The Australian "custody sisters"

[ponderingturtle]

Please don't start with magical mummy love. Many mothers don't bond with their children immediately or even at all. They still love them but there is no magical woo bond. In fact, I've never seen any evidence of it existing. It seems like a way to make new mothers feel inadequate when they don't feel like sunshine and rainbows whenever they hold their baby.

I know many fathers who are closer to their kids emotionally than the mother.

And those mothers are bad mothers because they are not doing enough to alienate the kids from their dad. Good mothers do that.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

And ignoring all the harm the mother did and continues to do. But they want that harm so it is all good, like leaving kids who want to stay with a abusive parent too.

You're right. The harm caused by dragging them kicking and screaming against their will across the globe away from their home is clearly ok. Because two wrongs make a right. Understood.

-sarcasm

Why is it that when anyone disagrees with the method of repatriation they are accused of supporting kidnap and child abuse. It's getting a tad irrational.

They weren't sent back because it was in their best interest. They were sent back because that is the law and there was no overwhelming reason for the court to flout it (i.e. abuse). They were sent back not because the mother and her family are bad and the father is a saint or the wronged party, but because if they weren't it would mean other countries could refuse to honour the Hague convention and that could actually endanger at-risk children in the future.

 

[Wildy]

I would allow the four girls the option of not being physically dragged anywhere and try to work forward from there.

And should that fail?

My concern in this case is not whether the "abductor" wins or loses.

But that's the result isn't it? And if not, what is the result?

Its the rest of you that are struggling to keep up, and struggling to understand simple concepts, like human rights, and the right to self determination.

If we don't understand it have you ever considered that it's not that we are "struggling" but that you have failed to provide a convincing argument from that perspective?

That would certainly be preferable in the short term to treating them in the uncivilized and barbaric fashion we saw in the video.

And in the long term?

I mean what we saw in the video could have easily been avoided had the mother just dropped her kids off at the airport like she was supposed to 5 months ago.

That type of treatment of children is unconscionable. If I dragged my teenage daughter away from a party in that way, any policeman in the vicinity who saw me would have had me on the ground and in handcuffs in a flash. I would be spending the night in Police cells, and I would be up in front of the beak the next morning on an assault charge.

So? There are many things the police do that the ordinary person can't. I can't strap lights and a siren on my car and drive as fast as I like. Nor can I walk around carrying a gun. In general society accepts that there are some things that the police can do that the general public can't.

Again I maintain, and I will always continue to maintain, that this is irrelevant. We are NOT talking about a kidnapping by someone unknown to the children.

What you seem to forget is that children are bonded to the mother from before birth, so it is natural for them to want to stay with their mother. Its called maternal bonding, and it begins to develop during pregnancy. Many things stimulate the development of the bond, and these include mother beginning to feel her unborn child moving. On the other side of the bond, the unborn child hears the mother's voice and heartbeat. By the beginning the third trimester, maternal bond can be very strong.

The desire to remain with an unknown captor is called the Stockholm Syndrome. Absolutely NONE of the things I have mentioned above take place. The bond formed in a case of Stockholm syndrome is based on violence, fear and distrust. The captor is usually physically violent toward the captive, and then when the violence stops, the captive mistakes this for kindness. This seems counter intuitive but it comes about as a result of the victim's subconscious need to survive in traumatic circumstances.

To suggest that a child's bond with it mother's and a hostage's bond with a kidnapper are the same is preposterous in the extreme. They are not analogues of each other in any way, shape or form.

I think kerikiwi is saying something along the lines of we have two abductions that are identical except for the relationship between the abductor and victim. One is a parental abduction and the other one involves a stranger. When the authorities find the kids, they say they want to stay with their abductor.

What you're being asked is that given you consider the views of the children to be paramount, would you make the same judgement for both cases? And if not, why not?

Oh, if only it was that simple. Child custody cases are never that simple.

Yes. In some cases one of the parents abducts their kids and takes them to another country and that requires dealing with a completely different court system in order to get the kids back to the proper jurisdiction.

 

[uke2se]

You're right. The harm caused by dragging them kicking and screaming against their will across the globe away from their home is clearly ok. Because two wrongs make a right. Understood.

-sarcasm

Why is it that when anyone disagrees with the method of repatriation they are accused of supporting kidnap and child abuse. It's getting a tad irrational.

They weren't sent back because it was in their best interest. They were sent back because that is the law and there was no overwhelming reason for the court to flout it (i.e. abuse). They were sent back not because the mother and her family are bad and the father is a saint or the wronged party, but because if they weren't it would mean other countries could refuse to honour the Hague convention and that could actually endanger at-risk children in the future.

What should the Aussie police have done? Left the kids with their kidnapping mother? What else could they have done in order to not offend your sensibilities?

 

[Wildy]

You're right. The harm caused by dragging them kicking and screaming against their will across the globe away from their home is clearly ok. Because two wrongs make a right. Understood.

That's correct. /sarcasm

Why is it that when anyone disagrees with the method of repatriation they are accused of supporting kidnap and child abuse. It's getting a tad irrational.

I think it's been that in general the people who disagree with the method of repatriation have also put forward the argument that the kids should have just been left with their mother, Hague Convention be damned.

They weren't sent back because it was in their best interest. They were sent back because that is the law and there was no overwhelming reason for the court to flout it (i.e. abuse). They were sent back not because the mother and her family are bad and the father is a saint or the wronged party, but because if they weren't it would mean other countries could refuse to honour the Hague convention and that could actually endanger at-risk children in the future.

True.

 

[Giordano]

They weren't sent back because it was in their best interest. They were sent back because that is the law and there was no overwhelming reason for the court to flout it (i.e. abuse). They were sent back not because the mother and her family are bad and the father is a saint or the wronged party, but because if they weren't it would mean other countries could refuse to honour the Hague convention and that could actually endanger at-risk children in the future.

The children were sent back so that the appropriate court, in Italy, could determine what is in their best interests. They will be allowed to state their preferences to the judge in that court, who no doubt will consider their desires to be extremely important in his/her decision. Custody may well be awarded to the mom. No court in Australia had the appropriate legal authority to make the custody determination.

They were dragged kicking and screaming because they chose to kick and scream, as scripted by their mother for the television cameras. Much of it may have been an act. But even if their behavior was a spontaneous manifestation of their real feelings, it was they who created the "violence" in the situation. If they are old enough to chose where to live they are old enough to be responsible for their actions and to realize not to violently resist legal authority.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

What should the Aussie police have done? Left the kids with their kidnapping mother? What else could they have done in order to not offend your sensibilities?

Post #299 paragraph 3. Sorry not typing it out again.

That debacle cannot be the only way this could've gone. It's not about my 'sensibilities' it's about not manhandling frightened children as if they were criminals.

 

[Caper]

It's not about supporting what the mother did. Are there any posts on this thread that do?

It's about saying 'what's done is done, now what's in the best interests of the kids'.

It may not be fair to the dad but this isn't about him or her.

But it must... this tactic cannot work. Nip the tactic in the bud, so it doesn't happen to dozens of other kids,

 

[Caper]

They weren't sent back because it was in their best interest. They were sent back because that is the law and there was no overwhelming reason for the court to flout it (i.e. abuse). They were sent back not because the mother and her family are bad and the father is a saint or the wronged party, but because if they weren't it would mean other countries could refuse to honour the Hague convention and that could actually endanger at-risk children in the future.

Why do you think it's the law to send back kidnapped children?

 

[uke2se]

Post #299 paragraph 3. Sorry not typing it out again.

That debacle cannot be the only way this could've gone. It's not about my 'sensibilities' it's about not manhandling frightened children as if they were criminals.

Perhaps their departure could have been slower. They could have been taken by social services a few days before and been spoken to by child psychologists to help calm their fears. Or he could have flown from Australia to Italy with them so they weren't just dragged off and handed to strangers.

So, when social services come around and say "follow us" and the kids react the way they did when the police came around, what then? What's the next step?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Why do you think it's the law to send back kidnapped children?

So that we don't have a situation where parents are constantly abducting the kids from each other. Mainly because that wouldn't be in the best interests of the child.

And, as I explained later on in that very paragraph do try to keep up, if a child is in a dangerous situation we don't want them left there because one country is trying to get back at another for ignoring the Hague convention in a previous case.

If it had been found that there was a credible risk to them from being sent back to Italy then there are provisions that would have allowed them to stay in Australia, and those aren't there to support kidnapping or whatever BS you're going on about. It's there to protect the kids.

It's article 13b. There have been quite a few cases where the 'abductor' has successfully used it. The only one I've looked over so far is Acosta v Acosta.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

So, when social services come around and say "follow us" and the kids react the way they did when the police came around, what then? What's the next step?

Remove the mother or whichever relative was there and sent people in to talk to them and calm them down. Perhaps you think the way the police handled it was fine and dandy but I don't.

 

[uke2se]

If it had been found that there was a credible risk to them from being sent back to Italy then there are provisions that would have allowed them to stay in Australia, and those aren't there to support kidnapping or whatever BS you're going on about. It's there to protect the kids.

This was investigated, and it was found that there was not enough cause to keep the kids in Australia, no matter what their mother made up about her ex-husband.

I don't think anyone's saying that any laws are there to support kidnapping. What is being said is that the people who think the kids should stay in Australia do support kidnapping, however unintentional.

 

[uke2se]

Remove the mother or whichever relative was there and sent people in to talk to them and calm them down. Perhaps you think the way the police handled it was fine and dandy but I don't.

What do you think would have been different about that scene compared to the one we were treated to? The mother screaming and crying, the kids running after her, being held back by policemen, the press on site to document the entire tragedy with constructive editing and sad music.

I'm going to ask you again, what should have been done differently that could have guaranteed less of a spectacle, and less police "violence"? Because nothing you have proposed thus far, recently nor in post #299 paragraph 3, seem to be a better option than the one that was taken. Worse, in fact, as the option that was taken guarantees full compliance with the law.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

What do you think would have been different about that scene compared to the one we were treated to? The mother screaming and crying, the kids running after her, being held back by policemen, the press on site to document the entire tragedy with constructive editing and sad music.

I'm going to ask you again, what should have been done differently that could have guaranteed less of a spectacle, and less police "violence"? Because nothing you have proposed thus far, recently nor in post #299 paragraph 3, seem to be a better option than the one that was taken. Worse, in fact, as the option that was taken guarantees full compliance with the law.

Having child psychologists try to allay their fears about being removed from their mother and home would be worse than dragging them off like criminals while crying and begging for their mum? That's a new one...

 

[uke2se]

Having child psychologists try to allay their fears about being removed from their mother and home would be worse than dragging them off like criminals while crying and begging for their mum? That's a new one...

They weren't dragged off like criminals. They were dragged away from the criminal.

Do you know for a fact that they didn't get to talk to child psychologists after the cameras were turned off? What do you think a child psychologist could have done in the situation that presented itself?

I seriously don't think you're thinking this through.

ETA: It also seems to me that your major problem was the kids crying and screaming in front of a camera, which would have been the case, child psychologists or no child psychologists.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

This was investigated, and it was found that there was not enough cause to keep the kids in Australia, no matter what their mother made up about her ex-husband.

I don't think anyone's saying that any laws are there to support kidnapping. What is being said is that the people who think the kids should stay in Australia do support kidnapping, however unintentional.

I didn't say this was the case. I'm responding to the argument that all abductions are wrong and that the child should be returned lest we support and encourage kidnapping in all it's forms. I think we can both agree that that's ridiculous.

Also, I believe it was the mother's grandmother who claimed abuse. Everyone seems to be, rightfully, ignoring her.

 

[uke2se]

I didn't say this was the case. I'm responding to the argument that all abductions are wrong and that the child should be returned lest we support and encourage kidnapping in all it's forms. I think we can both agree that that's ridiculous.

I don't think it's ridiculous if the argument is as you presented it here. All abductions are wrong. There are always better ways. Sometimes a person may feel an abduction is necessary for the safety of the abductee, but that is putting themselves above the law, and thus 'wrong'. The child should always be returned, unless it can be shown that doing so would cause unreasonable harm to the child. ETA: And no, crying and screaming in front of the cameras after being coached for two years by a trio of pshycopaths doesn't count as "unreasonable harm".

Also, I believe it was the mother's grandmother who claimed abuse. Everyone seems to be, rightfully, ignoring her.

Except for the Aussie press, so I hear.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

They weren't dragged off like criminals. They were dragged away from the criminal.

Do you know for a fact that they didn't get to talk to child psychologists after the cameras were turned off? What do you think a child psychologist could have done in the situation that presented itself?

I seriously don't think you're thinking this through.

ETA: It also seems to me that your major problem was the kids crying and screaming in front of a camera, which would have been the case, child psychologists or no child psychologists.

AFAIK they were just dragged off to the airport by the police. You honestly think that having people trained in dealing with distressed children there trying to help would be a bad idea? Sure, it might not have worked but that's no reason not to try.

I'm actually trying to imagine myself in this situation and I would have been terrified. Some strange men dragging me away would not help that. If someone sat me down and explained that I just had to go back for the custody case and that this wouldn't be the last time I ever saw my mum I would still be upset but probably not quite so hysterical. YMMV.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I don't think it's ridiculous if the argument is as you presented it here. All abductions are wrong. There are always better ways. Sometimes a person may feel an abduction is necessary for the safety of the abductee, but that is putting themselves above the law, and thus 'wrong'. The child should always be returned, unless it can be shown that doing so would cause unreasonable harm to the child. ETA: And no, crying and screaming in front of the cameras after being coached for two years by a trio of pshycopaths doesn't count as "unreasonable harm".



Except for the Aussie press, so I hear.

So you're saying all abductions are wrong but kids shouldn't be returned in all cases? I will agree that it's legally wrong but morally there are cases where people are right to take their kids (i.e. abuse in a country with a corrupt legal system). This, however was not one of those cases.

Again I'm not saying they should have been allowed to stay because they were upset. I'm saying the police handled it poorly.