The Australian "custody sisters"

[DreamingNaiad]

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.

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?

No one is saying that parents can't be a danger. But the alternative is that we open up custody hearings so that any stranger could win custody. They could hand your child to the postman if he is deemed fitter than the parents. That would be insane.

And there are different degrees of crime. Your children calmly walking on the plane with you is different from clubbing someone over the head and driving off with them in the boot of your car. Both kidnap but very different.

And once again, I haven't said they should have been left in her custody. I don't know how often I'm going to have to say this ...

 

[kerikiwi]

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 the child's interests were paramount, with nothing else considered such as who did the kidnapping, kidnapping Ethiopian kids would be no different from kidnapping your own children.
If, on the other hand, the child's interest were not paramount, it seems who did the kidnapping is relevant.

 

[lionking]

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?

I'd like you to show me where I said that.

 

[Caper]

No one is saying that parents can't be a danger. But the alternative is that we open up custody hearings so that any stranger could win custody. They could hand your child to the postman if he is deemed fitter than the parents. That would be insane.

Not at all if your only criteria, like Lionking, is that the best interests of the child are all that matters.

 

[lionking]

Because, if the child's interests were paramount, with nothing else considered such as who did the kidnapping, kidnapping Ethiopian kids would be no different from kidnapping your own children.
If, on the other hand, the child's interest were not paramount, it seems who did the kidnapping is relevant.

Bloody hell, how many times do I have to say that I have been posting in the context of this thread?

 

[Caper]

Bloody hell, how many times do I have to say that I have been posting in the context of this thread?

So only in this custody case does best interests of the children take priority? What about all the other cases?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

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?

If the best interests of the child aren't what's taken into account during a custody case then what is?

The best interests of the child in regards to a custody dispute is what we're talking about here. Not finding the best possible situation for a child by studying caregivers across the globe. When it comes to child custody you start with the parents and work from there. If you think it's in their best interest to be grabbed from Africa and handed to a rich stranger you need help.

I answered the question later in that very paragraph BTW. If you could stop being ridiculous for a brief time and answer my question that would be great.

 

[lionking]

Not at all if your only criteria, like Lionking, is that the best interests of the child are all that matters.

Another dishonest characterisation of my opinion.

Okay, I can see that I have to state this for the less than half brained. In a custody dispute between two parents (hint: this is what the thread is about) the interests of the child are paramount.

Now bring in Ethiopians, strangers, Santa and aliens......

 

[kerikiwi]

Bloody hell, how many times do I have to say that I have been posting in the context of this thread?

Fair enough: you think that once a parent kidnaps a child, the child's interests are paramount.
We could now argue that it is not in the best interests of the child to stay with a family which has manipulated them as has demonstrably happened in this case.

 

[joesixpack]

I'd like you to show me where I said that.

You've been frustratingly vague, actually, except that you oppose returning the children to Italy. One wonders what solution you would propose other than allowing the mother to keep the kids in Australia and tell the father to go kick rocks. Do you have another solution? We'd love to hear it.

 

[katy_did]

If you think it's in their best interest to be grabbed from Africa and handed to a rich stranger you need help.

Of course it isn't, just as the mother illegally moving the kids half way round the world without their father's permission, separating them from the family, friends and country they'd known all their lives, to a country they'd never been to and where they didn't speak the language, landing them in the middle of a two year custody battle with periods spent on the run and in foster care, alienating them from their father with whom they'd previously had a loving relationship, and exposing them to the toxic influence of female relatives (like crazy grandma who threatened to "murder the children" and to "encourage her daughter [the girls' mother] to kill herself too" if things didn't go their way), was most likely not in their best interests either.

However, we're dealing with the situation as it is now: due to manipulation from the kidnapper, stolen Ethiopian kid now threatens to "stab herself" if returned to her biological family and struggles and screams if any attempt is made to remove her from the kidnapper, with whom she has a strong bond. Do we acquiesce to what she clearly wants, or do we let a custody court decide what's best for the child with all the relevant evidence in front of them - even it does mean distressing, emotional scenes when she's finally torn from the kidnapper's arms?

(I appreciate this isn't your position, but it does seem to be the position of some on the thread).

 

[joesixpack]

Fair enough: you think that once a parent kidnaps a child, the child's interests are paramount.
We could now argue that it is not in the best interests of the child to stay with a family which has manipulated them as has demonstrably happened in this case.

Unless it's the mother's family.

 

[joesixpack]

Of course it isn't, just as the mother illegally moving the kids half way round the world without their father's permission, separating them from the family, friends and country they'd known all their lives, to a country they'd never been to and where they didn't speak the language, landing them in the middle of a two year custody battle with periods spent on the run and in foster care, alienating them from their father with whom they'd previously had a loving relationship, and exposing them to the toxic influence of female relatives (like crazy grandma who threatened to "murder the children" and to "encourage her daughter [the girls' mother] to kill herself too" if things didn't go their way), was most likely not in their best interests either.

.

It's a good thing they had Italy to go back to because, Jesus, they would have been better off in Saudi Arabia if that's what they face in Australia.

 

[katy_did]

It's a good thing they had Italy to go back to because, Jesus, they would have been better off in Saudi Arabia if that's what they face in Australia.

It's hardly surprising the nine year old was talking about "stabbing herself" and the fourteen year old was threatening to self-harm if this is the kind of influence they were exposed to, is it?

To be fair though, I'm sure the grandmother wouldn't actually have done it and she just thought that was an appropriate way to express how strong her feelings were on the matter...

 

[lionking]

You've been frustratingly vague, actually, except that you oppose returning the children to Italy. One wonders what solution you would propose other than allowing the mother to keep the kids in Australia and tell the father to go kick rocks. Do you have another solution? We'd love to hear it.

Thank you for acknowledgement of your false accusation. I think you will find that I haven't opposed returning the children to Italy per se. What I have said is that because the mother has the children with her in defiance of a court order doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. I've also said that the interests of the children should be paramount.

But feel free, like so many others, to imagine I've said other things.

 

[joesixpack]

Thank you for acknowledgement of your false accusation. I think you will find that I haven't opposed returning the children to Italy per se. What I have said is that because the mother has the children with her in defiance of a court order doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. I've also said that the interests of the children should be paramount.

But feel free, like so many others, to imagine I've said other things.

I wonder what would make her an unfit mother in your estimation? We are still speaking in the context of this case, no? Seriously, in light of all the crap this woman is plainly guilty of, what could she do that would make you say "yeah, that's not a woman who should be raising kids"?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I wonder what would make her an unfit mother in your estimation? We are still speaking in the context of this case, no? Seriously, in light of all the crap this woman is plainly guilty of, what could she do that would make you say "yeah, that's not a woman who should be raising kids"?

I don't see why you think she is an unfit mother. Nobody has made that allegation. The authorities did not take the children away from her because they judged her unfit to care for them.

 

[joesixpack]

I don't see why you think she is an unfit mother. Nobody has made that allegation. The authorities did not take the children away from her because they judged her unfit to care for them.

I'm not certain if you're asking me for my personal opinion or what the law states, so I'll answer both. You are correct that she was not judged unfit by the Australian courts, though the judge certainly did heap quite a bit of criticism on her in re her parenting. Of course, this was outside of the narrow inquiry of the case before him which was ONLY whether the children should be repatriated to their home country.

My personal opinion, and the opinion of several other posters is that she is unfit to care for her children alone. Certainly she is able to feed and clothe them, but parenting is much more than material security. Her emotional abuse of her daughters is repugnant and she is unlikely to be capable of providing a healthy home life for them without the intervention of a psychologist.

As I have stated at least twice before, she should continue to have access to her children, but she should certainly never have sole custody and she should probably not be allowed unsupervised visits until she can demonstrate the emotional maturity required for proper parenting.

ETA: The children were placed into foster care at some point, which means that the mother was judged unfit by a social worker. So yes, someone certainly HAS judged her unfit.

 

[lionking]

Her emotional abuse of her daughters is repugnant and she is unlikely to be capable of providing a healthy home life for them without the intervention of a psychologist.

If you have evidence of this beyond your own personal bias I'd like to see it. The demonisation of the mother is quite amazing.

 

[joesixpack]

If you have evidence of this beyond your own personal bias I'd like to see it. The demonisation of the mother is quite amazing.

It is emotionally abusive to alienate a child from a parent.

http://www.parentalalienation.com.au/