The Australian "custody sisters"

[Shiner]

Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?

I can't be any more certain than you of which decision would ultimately be in their best interests. I'm simply saying there is no alternative under the current legislation. The law was applied to reflect the best interests of the children.

People say it shouldn't have gone down this way. I say, there was no alternative. We can't realistically ignore the Hague convention, just because these girls like Australia. Remember it was the mothers decision not to return to Italy. This was the sole reason (afaics) for the girls distress. I don't see how it could ever have been resolved peacefully, given the circumstances.

 

[Shiner]

. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?

That's a pretty loaded question.

If it can be shown that the children have been manipulated, co-erced, brainwashed, blackmailed, then no, we can't take what they say they want as gospel. At what age do we let them decide for themselves? What about an intellectually disabled child? There's just too many variables to realistically put this into action.

It can be shown that sending a child to school is in their best interests, yet most children express their feelings about not wanting to go at an early age.
Plenty of teenagers go to school against their wishes. Daily. Globally.
Yes, I know this is a bit more significant than a 6 hour period. It's the same end result though; forcing a child to do something they don't want to, in their best interests.

We are addressing the childs best interests and wishes here, whilst this whole case and debate only happened because of the mothers wishes. The mother refuses to return with her children to their rightful home and birthplace. She is acting in her own best interests and is the only cause for the girls distress.

 

[smartcooky]

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

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

Sure, and these three are just from looking back at a couple of pages.

There IS a judge "out there," in Italy, that will determine the outcome of this case. This is a legal custody case that will be determined by law.

If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court.

The court will decide (and I'm sure will take the kids' feelings at that stage into account

Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want.

Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!

 

[Caper]

smartcooky,
Why do you support parental kidnapping?

Why do you want two disgusting old hogs and a kidnapper looking after children?

 

[Caper]

Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?

No. They were kidnapped.

 

[uke2se]

Sure, and these three are just from looking back at a couple of pages.







Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want.

That's not blind faith. That's just correctly pointing out the flaws in your argument. Do you have a problem with due justice?

Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!

Well then, let's abolish all court of law then, shall we? Wouldn't that make the world so much better?

 

[Giordano]

Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want.

Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!

I doubt anyone here believes the courts are perfect- is any human construct perfect? Of course they are flawed. But what do you propose instead? Should we determine custody based on the desires of the girls as expressed at a news conference with their mother sitting next to them? The same but with their father next to them? A written statement of the girls' wishes as interpreted by their grandmother? A poll of the press who are covering the story? Do we have a toll free phone number the children can call if they later change their minds after a fight with the custodian parent over homework?

Given that you recognize that the wishes of be children can't be the only factor, how do we also incorporate and balance out the other factors necessary to determine the best interests of the children? A computer algorithm?

Sorry, but for all their flaws I can't see a better way than having an experienced family law court and judge work through these complexities and do their best for the girls. From what I've read so far, I have no reason to distrust the Italian court that will judge this case. If you think so, you should argue to have the judge changed, not the principle of having a court decide.

Yes, I agree courts can be wrong. However I have yet to come up with a better idea.

 

[banquetbear]

smartcooky,
Why do you support parental kidnapping?

Why do you want two disgusting old hogs and a kidnapper looking after children?

...do you really think comments like this help the conversation here?

 

[smartcooky]

...do you really think comments like this help the conversation here?

He's on ignore, so I didn't see that comment, not that I would have dignified it with a reply anyway.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Cite your source.

Post 8 of this thread. AFAK, it's not been in dispute.

 

[Shiner]

Good way to kill a thread. Ignore all who oppose......

 

[Wildy]

That's because we're too stupid to blindly agree with smartcooky understand the nuances of this issue.

 

[Shiner]

Yep, so stupid that we can't get all emotional about it.

 

[smartcooky]

Good way to kill a thread. Ignore all who oppose......

I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer.

After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.

 

[tyr_13]

I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer.

After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.

You haven't presented a sound argument that the police and courts are wrong in this case.

No one is arguing that courts or authorities can't be wrong. Courts can be and have been wrong in other cases. How do we know this? By following the evidence. It doesn't mean that we can conclude therefore that they are wrong in this case. Examples of other courts (or bizarrely school officials in the US) don't prove anything for this case. So what's the evidence that the courts are wrong in this case? Nothing. Not a thing apart from assertion. It isn't even that we can argue that the courts didn't do their due diligence in examining the case as they spent two years on ultimately baseless appeals AND have shown the reasoning/evidence for their judgement.

Have women absconded with their children for good reasons in the past? Yes. That's not evidence that in this case the abduction was justifiable. What evidence is there that in this case it was? Nothing, just assertion and speculation that maybe it was. And again, we cannot reasonably argue that there were justifiable reasons that we don't know of because of the extensive interviews and investigations.

Have courts ignored the wishes of children before? Yes. But yet again we know that in this case it is explicitly not so. The court investigated that avenue and stated it's completely plausible reasoning in not following what they stated their wishes are.

No one is arguing that the courts are right because they're the courts. No one is having blind faith in the courts. You've made up your mind and refuse address the basic flaws in your argument. Your loaded words might make you feel better, but it's painfully transparent.

 

[banquetbear]

I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer.

After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.

...yet another fallacy from you. I'm pro police/court/judge and pro children/choice/non violence. I don't fit your "labels." And neither does anyone else. Further debate is pointless not because people won't change their minds: but because you see this as an issue where you need to "pick a side."

 

[Shiner]

In my day to day life, I'll go either way as far as Police/court/judge go, and I'm very much pro children/choice.

It's a pity not everyone can see that, as they say, we can lead the horse to water......

 

[Giordano]

Gee- I thought I was in the pro-fluffy kitten/pro-Nazi group.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I'll take a stab at that. The children should have been separated from the mother days before the departure and held incommunicado. They should have had some time with a child psychologist during that time, and the transfer to the airport and the boarding of the plane should have been done with the press kept completely in the dark.

This in no was absolves the mother of her horrible actions , of course (or the press, for that matter). I think that justice was served by repatriating the children, I just think it could have been served a bit better. I think that's what DreamingNiad is suggesting.

It is, thank you. Apparently it's dumb and unrealistic to some, though

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is, thank you. Apparently it's dumb and unrealistic to some, though

Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful.

So yes it is dumb and unrealistic.