The Australian "custody sisters"

[Dr. Keith]

I think the whole system has failed these kids, they have been treated like cattle, by people who appear to care not one single jot how they are feeling about all this, or how it is affecting them.

I disagree with you, but I am starting to see your point. I'll elaborate on both, but you are free to ignore either.

The mother played the system to the detriment of everyone in the system. It only "failed" in the sense that it was not set up to deal with her particular level of crazy. Many people cared about these kids and they were forced to work outside of their normal functions by the machinations of the mother. The mother failed her daughters, and the system was not prepared for such an epically selfish mother.

But I see your point that the police could have done a better job. I really think they would have been ostracized for doing so, but they could have removed the press from the scene before taking the children to the airport. In the US this would have been very difficult and I imagine it would in Australia as well, but it would have been the only way to take the kids into custody without force. Now, knowing that removing the press is the only way this could have gone smoother, is that really what we want to encourage our police to do? I don't think so, but you are concerned by the show of distress put on by these girls, so maybe you do.

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed they have been. By their mother. Thankfully, the police have now made sure they are able to get back their entitlements in their home country.

No

Any way you slice it, they have been denied their right to their own representation in an Australian court, which had nothing to do with the mother at all.

I disagree with you, but I am starting to see your point. I'll elaborate on both, but you are free to ignore either.

The mother played the system to the detriment of everyone in the system. It only "failed" in the sense that it was not set up to deal with her particular level of crazy. Many people cared about these kids and they were forced to work outside of their normal functions by the machinations of the mother. The mother failed her daughters, and the system was not prepared for such an epically selfish mother.

Does that epic selfishness extend to the children too?

Do you think they are selfish for wanting to stay with their mother?

But I see your point that the police could have done a better job. I really think they would have been ostracized for doing so, but they could have removed the press from the scene before taking the children to the airport. In the US this would have been very difficult and I imagine it would in Australia as well, but it would have been the only way to take the kids into custody without force. Now, knowing that removing the press is the only way this could have gone smoother, is that really what we want to encourage our police to do? I don't think so, but you are concerned by the show of distress put on by these girls, so maybe you do.

The Police had to enter the house to take custody of the girls. If there were media inside the house, ask them to leave, and warn them that if they don't they will be arrested for obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.

Once they are outside of the house and off the boundaries of the property, remove the mother; allow the media to see the mother being dragged away in handcuffs. If she really was the pig/hog/dog/bitch (choose your preferred inappropriate description) that people here thinks she was, then her true colours would likely have shown at this point, illustrated by a spectacular display of expletive-ridden invective that would have lost her a lot of sympathy with the public.

The media could have been excluded from proceedings by the simple expedient of conducting all the negotiations inside the house with window coverings drawn.

The whole scenario looked like it was bring rushed, when there was no deadline. Its not as if they were being whisked off to a plane that was waiting on the tarmac with engines running; they actually didn't board the plane until the next day.

Situations like these have to be advanced with care and patience. If it took several hours of negotiation with the children before they undertook to come voluntarily then that is what should have happened.

 

[Caper]

Smartcocky... Can you explain again why the stranger who kidnaps doesn't get to keep the kid... Even if the kid wants to stay.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

c. think that the Law is a absolute and everyone should march to the tune of the courts.

That's what I'm seeing here. People are assuming that a rigorous application of law will lead to the best possible outcome in this and every case. It's a simple, reassuring formula that eliminates the need to think. The truth is written up in the judge's report. That's all anyone needs to know.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I disagree with you, but I am starting to see your point. I'll elaborate on both, but you are free to ignore either.

The mother played the system to the detriment of everyone in the system. It only "failed" in the sense that it was not set up to deal with her particular level of crazy. Many people cared about these kids and they were forced to work outside of their normal functions by the machinations of the mother. The mother failed her daughters, and the system was not prepared for such an epically selfish mother.

But I see your point that the police could have done a better job. I really think they would have been ostracized for doing so, but they could have removed the press from the scene before taking the children to the airport. In the US this would have been very difficult and I imagine it would in Australia as well, but it would have been the only way to take the kids into custody without force. Now, knowing that removing the press is the only way this could have gone smoother, is that really what we want to encourage our police to do? I don't think so, but you are concerned by the show of distress put on by these girls, so maybe you do.

Do you really think the kids would have gone quietly if the media hadn't been there? The older two had to be removed from an airplane because they were kicking and screaming and freaking out the other passengers, but neither the media nor the mother were present.

 

[Shiner]

That's what I'm seeing here. People are assuming that a rigorous application of law will lead to the best possible outcome in this and every case. It's a simple, reassuring formula that eliminates the need to think. The truth is written up in the judge's report. That's all anyone needs to know.

No they aren't. What is the point of law, if a little tantrum can turn it around?

Is every parental abduction case to be analysed in this manner?

What about all other crimes/offenses? What is so special about this case, that it needs to be excluded from due process?

All I'm seeing is emotional arguments based on people being upset by some upset little girls.

It took 2 long years for the Australian courts to finalise this. If we were blindly applying the law, they would have been on a flight back to Italy at least 18 months before they were.

 

[Shiner]

Do you really think the kids would have gone quietly if the media hadn't been there? The older two had to be removed from an airplane because they were kicking and screaming and freaking out the other passengers, but neither the media nor the mother were present.

You don't think the girls believed their mother?
Have you forgotten this....?.....

Wow, this case is nuts. This comment is from the former administrator of the girls' Facebook page, Melissa Thompson, apparently also a (presumably former!) family friend. She describes what happened in the lead-up to the girls being removed:

Just to reiterate...The girls were coached with the AFP [Australian Federal Police]. That's why there is a distinct difference between the time they were picked up when they were kidnapped by GGM and held at her boyfriend's house and the time they left that last time, when the AFP was involved.

They were told over and over again on several different occasions over several months to kick and scream, hit or bite, whatever they can do to get away from any mild force or any other measures that the AFP would be taking. That is why there were so many officers. It was widely known that they would put up a fight, even by authorities.

I am very very sorry to say that I was a part of that. I am ashamed and I have said sorry so many times to people involved. I owe a huge apology to the girls too. Laura was disappointed it didn't work. The girls were so disappointed too that they felt they let their mother down who was counting on them to act that out so they could stay. They even apologised to her because it didn't work. She had told the girls that if they did that, kick and scream, they would be not made to go back. That is why they were coached to do that.[...]<..snip..>

They didn't want to go back to Italy out of fear like the fake name over of KWV Melissa Hasnoclue has said. They didn't want to go back to Italy because their mother was not there. The prospect of being without her whether it be here or there is what they feared. She worked them up into a state of frenzy for that moment and that is exactly what it was, a frenzied moment.[...]

 

[tyr_13]

That's what I'm seeing here. People are assuming that a rigorous application of law will lead to the best possible outcome in this and every case. It's a simple, reassuring formula that eliminates the need to think. The truth is written up in the judge's report. That's all anyone needs to know.

On what grounds do you dismiss the judge's report? What better information do you have? What is the source of this information?

And, no, not in every case maybe but in this one based on what is known, yes, the law should be applied.

 

[ehcks]

No

Any way you slice it, they have been denied their right to their own representation in an Australian court, which had nothing to do with the mother at all.

The Australian courts don't have jurisdiction. The Italian ones do. Those are the courts they were denied their right to representation in... by the mother.

 

[smartcooky]

Smartcocky... Can you explain again why the stranger who kidnaps doesn't get to keep the kid... Even if the kid wants to stay.

Your repeating of the same, already answered questions, over and over would seem to indicate that the level of debate has gone well past your capacity to understand.

Go find your own answers.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No they aren't. What is the point of law, if a little tantrum can turn it around?

Is every parental abduction case to be analysed in this manner?

What about all other crimes/offenses? What is so special about this case, that it needs to be excluded from due process?

I think the law ought to be changed. You're trivializing a harrowing experience for kids who are old enough so they should be allowed to decide which parent they want to live with. Their resistance was vehement and sustained. They resisted being dragged from their home, they resisted being dragged onto the airplane, and they begged to be rescued after they arrived in Italy.

Maybe you can anesthetize yourself to all that by citing due process and the supremacy of the law, and assuming that the authorities know what is best for everyone, but I can't. I think it's barbaric.

 

[smartcooky]

The Australian courts don't have jurisdiction. The Italian ones do. Those are the courts they were denied their right to representation in... by the mother.

Then how could they issue a court order, genius!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

On what grounds do you dismiss the judge's report? What better information do you have? What is the source of this information?

I have said repeatedly that I rate the wishes expressed by these children above the bloviations of the court.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The Australian courts don't have jurisdiction. The Italian ones do. Those are the courts they were denied their right to representation in... by the mother.

They had to be physically dragged onto an airplane to protect their right to representation in Italian court?

How ridiculous. The court is adjudicating the rights of the parents. The children are the spoils of victory.

 

[Shiner]

I think the law ought to be changed. You're trivializing a harrowing experience for kids who are old enough so they should be allowed to decide which parent they want to live with. Their resistance was vehement and sustained. They resisted being dragged from their home, they resisted being dragged onto the airplane, and they begged to be rescued after they arrived in Italy.

Maybe you can anesthetize yourself to all that by citing due process and the supremacy of the law, and assuming that the authorities know what is best for everyone, but I can't. I think it's barbaric.

You're dramatizing a trivial incident.
You're trivialising the removal of these children from their birthplace and home. You're trivialising the rights of the father AND the children, by supporting the mother's manipulative attempt to deny the children access to their father. And vice versa.

I'm pretty sure the girls are better off, for the time being, where they are now rather than in the toxic environment created by the mother and her family.

This woman went to live in Italy at the age of 16. She left when she was 30.
The children were born in Italy and spent their entire lives there. Why should the rest of their family be denied access?
(Grandma's, aunties and uncles, etc.)

 

[kerikiwi]

Smartcocky...

I'm not sure he's a dairy farmer.. although he does think these girls were treated like cattle.

 

[kerikiwi]

Your repeating of the same, already answered questions, over and over would seem to indicate that the level of debate has gone well past your capacity to understand.

Go find your own answers.

The answers were evasive, disingenuous and dishonest. The level of debate has gone well past your capacity to understand.
Your original statement can be paraphrased as:
because the girls, who were abducted(kidnapped, taken away, whatever label you want to hang on the act) by their mother, now want to stay with their mother, they should be allowed to.
To test this idea, the question was asked: if children were abducted(or whatever label you want to hang on the act) by a stranger and later expressed the same desire as these girls to stay with their abductor, should they be allowed to?
It's a simple yes/no.
If the answer is 'yes' there is no more discussion because you are being entirely consistent.
If the answer is 'no', then the original reason 'because the girls want to' needs modifying. Maybe they should be allowed to stay if they are related to their abductor

 

[tyr_13]

I have said repeatedly that I rate the wishes expressed by these children above the bloviations of the court.

Then they should argue their wishes before the Italian court of their homeland. If they are responsible for their location, then they are responsible for the consequences of choosing that location in violation of the courts. So they're no different from anyone else violating court orders. But they're children when it's convenient for your argument and adults when it isn't.

Why do their wishes now matter but two years ago they did not? On what basis do you claim to know their true wishes? Why is the courts discovery on the matter invalid?

 

[Caper]

That's what I'm seeing here. People are assuming that a rigorous application of law will lead to the best possible outcome in this and every case. It's a simple, reassuring formula that eliminates the need to think. The truth is written up in the judge's report. That's all anyone needs to know.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't... you can't steal kids away from parents or in this case the other parent.

You promote parental kidnapping by advocating for it to succeed in this case.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The answers were evasive, disingenuous and dishonest. The level of debate has gone well past your capacity to understand.
Your original statement can be paraphrased as:
because the girls, who were abducted(kidnapped, taken away, whatever label you want to hang on the act) by their mother, now want to stay with their mother, they should be allowed to.
To test this idea, the question was asked: if children were abducted(or whatever label you want to hang on the act) by a stranger and later expressed the same desire as these girls to stay with their abductor, should they be allowed to?
It's a simple yes/no.
If the answer is 'yes' there is no more discussion because you are being entirely consistent.
If the answer is 'no', then the original reason 'because the girls want to' needs modifying. Maybe they should be allowed to stay if they are related to their abductor

The nature of the abduction and the degree of health of the relationship with the stranger abductor needs to be considered. I read recently about a case where a child was abducted off the streets in India(?) before being processed by that country's legal adoption system and finding a new home in Australia, with the new parents none the wiser about her history. If the child wants to stay there's an ethical conundrum right there.