The Australian "custody sisters"

[katy_did]

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.
[...]
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

Leaving aside the fact that U.S. law is irrelevant here, the above applies only to abduction within the U.S. (ETA: And even then I think it's usually still a criminal offence under state law, just not a federal crime). It doesn't apply to a parent who abducts their child to another country, which is a criminal offence (International Parental Kidnapping).

Whoever removes a child from the United States, or attempts to do so, or retains a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.

A quick check suggests international child abduction is a criminal offence in Canada, Ireland and the U.K. as well. This must be the case in Italy too, since the father has agreed not to press criminal charges against the mother.

 

[katy_did]

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?

Yeah, I had the same problem with finding that. The whole passage seemed like a mish-mash of quotes from different places...

 

[banquetbear]

Yeah, I had the same problem with finding that. The whole passage seemed like a mish-mash of quotes from different places...

...the only similar quote I could find was "Parental Abduction is not a criminal offence in Lebanon."

 

[Shiner]

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.

No, it's not my opinion, it's a fact. The father winning, is not a fact, and has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I don't know if the father is an abuser. That's for the Italian court to decide. Comprende?

The Australian courts have no place ruling on an ongoing custody matter in an Italian court. Then there's that Hague thingy. The mother tried to play the system against all odds. Surprisingly that didn't work out so well.....

 

[Wildy]

No, of course not

Why? Wouldn't the police still be showing the same level of brutality?

Oh please, stop the world!!! A child changed their mind. Well, isn't that a turn up for the books eh? Who would have expected that a child could actually change their mind? Whatever is the world coming to?

The reality is that she is a very young child. While her older sisters were likely thinking about how much they enjoyed living in Australia, she would have been thinking about her favourite toys back in Italy!

Such a glib dismissal. Clearly you actually read what the judge had to say in order to come up with these comments.

So I base my argument on first hand experience. Whats wrong with that? Should I ignore my own experiences just for your benefit?

When you tell me that something is a "self-evident truth" and a "fact" your evidence to that should be more than "it's what I experienced as a teacher".

Every time you debate, you argue from you own experiences.

And what is this supposed to mean? Does that mean that if I haven't experienced something I shouldn't be debating it?

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.

I can imagine the headlines "mother of 'custody sisters' arrested, stand-off with police", "police bring negotiators to home of 'custody sisters'".

And as long as the media were there I don't think those kids would calm down at all, and the police removing them would be an even bigger problem.

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

And even then as Justice Forrest said in paragraph 58 of his ruling:

My original return order did also condition the mother’s return with the children on the payment by the father of AUD$8,000 to assist in the immediate financial support of the mother and the children upon their arrival and he has provided that.

So even if she did return she would have had some money to support the kids.


By the way, on the criminal nature of the act I notice that in the Australian ruling the Italian Penal Code is cited, and that under article 574 bis (link to an Italian language version) it is a crime in Italy, but it seems that there has to have been a complaint from the other parent for them to lay charges.

 

[ponderingturtle]

[qimg]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/th_strawman.gif[/qimg]


Sperm donors have no parental rights!.

Shouldn't that simply be men?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So do you support bans on gay adoption for this reason?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Yea just look at the glowing review of her from her supporters who now think maybe having her girls fight the cops in a staged media event was wrong and a that that evil mens rights judge said.

 

[Shiner]

And even then as Justice Forrest said in paragraph 58 of his ruling:

Yeah, judges say lot's of stuff....

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2012/839.html

*Paraphrased.*

I did not, in that judgment, determine that the four children are better off living with their father. I did not determine that it is in the children’s best interests to return to live in Italy. That was not my responsibility. Indeed, had I determined either of those things, I would have erred at law. That is because the multitude of nations that negotiated the terms of the Hague Convention determined, by the provisions written into the Convention, that when children are wrongfully removed or retained away from the country of their habitual residence, court proceedings to determine which parent they should live with, and in which country their best interests are met, should take place in that country of their habitual residence, from which they were wrongfully removed or from which they were retained away.

...Child abduction as between separated and conflicted parents, particularly in its international form, has long been recognised as abhorrent and, in itself, not in a child’s best interests. What has happened with the four children in this case, in the last year particularly, in my view demonstrates the correctness of that recognition.

Were the determination I now have to make as simple as considering whether the children object to being returned to Italy, this process would probably stop here. However, it is not that simple.

....Furthermore, there is no evidence that the children resisted going into police and Departmental care upon being found, knowing that they could be put on a plane to Italy in that care. Indeed, there is evidence that one of the girls, C, the second oldest, actually asked one of the Departmental officers in whose care they were placed if she could just gather up some of her possessions to take with her in the event that they were put on a plane to Italy that night. I am absolutely satisfied that the girls did not run away and go and hide themselves for days to avoid getting on a plane to Italy.

And that's just a taste.

 

[Shiner]

52: It is very important to remember that the children’s objections to returning to Italy are principally founded in a belief that their mother cannot return with them. The Family Consultant confirmed as much. Notwithstanding the submissions of counsel for the mother criticizing the nature of the inquiry the Family Consultant was directed to and did undertake in respect of ascertaining the children’s views, I am left in no doubt that the children do not want to return to Italy, whether there are further proceedings in that country that might result in them being allowed to return to Australia or not, principally because of a belief, instilled in them by their mother, that she cannot and, therefore, will not return to Italy with them. The current strength of their views about returning to Italy cannot be considered in isolation from that fact.

More stuff.

 

[katy_did]

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.

That really doesn't follow, Charlie. Obviously how the kids felt after two years living in Australia would be different from how they felt had they been told, prior to leaving Italy, that they wouldn't see their father, their family, their friends or their home for at least some years. That they would have been upset at the prospect is only to be expected, I'd have thought.

 

[Caper]

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.

Yes... they should be left in the care of two kidnappers and a car thief/false accuser.

 

[joesixpack]

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.

But if the father had been the abductor, you'd have been fine with the screaming children being physically dragged away from him, right?

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.

And you have some scientific literature to back this sexist notion up? Charlie, you've never been a parent. The gender of the parent has nothing to do with their ability to provide a safe and loving home to a child.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

Ah, so your argument is blatant sexism along with disdain for due process.

So you don't think what she did should be illegal, because she's the mother, and everything she does is alright, the father should just take it.

 

[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?

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

So you don't think what she did was illegal and therefore it shouldn't be punished in any way. The father has no parental rights that don't derive from the mother's graces.

In short, you're simply wrong.

 

[tyr_13]

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

Thanks for this, and the other, links. Accurate information is essential.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

My parents divorced when I was a child and the emotional pressure I was under to not see my father was incredible, as a result I have no relationship with him, and probably now never will have. Children are pawns in this game and much as 'let the children decide who they want to see/live with' might sound like a fair solution, it isn't, unless there is a damn good reason why either parent shouldn't see the child access for both parents needs to determined without the child having to feel that they are being forced to choose between or hurt either parent.

The mother has unilaterally cut the children's ties to their father and the judges comments leave me in no doubt that the children feel themselves to be in a situation where being seen to want to know their father would hurt their mother, it's a feeling I recall all too well although it was almost four decades ago. I don't think anyone who hasn't been through it could know how easily a child's feelings can be used against the other parent in this kind of situation to exactly the effect being seen here, it doesn't even have to be deliberate (although in this case it seems likely to be). I believe that the Australian judge has done completely the right thing and I hope these kids have an outcome where they can grow up knowing both their parents, but at the moment the mothers actions show that they should be with their father until the courts can reach a long term decision.

 

[joesixpack]

My parents divorced when I was a child and the emotional pressure I was under to not see my father was incredible, as a result I have no relationship with him, and probably now never will have. Children are pawns in this game and much as 'let the children decide who they want to see/live with' might sound like a fair solution, it isn't, unless there is a damn good reason why either parent shouldn't see the child access for both parents needs to determined without the child having to feel that they are being forced to choose between or hurt either parent.


The mother has unilaterally cut the children's ties to their father and the judges comments leave me in no doubt that the children feel themselves to be in a situation where being seen to want to know their father would hurt their mother, it's a feeling I recall all too well although it was almost four decades ago. I don't think anyone who hasn't been through it could know how easily a child's feelings can be used against the other parent in this kind of situation to exactly the effect being seen here, it doesn't even have to be deliberate (although in this case it seems likely to be). I believe that the Australian judge has done completely the right thing and I hope these kids have an outcome where they can grow up knowing both their parents, but at the moment the mothers actions show that they should be with their father until the courts can reach a long term decision.

Thank you for putting this in the proper perspective.

These arguments against the repatriation of the girls amounts to little more than Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have absolutely no experience raising a child during and after a divorce. The alienation of a child from a loving parent is far more damaging than five minutes of choreographed hissy-fit staged for the media.

P.J. Denyer, I don't know what your present situation is in re your father, but I can tell you my wife managed to track down and re-connect with her estranged father after almost 30 years. They are very close now (he's currently living with us, actually). I would encourage you to consider contacting your father if you haven't yet.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thank you for putting this in the proper perspective.

These arguments against the repatriation of the girls amounts to little more than Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have absolutely no experience raising a child during and after a divorce. The alienation of a child from a loving parent is far more damaging than five minutes of choreographed hissy-fit staged for the media.

P.J. Denyer, I don't know what your present situation is in re your father, but I can tell you my wife managed to track down and re-connect with her estranged father after almost 30 years. They are very close now (he's currently living with us, actually). I would encourage you to consider contacting your father if you haven't yet.

I'd like to chime in on this, all of this, it is just so, this.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

P.J. Denyer, I don't know what your present situation is in re your father, but I can tell you my wife managed to track down and re-connect with her estranged father after almost 30 years. They are very close now (he's currently living with us, actually). I would encourage you to consider contacting your father if you haven't yet.

Thank you. It is something very much on my mind, my older brother is back in contact with him however he was in a different situation having been significantly older at the time our father left (infact he left home himself around that time while I was only four then) as such our mother sees it, with justification, that they raised my brother but she alone raised me. The situation even these many years later is that our mother accepts that he sees his father, but would still see it as a personal betrayal and terribly hurtful if I did. She's eighty now and quite frail and I couldn't do that to her. Family politics, eh? There's no war so savage as civil war. Still, at least she never fled the country!

Without intervention this would have been what those girls would have had to look forward to. I hope that this will no longer be the case.