The Australian "custody sisters"

[katy_did]

...no I have not redfined the words. Force is a rather mild word. What the mother actually did was kidnap her kids. She abducted them. She's a kidnapper. She kept them from the father for two years. What the mother did was several times more harmful to the kids than a couple of two minute incidents staged for the cameras.

This. Sheesh.

The press reported on another custody case involving child abduction recently, and the closing comments of the judge seem quite relevant here:

Child abduction seldom, if ever, has a happy ending. It has rightly been described as a form of child abuse. The mother's conduct was abysmal. It was an act of deliberate cruelty to her husband, the father of her children. It was directly contrary to the interests of the children for them abruptly to have been removed from the society of their father. It has subjected them to two years of uncertainty while they have been taken across the world, back and forth. It has embroiled all members of the family in extensive litigation with days in court in both countries. It has brought the mother to the brink of bankruptcy. Yet it has not been until very recently that the mother has developed any self-awareness. Her attitude was "I did not abduct them; I just took them home". This is an all too common attitude but it is as misguided as it is futile. If the place to which the children are taken is a subscriber to the Hague Convention then the children will almost inevitably be returned with all the delay and heart-break that this case has demonstrated. Had the mother behaved correctly and made an application for relocation in 2011 then I expect it would likely have been granted, and all that trauma avoided.

 

[banquetbear]

All of it. You say she's a kidnapper and a criminal, and that what she did was more harmful to the kids than their repatriation to Italy. I don't think the kids see it that way at all. Nor apparently do the authorities, because she has not been criminally charged.

...what part of "The mum is a criminal and its only the good graces of the father that keep her from being a fugitive" do you think leads me to believe she has been criminally charged?

She is a kidnapper. They wouldn't have had to have been forcibly repatriated to Italy if they hadn't been forcibly held in Australia. This is her fault.

Nothing I said was untrue. The mum and her immediate family bear all responsibility for what happened here. If she had simply followed the law everything that you and smartcooky are complaining about would never have happened. She screwed up. I'm not saying she is a bad person. But all everybody is doing right now is fixing this mess that she is directly responsible for.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

...you didn't link to a "definition." If I had wanted to post a definition I would have linked to a dictionary which would have backed up my definition of the word force. The post you linked to is an example of me giving an example.

I think your lexicon could use a consistency check.

He clearly put words in my mouth: as demonstrated by how he turned my single sentence into a paragraph of things I didn't say: then asked me to defend it. I'm not the one reading so much into the definition of the word "force." Good grief: simply concede already. The girls were forced to stay in Australia. There is not doubt about that at all.

Before I concede, let me make sure I understand the position to which I am conceding.

We know these kids were forced to leave. We've got the video, and whether or not the mother put them up to it, they did not go willingly.

So your position is that they were forced to stay until they were forced to leave.

Is that right?

 

[katy_did]

She forced them to go to Australia because she gave them no choice in the matter, having lied to both them and their father by telling them they were going on holiday (N.B. she claims in the 60 Minutes video she told the older girls it was a permanent move, but she's lying; court interviews with the girls showed they all thought they were coming for a holiday). Had she told them they wouldn't see their friends and family and home for another two years, it seems quite likely they would have been reluctant to go. Maybe that's why she didn't tell them?

 

[kerikiwi]

Errm the mother is their mother, and the stranger isn't?

So your previous position that the children should not be returned because they don't want to is not actually what you meant.
You meant that, given identical trauma for the children, if the mother was the abductor the outcome should differ from if a stranger were the abductor.
Tearing the children away from the mother is bad, but tearing them away from the stranger is not.
Remember: in both cases the children kick and scream to stay with their abductor.
Why would the action of the police be barbaric (your word) in one case but not the other?

 

[smartcooky]

As long as the not allowed to succeed doesn't involve actually doing anything about it right?

What should have happened after the mother set up this situation? All of her supporters like you here don't seem to have a good answer to that.

Drag the Mother away. Since all the haters out there think she is the big bad cow (can I use that expression now?) and chief villain of the piece, that should be just fine with them.

Then, when you have got her and her hangers-on out of the way, put the Father (who should have been in Australia when this was happening., and was somewhat conspicuous by his absence) and some negotiators, the Police and child protection people in the house with the children and allow them to calm down out of the view of the media.

 

[smartcooky]

So your previous position that the children should not be returned because they don't want to is not actually what you meant.

Yes it is what I meant. When is anyone going to stand up fir the rights of the children in all of this?

As a general rule, I believe that children should be allowed to live with whichever parent they wish unless there are extreme circumstances and reasons that involve physical harm to the children.

You meant that, given identical trauma for the children, if the mother was the abductor the outcome should differ from if a stranger were the abductor.

IMO, the whole argument of stranger abduction is an irrelevance to this debate. The two sets of circumstances are in no way similar, but FWIW in the case of a stranger abducting children surely the police are going to take down the stranger, not the children. No way would you ever see a kidnapper allowed to walk away while the children were dragged away.

Tearing the children away from the mother is bad, but tearing them away from the stranger is not. Remember: in both cases the children kick and scream to stay with their abductor.Why would the action of the police be barbaric (your word) in one case but not the other?

A strawman, and in any case, asked and answered above

 

[kerikiwi]

A strawman, and in any case, asked and answered above

Not at all a strawman.
It's the logical result of your position that because the children are really upset at being removed from wherever they are, they should not be removed.
Who abducted them should not enter into it.

 

[kerikiwi]

No way would you ever see a kidnapper allowed to walk away while the children were dragged away.

Except, it seems, if the kidnapper is the mother.

 

[smartcooky]

...strawman argument again.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Don't create an argument for me, argue against it, then ask me to back it up. My words were clear and absolute. I never implied a similar force was used.

I clearly wasn't wrong about in my assessment of your debating style, was I?

Speaking of minimizing: the mum abducted the kids. When are you going to stop minimizing that particular fact?

Its not a *********** strawman argument at all. It is perfectly valid to question the way you arranged what you said. IMO, you did so in order to support an untruth.

I remind you again... you said

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

By placing these statements side by side, you are trying to equate different scenarios by making them sound the same. They're not!

It would be like a Nazi saying that in WWII, German POWs were in camps in England, English POWs were in camps in Germany, Jewish POWs were in camps in Poland.

 

[smartcooky]

Except, it seems, if the kidnapper is the mother.

Exactly my point, and exactly why a stranger kidnapping children (for ransom or the child sex trade) bears no relationship to a parent kidnapping their children because they love them and want to be with them.

 

[smartcooky]

It's the logical result of your position that because the children are really upset at being removed from wherever they are, they should not be removed.
Who abducted them should not enter into it.

Yes, that is my position.

First priority, the children must be in a physically safe environment. Once it has been established that both enviroments are safe,

Second Priority, they should be placed with whichever parent they wish to be placed with. The wishes of the child should carry the greatest weight; the older the child, the greater the weight. If the children are unable to decide, then they should be placed with their mother by default.

 

[Damien Evans]

Toddlers freak out because they have had their toys taken away, or can't have what they want from the lolly bar in a supermarket

These girls freaked out because they were being physically dragged away from their mother to go live in the foreign country where they realise that they will never be allowed to see their mother again.

You don't see the difference? Really?

Oh, so you know what the custody finding of the Italian court will be, even though it hasn't happened yet.

 

[banquetbear]

Its not a *********** strawman argument at all. It is perfectly valid to question the way you arranged what you said. IMO, you did so in order to support an untruth.

...what untruth was that? Everything I said was true. The arrangement of my sentences was in rebuttal to Charlie Wilkes who claimed that on the basis of something I said to you I was being inconsistent on another statement I had made. I put the sentences together and asked where exactly am I being inconsistent?

You then took the arrangement of those sentences out of context with my discussion with Charlie, created an implication I didn't make and then asked me to defend it. Textbook strawman.

I remind you again... you said

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

By placing these statements side by side, you are trying to equate different scenarios by making them sound the same. They're not!

You missed a sentence: I also said "They were not assaulted by the police." I was running three positions I held together and asked Charlie where I was being inconsistent. I can't help that you decided to barge into the conversation without reading it properly.

It would be like a Nazi saying that in WWII, German POWs were in camps in England, English POWs were in camps in Germany, Jewish POWs were in camps in Poland.

Nah, it wouldn't.

 

[joesixpack]

Oh, so you know what the custody finding of the Italian court will be, even though it hasn't happened yet.

Call me psychic, but I'll lay odds that I know what the Italian court will decide. They will allow visitation. I'm sure it will be supervised at first, but eventually unsupervised and some overnights. She won't be allowed to take them out of Italy.

 

[banquetbear]

Before I concede, let me make sure I understand the position to which I am conceding.

We know these kids were forced to leave. We've got the video, and whether or not the mother put them up to it, they did not go willingly.

So your position is that they were forced to stay until they were forced to leave.

Is that right?

She forced them to go to Australia because she gave them no choice in the matter, having lied to both them and their father by telling them they were going on holiday (N.B. she claims in the 60 Minutes video she told the older girls it was a permanent move, but she's lying; court interviews with the girls showed they all thought they were coming for a holiday). Had she told them they wouldn't see their friends and family and home for another two years, it seems quite likely they would have been reluctant to go. Maybe that's why she didn't tell them?

...what she said.

 

[Damien Evans]

Its not a *********** strawman argument at all. It is perfectly valid to question the way you arranged what you said. IMO, you did so in order to support an untruth.

I remind you again... you said

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

By placing these statements side by side, you are trying to equate different scenarios by making them sound the same. They're not!

It would be like a Nazi saying that in WWII, German POWs were in camps in England, English POWs were in camps in Germany, Jewish POWs were in camps in Poland.

And now you've Godwined the thread. How surprising.

 

[joesixpack]

If the children are unable to decide, then they should be placed with their mother by default.

Why? Seriously, why on earth would the mother be considered the presumptive custodial parent?

And why would you force a child to choose a parent or take sides in a divorce. Have you ever dealt with a child in a divorce? Do you have any clue what divorce is like for a child?

Honestly, the people here who support leaving the children with the abducting and alienating mother are all entirely clueless.

 

[kerikiwi]

Yes, that is my position.

First priority, the children must be in a physically safe environment. Once it has been established that both enviroments are safe,

Second Priority, they should be placed with whichever parent they wish to be placed with. The wishes of the child should carry the greatest weight; the older the child, the greater the weight. If the children are unable to decide, then they should be placed with their mother by default.

If the children who were kidnapped by a stranger are in a physically safe environment and they wish to stay with the stranger, why should they be dragged away? Their wishes carry the greater weight.
If you do not think that is true of a stranger abduction, how can you argue it is true of a parental abduction?

Can you explain why the children, if unable to choose, should be placed with the mother by default?

 

[ehcks]

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

By placing these statements side by side, you are trying to equate different scenarios by making them sound the same. They're not!

You're right. One was a kidnapping and the other was the police doing their job.