The Australian "custody sisters"

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

If that is how they felt, they should have been delighted to be taken back to their friends and family and home. But they weren't.

 

[Damien Evans]

If that is how they felt, they should have been delighted to be taken back to their friends and family and home. But they weren't.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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?

Are there such cases? I know of cases where children as well as adults have been compliant with an abductor, sometimes to a degree that is mind-boggling (e.g., Colleen Stan), but I don't know of any cases where they have asked to remain with their abductors after the authorities intervened.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

I cant debate this with you as long as you continue to (wilfully) fail to understand the difference between apples and oranges. Abduction by a stranger is not in any way, shape or form, similar to abduction by a parent. Sorry, but they simply have nothing to do with each other.

 

[smartcooky]

Are there such cases? I know of cases where children as well as adults have been compliant with an abductor, sometimes to a degree that is mind-boggling (e.g., Colleen Stan), but I don't know of any cases where they have asked to remain with their abductors after the authorities intervened.

You are right; there has never been such a case, so kerikiwis pointless scenario is not only irrelevant, its moot.


Note to kerikiwi: and if you are thinking of coming back with Patty Hearst ^WP well she was 19, not a child!

 

[smartcooky]

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

The Maternal Preference is a well understood issue

The custodial parent is the parent a child normally lives with, and often the one who makes legal decisions concerning the child if she has sole legal custody. When parents dispute custody, usually the courts award it to the mother.

http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/children/the-custodial-parent-usually-the-mother-250.shtml

In custody decisions, mothers are more likely to receive primary residential custody than fathers. Although in the past decade there has been an increase in equal residential custody, mothers are still much more likely to be awarded primary residential care. Across a wide range of jurisdictions the estimates are that mothers receive primary custody 68-88% of the time, fathers receive primary custody 8-14%, and equal residential custody is awarded in only 2-6% of the cases.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/are-custody-decisions-bia_b_870709.html

Of course, we could always return to the misogynistic viewpoint that prevailed in more barbaric times.

"The Maternal Preference is a complete reversal of nineteenth century practices when children of divorce were routinely awarded to the father, who was considered to be their owner."

There are quite a few posters in this thread who appear to all for doing this!

 

[smartcooky]

Aha, the trusty "Picard Facepalm", last resort of those who have no answer!

 

[kerikiwi]

Are there such cases? I know of cases where children as well as adults have been compliant with an abductor, sometimes to a degree that is mind-boggling (e.g., Colleen Stan), but I don't know of any cases where they have asked to remain with their abductors after the authorities intervened.

Whether or not there are such cases is irrelevant.
The point is that the argument has been made that because the children wanted to stay with their abductor they should be left there.
If that argument were followed, then if children abducted by a stranger later wanted to stay with their abductor, they should be left there.
If it is said they should not stay with their stranger abductor, the question arises: why not?

 

[kerikiwi]

I cant debate this with you as long as you continue to (wilfully) fail to understand the difference between apples and oranges. Abduction by a stranger is not in any way, shape or form, similar to abduction by a parent. Sorry, but they simply have nothing to do with each other.

I agree.
But you previously argued that the children should stay with their mother abductor because that is what they now want.
If the children should be left with an abductor because that is what they now want, they would by the same reasoning be left with a stranger abductor if that is what they now want.
There must be a different reason why you think the children should be left with the parent abductor.

 

[kerikiwi]

You are right; there has never been such a case, so kerikiwis pointless scenario is not only irrelevant, its moot.

It is entirely relevant. it is following your reasoning. If your argument stands for one it stands for another

 

[kerikiwi]

There are quite a few posters in this thread who appear to all for doing this!

Please name one.

 

[joesixpack]

The Maternal Preference is a well understood issue

"Common Practice" is not the same as "rational". Simply because we all "well understand" that mothers are the presumptive custodial parent doesn't mean that it's right or best for the child. What is well understood, however, is that shared custody is a far better choice than bitter custody disputes that involve kidnapping the children and cutting off all contact with the other parent.

http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/children/the-custodial-parent-usually-the-mother-250.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/are-custody-decisions-bia_b_870709.html

Thank you, I well know the legal terminology surrounding family law and custody. Again, what you're doing is stating the current state of affairs (which is changing, by the way), not making any sort of reasoned defense of it.

Of course, we could always return to the misogynistic viewpoint that prevailed in more barbaric times.

Yes, of course, because what's a strawman without a false dichotomy thrown in for good measure?

"The Maternal Preference is a complete reversal of nineteenth century practices when children of divorce were routinely awarded to the father, who was considered to be their owner."

There are quite a few posters in this thread who appear to all for doing this!

Maybe you could tell me who they are? Actually, I think it's simply your strawmen who advocate this. None of the real posters have. I won't wait for you to name names, because you can't without lying.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, of course, because what's a strawman without a false dichotomy thrown in for good measure?

Tell me, what exactly substitutes for a sense of humour in your part of the world? I mean, do you really think the remark I made was mean seriously?. That we should return to fathers "owning" their children? Really?

 

[joesixpack]

Tell me, what exactly substitutes for a sense of humour in your part of the world? I mean, do you really think the remark I made was mean seriously?. That we should return to fathers "owning" their children? Really?

Sorry, the "joke" seemed lost in all the accusations

Of course, we could always return to the misogynistic viewpoint that prevailed in more barbaric times.

"The Maternal Preference is a complete reversal of nineteenth century practices when children of divorce were routinely awarded to the father, who was considered to be their owner."

There are quite a few posters in this thread who appear to all for doing this!

I didn't think you meant anything other than what you said, to wit, there are those posting here who would advocate exactly that.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Say what now???????

 

[smartcooky]

whether or not there are such cases is irrelevant.
The point is that the argument has been made that because the children wanted to stay with their abductor mother they should be left there.

FTFY

i agree.
But you previously argued that the children should stay with their mother abductor because that is what they now want.

FTFY

Get back to me when you understand the following.....

 

[Caper]

I cant debate this with you as long as you continue to (wilfully) fail to understand the difference between apples and oranges. Abduction by a stranger is not in any way, shape or form, similar to abduction by a parent. Sorry, but they simply have nothing to do with each other.

But why. Why is it right to drag them away from the stranger? What if the stranger was a sperm doner father, is the kidnapping ok then?

 

[smartcooky]

But why. Why is it right to drag them away from the stranger? What if the stranger was a sperm doner father, is the kidnapping ok then?

Sperm donors have no parental rights!

But its moot anyway.

Kerikiwi has suggested that parental abduction and abduction by a stranger are the same.

That is his/her claim, so the burdon of proof is on her.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

But why. Why is it right to drag them away from the stranger? What if the stranger was a sperm doner father, is the kidnapping ok then?

What is the difference between shipping them back to their father and selling them to a factory owner in Sri Lanka? What if the factory owner provided free lunches? Would it be ok then?

 

[tyr_13]

Is what the mother did legal?

If it is not legal, why is it an illegal activity?

If it is not legal, how should it be enforced?

If it is not legal, what should be the punishment?

If it should not be enforce, why would it still be illegal?