The Australian "custody sisters"

[Damien Evans]

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

More like those who've got sick of seeing a question that's already been answered 30 times.

 

[smartcooky]

For those, including kerikiwi, who don't understand that Kidnapping and Parental Abduction, are not the same, here is the proof that they ARE different.

Parental Abduction
Occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993]) Most importantly, Parental Abduction is not a criminal offence. The federal law that prohibits kidnapping does not cover acts of parental abduction. Punishments for parental abduction invariably do lot involve any kind of prison term.

Kidnapping
In the USA, the laws derive from English Common Law. Originally, the crime of kidnapping was defined as the unlawful and non-consensual transportation of a person from one country to another. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states began to redefine kidnapping, most notably eliminating the requirement of interstate transport. Kidnapping is a criminal offence

At the federal level, Congress passed the Lindbergh Act in 1932 to prohibit interstate kidnapping (48 Stat. 781 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq.]). The Lindbergh Act was named for Charles A. Lindbergh, a celebrated aviator and Air Force colonel whose baby was kidnapped and killed in 1932. The act provides that if a victim is not released within 24 hours after being abducted, a court may presume that the victim was transported across state lines. This presumption may be rebutted with evidence to the contrary. Other federal kidnapping statutes prohibit kidnapping in U.S. territories, kidnapping on the high seas and in the air, and kidnapping of government officials (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq., 1751 et seq.).

A person who is convicted of kidnapping is usually sentenced to prison for a certain number of years. In some states, and at the federal level, the term of imprisonment may be the remainder of the offender's natural life. In jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, a kidnapper is charged with a capital offence if the kidnapping results in death. Kidnapping is so severely punished because it is a dreaded offence. It usually occurs in connection with another criminal offence, or underlying crime. It involves violent deprivation of liberty, and it requires a special criminal boldness. Furthermore, the act of moving a crime victim exposes the victim to risks above and beyond those that are inherent in the underlying crime.

Especially note that last paragraph. It contains the reason why they are different, both in law and the way they are treated officially.

Now, if you STILL don't understand the difference, then there isn't much more I can say, so I won't

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

More like those who've got sick of seeing a question that's already been answered 30 times.

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out a central fact of this case: these kids did not want to be separated from their mother.

If people didn't ignore this fact, I wouldn't feel obliged to point it out.

 

[smartcooky]

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out a central fact of this case: these kids did not want to be separated from their mother.

If people didn't ignore this fact, I wouldn't feel obliged to point it out.

 

[tyr_13]

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out a central fact of this case: these kids did not want to be separated from their mother.

If people didn't ignore this fact, I wouldn't feel obliged to point it out.

The fact isn't ignored, but people aren't using it to come to the same conclusion as you are.

They don't want to go therefore they shouldn't have to, is your reasoning correct?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The fact isn't ignored, but people aren't using it to come to the same conclusion as you are.

They don't want to go therefore they shouldn't have to, is your reasoning correct?

I would not physically drag screaming children away from their mother barring an emergency, especially for the purpose of transporting them to a different country where they won't have any contact with her for an indefinite period.

I don't buy the dime-store psychology on men's rights websites. I do not see mothers and fathers as being even remotely fungible in most cases, and especially not in this case. And I rate the opinion of these children about their respective parents over those of the courts and the pundits on JREF.

 

[Shiner]

I thought that when he came to see them is when they disappeared, but I'm probably wrong about that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...er-of-all-issues/story-e6frezz0-1226367746554

Miranda Devine The Sunday Telegraph May 27, 2012 12:00AM

IT was all smiles when the four girls at the centre of an international custody battle met with their father during a court-ordered visit this week

Photographs of the Italian father hugging his four daughters and sharing a birthday cake are powerful proof that the girls are not afraid of their father, as claimed....

<snip>

They show the four pretty girls, smiling and looking at ease with him during a supervised custody visit on Thursday in Brisbane.
In one photo, the youngest two are sitting on Dad's lap in between the older two, all with arms around each other. Other photos show each girl individually hugging Dad.
The body language appears natural and unforced.
The meeting "was fairly emotional as you'd expect when someone hasn't seen their kids for two years," says the father's Brisbane-based lawyer, Giovanni Porta.
"They had a birthday cake and celebrated all the birthdays that they had missed."
The father saw his children three times last week....

 

[kerikiwi]

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.

I made no such claim
I was following your argument that children should stay with their abductor if they express that wish. If that is the case it should apply whoever the abductor is: if the children want to stay it is barbaric to tear them away.
It is disingeuous of you to say I am comparing apples and oranges.

 

[kerikiwi]

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out a central fact of this case: these kids did not want to be separated from their mother.

If people didn't ignore this fact, I wouldn't feel obliged to point it out.

And if the children did not want to be separated from their non-parental abductor?

 

[lionking]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...er-of-all-issues/story-e6frezz0-1226367746554

The Daily Telegraph (and Miranda Devine in particular) is about as reliable as the Daily Mail.

But I'm more taken by the rabid hatred of the mother. First she's unfit to be a mother, then she forcibly removed the daughters, and other far more uncomplimentary slurs.

I know there's at least one father who gone through a custody dispute in this thread. There are been links to father rights websites. Are there other fathers who have been through the wringer of a custody dispute? I'm trying to make sense of such hatred of one party to a dispute, when there's always fault on both sides.

 

[Shiner]

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out a central fact of this case: these kids did not want to be separated from their mother.

If people didn't ignore this fact, I wouldn't feel obliged to point it out.

It's not an undisputed fact though, is it? The central fact is, they had to go home for justice to prevail.

Another fact is, they don't need to be separated from their mother. That's entirely her own choice. She has been assured that she won't be prosecuted.

Her reasons are financial. (so she says)

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gleaning-facts-of-emotional-case-20121006-276mr.html?skin=text-only

Justice Forrest noted in his October 3 judgment that the children's main objection to returning to Italy was the mother's ''stated intention, apparently made abundantly clear by her to the children over a period of several months at least, that she will not return with them to Italy''.

The mother put forward that, as a full-time university student receiving financial assistance from the government to support herself and the children, a return to Italy, where she had only worked in a variety of unskilled jobs, was not economically feasible.

Justice Forrest ruled the mother was not impeded, but instead possessed a ''preference'' not to go.

The mother maintained in the media and in court she feared arrest or imprisonment if she returned to Italy, an estimation Justice Forrest understood, but rejected.

''However, quite apart from the obvious question as to whether the fear of a consequence for one's own wrongdoing should be part of circumstances that an applicant seeks to set up as exceptional so as to justify discharge of a return order, I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that arrest, charge and imprisonment actually awaits the mother on return to Italy.''

The mother made inquiries with an Italian lawyer who determined even if she was prosecuted, she would most likely receive probation.

 

[Damien Evans]

For those, including kerikiwi, who don't understand that Kidnapping and Parental Abduction, are not the same, here is the proof that they ARE different.

Parental Abduction
Occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993]) Most importantly, Parental Abduction is not a criminal offence. The federal law that prohibits kidnapping does not cover acts of parental abduction. Punishments for parental abduction invariably do lot involve any kind of prison term.

Kidnapping
In the USA, the laws derive from English Common Law. Originally, the crime of kidnapping was defined as the unlawful and non-consensual transportation of a person from one country to another. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states began to redefine kidnapping, most notably eliminating the requirement of interstate transport. Kidnapping is a criminal offence

At the federal level, Congress passed the Lindbergh Act in 1932 to prohibit interstate kidnapping (48 Stat. 781 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq.]). The Lindbergh Act was named for Charles A. Lindbergh, a celebrated aviator and Air Force colonel whose baby was kidnapped and killed in 1932. The act provides that if a victim is not released within 24 hours after being abducted, a court may presume that the victim was transported across state lines. This presumption may be rebutted with evidence to the contrary. Other federal kidnapping statutes prohibit kidnapping in U.S. territories, kidnapping on the high seas and in the air, and kidnapping of government officials (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq., 1751 et seq.).

A person who is convicted of kidnapping is usually sentenced to prison for a certain number of years. In some states, and at the federal level, the term of imprisonment may be the remainder of the offender's natural life. In jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, a kidnapper is charged with a capital offence if the kidnapping results in death. Kidnapping is so severely punished because it is a dreaded offence. It usually occurs in connection with another criminal offence, or underlying crime. It involves violent deprivation of liberty, and it requires a special criminal boldness. Furthermore, the act of moving a crime victim exposes the victim to risks above and beyond those that are inherent in the underlying crime.

Especially note that last paragraph. It contains the reason why they are different, both in law and the way they are treated officially.

Now, if you STILL don't understand the difference, then there isn't much more I can say, so I won't

What the hell has the United States Of America got to do with this?

 

[Damien Evans]

The Daily Telegraph (and Miranda Devine in particular) is about as reliable as the Daily Mail.

But I'm more taken by the rabid hatred of the mother. First she's unfit to be a mother, then she forcibly removed the daughters, and other far more uncomplimentary slurs.

I know there's at least one father who gone through a custody dispute in this thread. There are been links to father rights websites. Are there other fathers who have been through the wringer of a custody dispute? I'm trying to make sense of such hatred of one party to a dispute, when there's always fault on both sides.

Read the court judgement. Maybe then you'll understand.

 

[Shiner]

The Daily Telegraph (and Miranda Devine in particular) is about as reliable as the Daily Mail.

But I'm more taken by the rabid hatred of the mother. First she's unfit to be a mother, then she forcibly removed the daughters, and other far more uncomplimentary slurs.

I know there's at least one father who gone through a custody dispute in this thread. There are been links to father rights websites. Are there other fathers who have been through the wringer of a custody dispute? I'm trying to make sense of such hatred of one party to a dispute, when there's always fault on both sides.

I'd be one of them. I'd also not be. I've been through a drawn out custody dispute. I got the rough end a bit, but it all worked out. I'm not bitter, or hatin'. I'm pointing out the facts. I think if you re-read the thread, you'll find the "rabid hatred" is limited to one or two people. (who are entitled to an opinion as much as you are) The fact that what I write supports their position, does not make what I say "hatred".


If you don't want to take Miranda Devine's word for it, you could read some of the court transcripts where the judge also discusses the fathers visits with his kids in May 2012. I'll try to find a link.

You seem to show some sort of contempt for single dads. (or just single parents?)

Is it just the "butthurt" ones you reserve your contempt for?
Going with that, you obviously think the courts are always right?
Butthurt dads should get over it? They don't deserve their kids?
Even the ones who lost their kids to drug addicts, psycho's, God, etc?
I see why everyone thinks your such a great guy.

It's easy and dishonest to randomly and broadly attribute emotion when it's not in evidence. I should know, I just did it....

ETA, just noticed Damiens ninja.

 

[lionking]

Is it just the "butthurt" ones you reserve your contempt for?
Going with that, you obviously think the courts are always right?
Butthurt dads should get over it? They don't deserve their kids?
Even the ones who lost their kids to drug addicts, psycho's, God, etc?
I see why everyone thinks your such a great guy.

It's easy and dishonest to randomly and broadly attribute emotion when it's not in evidence. I should know, I just did it....

What is particularly interesting about this post is that the sentiments you are (inaccurately) directing at me are very similar to those directed at the mother. But, of course, when it comes from posters like you it is the height of skeptical rationalism. From others it is dishonesty.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And if the children did not want to be separated from their non-parental abductor?

I would suspect the parent(s) had alienated the child by asking the same stupid question over and over again.

 

[Shiner]

What is particularly interesting about this post is that the sentiments you are (inaccurately) directing at me are very similar to those directed at the mother. But, of course, when it comes from posters like you it is the height of skeptical rationalism. From others it is dishonesty.

You've deliberately misinterpreted for the sake of a snark. Good for you.

You could actually quote some of this alleged "hatred".

 

[Caper]

What is particularly interesting about this post is that the sentiments you are (inaccurately) directing at me are very similar to those directed at the mother. But, of course, when it comes from posters like you it is the height of skeptical rationalism. From others it is dishonesty.

I find it interesting that you are a supporter of parental kidnaping.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It's not an undisputed fact though, is it? The central fact is, they had to go home for justice to prevail.

It's only in dispute if you ignore the explicit words and actions of the children as recorded on video in both Italy and Australia, as well as in letters they have written since.

As for what constitutes justice, they had to go back to Italy for the father to win. That's a fact. If you see that as justice, that's your opinion.

Another fact is, they don't need to be separated from their mother. That's entirely her own choice. She has been assured that she won't be prosecuted.

Certainly she should pursue some way to go there. I can see how it might be difficult or impossible for her to go back permanently, but perhaps she can work out some kind of arrangement to visit for extended periods.

 

[banquetbear]

For those, including kerikiwi, who don't understand that Kidnapping and Parental Abduction, are not the same, here is the proof that they ARE different.

Parental Abduction
Occurs when one parent deprives the other of his or her legal right to custody or visitation by illegally taking the child out of the jurisdiction. It is outlawed by the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993]) Most importantly, Parental Abduction is not a criminal offence. The federal law that prohibits kidnapping does not cover acts of parental abduction. Punishments for parental abduction invariably do lot involve any kind of prison term.

Kidnapping
In the USA, the laws derive from English Common Law. Originally, the crime of kidnapping was defined as the unlawful and non-consensual transportation of a person from one country to another. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states began to redefine kidnapping, most notably eliminating the requirement of interstate transport. Kidnapping is a criminal offence

At the federal level, Congress passed the Lindbergh Act in 1932 to prohibit interstate kidnapping (48 Stat. 781 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq.]). The Lindbergh Act was named for Charles A. Lindbergh, a celebrated aviator and Air Force colonel whose baby was kidnapped and killed in 1932. The act provides that if a victim is not released within 24 hours after being abducted, a court may presume that the victim was transported across state lines. This presumption may be rebutted with evidence to the contrary. Other federal kidnapping statutes prohibit kidnapping in U.S. territories, kidnapping on the high seas and in the air, and kidnapping of government officials (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq., 1751 et seq.).

A person who is convicted of kidnapping is usually sentenced to prison for a certain number of years. In some states, and at the federal level, the term of imprisonment may be the remainder of the offender's natural life. In jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, a kidnapper is charged with a capital offence if the kidnapping results in death. Kidnapping is so severely punished because it is a dreaded offence. It usually occurs in connection with another criminal offence, or underlying crime. It involves violent deprivation of liberty, and it requires a special criminal boldness. Furthermore, the act of moving a crime victim exposes the victim to risks above and beyond those that are inherent in the underlying crime.

Especially note that last paragraph. It contains the reason why they are different, both in law and the way they are treated officially.

Now, if you STILL don't understand the difference, then there isn't much more I can say, so I won't

...you claim to live in New Zealand (like me), the children were taken from Italy and were taken to Australia. Firstly: why the hell would you quote United States law?

Secondly what is your cite? It appears that you liberally copied without attribution from here:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parental+Kidnapping

But many of the sentences like "Most importantly, Parental Abduction is not a criminal offence" I can't find on the internet. Where did those bits and pieces come from?