime. Assault is assault, regardless of whether or not the assailant and victim are married, mother and child, or strangers.

I'm honestly not seeing the logic leap between parents kidnapping their kids and someone abducting a stranger. They both fall under the heading 'abduction' but that seems to be it.

The assumption is that a parent can not be a danger to their own child. We know quite well that parents abuse, neglect, and even kill their children with heartbreaking regularity. Why do you presume that a child is safer in the hands of a parent than they are in the hands of a non-relative kidnapper? Is it because you assume that the parental connection makes it impossible to harm or bring harm to the child?

Further, why would you imagine for a minute that a parent who would alienate their children from the other parent would be a better parent than a one who would not?

Why would you allow such a crime to continue? Why would you aid and abet such a crime? The children will certainly NOT be better off remaining with the one parent. There is a mountain of psychological research to demonstrate that this is almost never the case. Why do you want to pretend that it is?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am talking about it in terms of a custody case. Caper, and apparently you, are talking about it in some odd way that has rich people stealing babies. Next you'll be saying that killing poor kids so they don't suffer is in their best interests. You know, for when we run out of rich kidnappers.

So how distant does the custody issue need to be to be able to ignore the felonies and just focus solely on what is best for the kids? Clearly you ignore their best interest when it is a stranger but what about a grand parent?

So does this hold for say Elián González?

 

[lionking]

Why does their best interest suddenly disappear if they are kidnapped by a stranger or more distance relative?

This thread has taken a truly bizarre turn. Why are people talking about Ethopians and strangers simply because I stated that the child's interests are paramount?

 

[joesixpack]

As for "my only condition", it should be obvious to everyone with half a brain that I was talking about the best interests of a child in the context of this thread,

Why on earth do you think that it's in the best interest of the child to be cut off from one parent? Could you show me some research that proves this is so?

 

[ponderingturtle]

This thread has taken a truly bizarre turn. Why are people talking about Ethopians and strangers simply because I stated that the child's interests are paramount?

Because if they are, then the logic would hold. Clearly the childs interests are not paramount in many situations.

 

[joesixpack]

My view is that this situation is such a mess it is impossible for everyone involved to get what they feel is 'fair'.

It's not important that everyone feel that they're getting a fair shake, it's important that everyone's rights be respected. Certainly the cluster"b" mother will never feel like things are fair unless she gets everything she wants. Sorry to say, she's not the only one with skin in the game, and those other parties' rights need to be weighed.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

So why do you care about fair suddenly when it is a stranger kidnapping the kids? It isn't about fairness or justice it is about what is best for the kids right?

Leaving them with a person who is unstable enough to grab a strange child and live out their life pretending it's theirs probably isn't the best person to look after a kid. JMO.

And of course parents have priority in custody cases. If you had kids and got divorced the milkman couldn't apply for custody. If both parents are unfit the court can look at other relatives or take the kids into care. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. Or that anyone is saying the best interests of the child aren't the primary consideration in a custody case.

The best interests aren't always what the child wants but neither is dragging them through the airport. Oh wait, you thought that was in their best interests. Silly me expecting better planning and treatment of minors. They probably should have slapped them around a bit. That would have shut them up with their histrionics.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Leaving them with a person who is unstable enough to grab a strange child and live out their life pretending it's theirs probably isn't the best person to look after a kid. JMO.

And of course parents have priority in custody cases. If you had kids and got divorced the milkman couldn't apply for custody. If both parents are unfit the court can look at other relatives or take the kids into care. I can't believe I'm having to explain this. Or that anyone is saying the best interests of the child aren't the primary consideration in a custody case.

The best interests aren't always what the child wants but neither is dragging them through the airport. Oh wait, you thought that was in their best interests. Silly me expecting better planning and treatment of minors. They probably should have slapped them around a bit. That would have shut them up with their histrionics.

They needed more guns. Like this

 

[DreamingNaiad]

So how distant does the custody issue need to be to be able to ignore the felonies and just focus solely on what is best for the kids? Clearly you ignore their best interest when it is a stranger but what about a grand parent?

So does this hold for say Elián González?

Does it count as a felony if she's not going to be charged? Honest question as it seems as if both countries were quite happy to drop it.

I don't know enough about the Gonzalez case to comment. I can barely remember it.

 

[Caper]

And of course parents have priority in custody cases. If you had kids and got divorced the milkman couldn't apply for custody.

What if the kid has Rickets? What if both parents are losers and the milkman is a winner and wanted the child? What if it is obvious to anyone that the better home is the milkmans, thus satisfying your criteria for "best interest of the child" should the milkman get the child then?