The Australian "custody sisters"

[Wildy]

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...

As long as the cameras were there there would always be a scene. Remove the mother? Scene. Remove the kids? Scene. Remove the media? Probably the biggest scene of all.

 

[uke2se]

AFAIK they were just dragged off to the airport by the police.

Doesn't appear to be true. They were taken from their kidnappers one night and sent back home the next, as far as I can tell from newspaper stories.

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.

Do you know that they didn't? Since the girls weren't actually sent home at once, do you know what happened during the time they spent apart from their kidnappers in Australia?

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.

Being scared is perfectly alright. The girls were the victim of a crime where the perpetrator had poisoned their minds sufficiently that they would have been scared whatever happened. The kidnapper wouldn't let the girls go.

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.

Who would you believe? Your mother who had spent two years filling your head with lies about how you would never see her again if you went back home, or some stranger who tells you your mother is indeed a liar?

 

[uke2se]

So you're saying all abductions are wrong but kids shouldn't be returned in all cases?

You can read. Impressive.

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.

"Morals" like that are subjective, and thus not relevant to a legal case.

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

And I'm saying neither you nor anyone else can come up with a realistic way to achieve the desired result that wouldn't have ended like this.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You can read. Impressive.



"Morals" like that are subjective, and thus not relevant to a legal case.



And I'm saying neither you nor anyone else can come up with a realistic way to achieve the desired result that wouldn't have ended like this.

1. Really mature.
2. I'm not arguing law. The law clearly states they have to go back and I agree with that. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.
3. So why bother trying anything else, right? I don't know if they spoke to professionals and neither do you. Seems like the police and court would have mentioned that they offered that kind of help when they were under fire for treating kids like this. If they did try it and it didn't work then yes this was their only other option but it is still unpalatable. To a lot of people anyway.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Sure the mother could have complied with the courts much earlier, she could have not poisoned the kids against their dad, she could have not wanted them to fight the cops.

Not sure how ensuring a traumatic experience for her kids wins her points in your book though.

I guess the best parent would make it so they kill themselves if taken away and then they would win and be the best parent ever!

 

[uke2se]

1. Really mature.
2. I'm not arguing law. The law clearly states they have to go back and I agree with that. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.

Then what the hell are you arguing? It seems your entire participation in this thread is to whine about the police, but you can't present a realistic alternative.

3. So why bother trying anything else, right?

Do you think the police should do a mulligan? Again, it seems you're not thinking this through. What should the police have done that could have guaranteed a different outcome. Removing the mother wouldn't. Removing the girls didn't. Removing the media certainly wouldn't. What should they have done? Don't say "child psychologists" because it's just dumb to believe they would have had an impact on the scene as it played out.

I don't know if they spoke to professionals and neither do you.

Correct. You seem so certain they didn't, though.

Seems like the police and court would have mentioned that they offered that kind of help when they were under fire for treating kids like this.

Where they under fire for not providing child psychologists? If not, why should they have mentioned that?

If they did try it and it didn't work then yes this was their only other option but it is still unpalatable. To a lot of people anyway.

So what? It's reality. The ones in the wrong here are the mother, her mother and grand-mother, and the media. The police, the girls, the girls' father, and authorities are blame-less.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Sure the mother could have complied with the courts much earlier, she could have not poisoned the kids against their dad, she could have not wanted them to fight the cops.

Not sure how ensuring a traumatic experience for her kids wins her points in your book though.

I guess the best parent would make it so they kill themselves if taken away and then they would win and be the best parent ever!

She doesn't get points in my books. You are again making things up that I haven't said. At this point I'd be surprised if she got any unsupervised access.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Then what the hell are you arguing? It seems your entire participation in this thread is to whine about the police, but you can't present a realistic alternative.



Do you think the police should do a mulligan? Again, it seems you're not thinking this through. What should the police have done that could have guaranteed a different outcome. Removing the mother wouldn't. Removing the girls didn't. Removing the media certainly wouldn't. What should they have done? Don't say "child psychologists" because it's just dumb to believe they would have had an impact on the scene as it played out.



Correct. You seem so certain they didn't, though.



Where they under fire for not providing child psychologists? If not, why should they have mentioned that?



So what? It's reality. The ones in the wrong here are the mother, her mother and grand-mother, and the media. The police, the girls, the girls' father, and authorities are blame-less.

And I think it's dumb to say child psychologists would have no impact. They are trained in dealing with children. If this isn't a situation they would be useful in I don't know what is. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. You need to calm down FFS.

Yes my entire view is that the court was right and the police/mother/press handled it badly. That's not whining, it's a legitimate concern. I gave you an alternative. I even admitted it might not have been successful. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's dumb. It's better than nothing and with what we've heard so doesn't mention anyone trying to talk to them. If they did then the only option they had left to follow the court order was to drag them. Necessary but still not ideal.

 

[uke2se]

And I think it's dumb to say child psychologists would have no impact. They are trained in dealing with children. If this isn't a situation they would be useful in I don't know what is. That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. You need to calm down FFS.

Please explain exactly what a child psychologist could have done to prevent the scenes that happened. This'll be good.

Yes my entire view is that the court was right and the police/mother/press handled it badly. That's not whining, it's a legitimate concern.

As long as you can't come up with a realistic alternative, it is whining.

I gave you an alternative.

Unrealistic and ill thought through.

I even admitted it might not have been successful.

It would probably have been as successful as the police were in reality.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's dumb.

I called it unrealistic. It is unrealistic because it's unrealistic.

It's better than nothing and with what we've heard so doesn't mention anyone trying to talk to them.

There wasn't nothing. There were police officers doing their job, removing the kids from their kidnapper. There not being any mention of anyone talking to the children doesn't mean nobody did. I have a hard time believing they were put in isolation until they were sent home the next day.

ETA: Do you believe the incident started when the cameras where turned on? Do you think the police officers' first action was to kick open the door and grab hold of the girls to drag them out? Do you believe there might have been some talking before that went down?

If they did then the only option they had left to follow the court order was to drag them. Necessary but still not ideal.

Where the heck do you come off whining about the situation not being "ideal"? Of course it wasn't ideal. An ideal situation would have meant the children would never have been kidnapped. All you're doing is sniping at the police. It's quite annoying, and not rational.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Please explain exactly what a child psychologist could have done to prevent the scenes that happened. This'll be good.



As long as you can't come up with a realistic alternative, it is whining.



Unrealistic and ill thought through.



It would probably have been as successful as the police were in reality.



I called it unrealistic. It is unrealistic because it's unrealistic.



There wasn't nothing. There were police officers doing their job, removing the kids from their kidnapper. There not being any mention of anyone talking to the children doesn't mean nobody did. I have a hard time believing they were put in isolation until they were sent home the next day.

ETA: Do you believe the incident started when the cameras where turned on? Do you think the police officers' first action was to kick open the door and grab hold of the girls to drag them out? Do you believe there might have been some talking before that went down?



Where the heck do you come off whining about the situation not being "ideal"? Of course it wasn't ideal. An ideal situation would have meant the children would never have been kidnapped. All you're doing is sniping at the police. It's quite annoying, and not rational.

Describe how it was unrealistic and ill thought through. I might even respond if you can act like an adult. So far all you seem to be doing is whining that I'm whining. Not entirely sure why you decided to jump all over me. Perhaps you are taking this situation too personally.

Remember to include the reason it's not worth even trying something else.

And I'm not sniping at the police. I have the greatest respect for the police and they were un a difficult situation but they are not infallible. I am allowed to criticise.

 

[uke2se]

Describe how it was unrealistic and ill thought through.

It's unrealistic to expect a child psychologist to be able to curtail the emotions the kidnapper spent two years building into the children. It's unrealistic to expect a child psychologist to be able to quickly gain enough trust of the children so that they would start disbelieving the lies their mother had told them. It's unrealistic to expect any of this to calm a situation that the mother was doing everything she could to inflame in order to put on a show for the rolling cameras.

I'm not sure how much experience you have with psychologists, but it's not like putting on a band-aid. It takes a lot of time and trust. Any therapy while the kids where still in the custody of their mother would be useless. Having a psychologist on hand during the deportation might have helped the police understand why the kids where behaving like they did, but it wouldn't have stopped their behaviour.

I might even respond if you can act like an adult.

I'm sorry. I lose my temper when faced with seemingly willfull stupidity.

So far all you seem to be doing is whining that I'm whining.

I previously exclaimed positively about your reading abilities. I take that back.

Not entirely sure why you decided to jump all over me. Perhaps you are taking this situation too personally.

I'm jumping all over stupid arguments. I'm sorry if you feel attacked.

 

[smartcooky]

1. Really mature.
2. I'm not arguing law. The law clearly states they have to go back and I agree with that. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.
3. So why bother trying anything else, right? I don't know if they spoke to professionals and neither do you. Seems like the police and court would have mentioned that they offered that kind of help when they were under fire for treating kids like this. If they did try it and it didn't work then yes this was their only other option but it is still unpalatable. To a lot of people anyway.

There are a few here who place blind faith in the the police and the courts being always right. Well, reality check folks; the police and the courts get things wrong with frightening frequency. For example some studies have shown that up to 5% of the people in jail in the USA are in fact innocent of the crime of which they were convicted; that is a very scary 1 in 20, or close to 100,000 innocent people incarcerated, an appallingly high number. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have been found guilty and jailed when there have committed no crime whatsoever. Tragically, some innocent people have even been executed.

If the courts were the perfect system that some people think it is, then there would be no need for a court of appeal would there?

 

[uke2se]

There are a few here who place blind faith in the the police and the courts being always right.

No, there isn't. However, there are people here who place blind faith in the media.

Well, reality check folks; the police and the courts get things wrong with frightening frequency. For example some studies have shown that up to 5% of the people in jail in the USA are in fact innocent of the crime of which they were convicted; that is a very scary 1 in 20, or close to 100,000 innocent people incarcerated, an appallingly high number. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have been found guilty and jailed when there have committed no crime whatsoever. Tragically, some innocent people have even been executed.

If the courts were the perfect system that some people think it is, then there would be no need for a court of appeal would there?

Prove that they got this one wrong. Otherwise, your argument is irrelevant.

 

[kerikiwi]

No, my answers were direct and to the point, and most importantly, they were honestly and sincerely what I believe.



No, Charlie and I are well ahead of the game. 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. I keep having to remind some posters about things that I posted days ago.



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



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.



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

I take from this that you don't think, as you originally and emphatically stated, that the children's wishes should be paramount, but that there are other factors to consider.
That is exactly what I was asking, but it would have been simpler had you just said 'yes' or 'no' to the question I asked.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

It's unrealistic to expect a child psychologist to be able to curtail the emotions the kidnapper spent two years building into the children. It's unrealistic to expect a child psychologist to be able to quickly gain enough trust of the children so that they would start disbelieving the lies their mother had told them. It's unrealistic to expect any of this to calm a situation that the mother was doing everything she could to inflame in order to put on a show for the rolling cameras.

I'm not sure how much experience you have with psychologists, but it's not like putting on a band-aid. It takes a lot of time and trust. Any therapy while the kids where still in the custody of their mother would be useless. Having a psychologist on hand during the deportation might have helped the police understand why the kids where behaving like they did, but it wouldn't have stopped their behaviour.



I'm sorry. I lose my temper when faced with seemingly willfull stupidity.



I previously exclaimed positively about your reading abilities. I take that back.



I'm jumping all over stupid arguments. I'm sorry if you feel attacked.

There has been a similar situation in my family and I was threatened with it as a child. If strange men had grabbed me like this there was no way I would've calmed down. If someone had spoken to me I would have reacted a lot calmer. Yes the family were determined to cause a scene but the authorities didn't have to play into it. Talking to them before physically dragging them isn't stupid. It may not work but why not give it a try?

And well done for proving you can't speak to me like an adult. I don't agree with you but notice how I'm not childishly throwing insults?

 

[uke2se]

There has been a similar situation in my family and I was threatened with it as a child. If strange men had grabbed me like this there was no way I would've calmed down.

Why do you assume nobody talked to the children before grabbing them? Do you think it's likely that that's what happened? Personally, I think it's much more likely that it started with talking and ended with grabbing, because the mother whipped up the hysteria. Said hysteria didn't get better when the grabbing started, but by then it was too late anyway.

If someone had spoken to me I would have reacted a lot calmer.

If that someone had told you your mother had lied to you over the previous two years, would you still have reacted a lot calmer?

Yes the family were determined to cause a scene but the authorities didn't have to play into it.

Yes, they did. There was no other viable option.

Talking to them before physically dragging them isn't stupid. It may not work but why not give it a try?

Again, why do you assume they started by physically grabbing them? Is it your experience that the police never says anything and goes straight to violence?

And well done for proving you can't speak to me like an adult. I don't agree with you but notice how I'm not childishly throwing insults?

Actually, I have noticed quite a few from you.

 

[kerikiwi]

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?

That is exactly what I was saying.
I was seriously beginning to wonder where I had gone wrong, as every response from the non-cowcocky (joke) completely ignored the point, and argued against a position I had not taken (can't use straw as all the cows down here need it becase of the drought -- another joke)while he lectured others about their failing to understand him

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think what you're suggesting - as I read the above, allowing older children to decide where they should live - would be far more rigid than what's in place at the moment. At present, the court can always decide that a child should return to the abductor parent's custody and country, if it feels that's in the child's best interests (which could simply be because that's what the child wants, if he or she is of an age/maturity to decide that). What you're saying is that once a child reaches the age of 12 (let's say), their wishes take precedence over everything, including their own best interests.

It's difficult for me to see that this would be a better way of doing things than taking the entire circumstances of the child's case into consideration, which should include their wishes but not to the exclusion of all else. 12, 13, 14 year olds aren't adults. To place the huge responsibility of such an important decision on them - effectively asking them to decide what's in their own long-term best interests, and in such a way that it could easily seem as if they're being asked to 'take' sides between warring parents - isn't fair to the children themselves. Certainly their wishes should count a great deal, but I can't agree that the kids should be asked to make the final decision.

I would not suggest that the children should be burdened with resolving a custody dispute or asked to decide.

I think the courts should hear the parties and render a decision. In a case like this, however, I think they should withhold physical force as a means for enforcing that decision. I would not feel that way if the kids were being abused. I would not feel that way if the kids were 5 and 6 years old.

I don't share your faith in the good sense of authorities. Just the other day, here in Washington state, a case was resolved after a first-grader was expelled from school for mentioning a toy gun he had at home, a "nerf" gun that shoots soft foam pellets and is considered a normal toy for small children. The parents had to work through a lengthy process to get to a point where the school accepted that it was an unreasonable expulsion and expunged it from his record.

This is happening all over the US. Here's one article:

http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/fu...rian-Enclaves?instance=lead_story_left_column

What this illustrates to me is that public authorities are most comfortable with hard and fast rules, not with discretion, and in their application of rules, they often lose sight of common sense.

I think the participants in this thread have lost sight of common sense. Many insist on presenting this as a case that is primarily about a criminal and her victims, such that the relationship between them is seen as criminal pathology, i.e., "Stockholm syndrome" or the warped bond that kept Jaycee Dugard from fleeing her captor. We have one person who insists that this case be evaluated against a hypothetical in which the kids want to remain with an abductor who started out as a complete stranger.

I think that is lunacy. Whatever label one slaps on this woman, this story is about a mother and her four children who dearly love her and want to remain with her, which is not criminal pathology but a completely normal feeling.

Again - my proposed solution is not to burden the kids with the choice, or to limit the ability of the court to render whatever decision is consistent with law and what they regard as sound judgment. I would limit their tools of enforcement, reflecting the known fact that institutional judgment is sometimes not sound.

But as has been said, they may not have gone willingly if she hadn't lied to them. Had their father told them he wouldn't see them again if they went to Australia (as the mother made clear to the children in the reverse situation) they might very well have been upset and asked to stay in Italy.

I think this points to another problem here too. We have no idea how the children reacted when they were first told they weren't returning to Italy. We have no idea if they cried themselves to sleep at night because they missed Dad, if they had tantrums and felt isolated and lonely because they were in a country where they didn't speak the language, and so found it difficult to make friends. We don't know because there are no YouTube videos of any of this. The two minute video we do have represents a tiny fraction even just of their lives in Australia, let alone all the years they spent in Italy. It seems foolish to let that (orchestrated) "frenzied moment" be the deciding factor in all of this.

We don't know a lot of things, which is why I think it's damned important to listen to the children who are experiencing all the things we know nothing about. The courts have physically forced them into a custodial arrangement that, for all we really know, they may have good reason to resist.

 

[kerikiwi]

There are a few here who place blind faith in the the police and the courts being always right.

I haven't got that impression from any poster here.

Can you provide one or two examples of such blind faith?

 

[kerikiwi]

Talking to them before physically dragging them isn't stupid. It may not work but why not give it a try?

True. Is there any evidence that there was no such effort to talk to them?