• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Australian "custody sisters"

Has there been a review of their actions yet? If not, not commenting would be prudent.

They are on the record stating categorically that they advised the mother that s permanent relocation to Australia would only be legal with the explicit permission of the fathe. The judge rulling on this case sated that there is "no evidence" that consular staff knowingly did anything illigal.
 
They are on the record stating categorically that they advised the mother that s permanent relocation to Australia would only be legal with the explicit permission of the fathe. The judge rulling on this case sated that there is "no evidence" that consular staff knowingly did anything illigal.

Except that they gave her one way tickets and changed the flight time so he couldn't show up to do anything. Seems shady.
 
if the argument is that the mother did not kniwingly break the law, how do you account for the second illigal disappearance of the girls?

Note what I said: "at that time," meaning at the time she left Italy with her daughters.

Certainly she came to realize she was on the wrong side of the law. My point is that the embassy helped put her on the wrong side of the law. Now she has lost her kids, lots of people here are saying she deserves it because she's a criminal and a villain, but nobody is examining the role and the conduct of the authorities. And very few in this group care what the kids have to say. They're just hysterical children who will cry over anything. They don't really suffer the way us grown-ups would if we were dragged out of our home by the police and taken from the person we love most in life. It's no different than if they didn't get ice cream after dinner.
 
They are on the record stating categorically that they advised the mother that s permanent relocation to Australia would only be legal with the explicit permission of the fathe. The judge rulling on this case sated that there is "no evidence" that consular staff knowingly did anything illigal.

They sure as hell wouldn't go on the record when 60 Minutes tried to ask them about it.
 
The kids were screaming and crying more than the mother.

Do you think that deep down inside, they really want to be with their father in Italy, and they were only putting on an act?
I didn't even have to read your next post to know that you're not a parent.
Kids pick up on things very quickly - if they know that a parent wants them to act a certain way, and its to their advantage (extra treats afterwards, a chance to impress their mates - ooh look, TV cameras!!) they will generally do it. They generally don't think about the long-term consequences, and their limited experience of life means they accept what a parent tells them.
What I saw was disgusting manipulation of young children.
 
I didn't even have to read your next post to know that you're not a parent.
Kids pick up on things very quickly - if they know that a parent wants them to act a certain way, and its to their advantage (extra treats afterwards, a chance to impress their mates - ooh look, TV cameras!!) they will generally do it.

I know a few adults who are like that too.

But you're right, I'm not a parent. I'm not up to the job of telling these cunning little monsters what they really think or feel, or slapping them down when they pretend to suffer.
 
Again, your emotional involvement makes a sensible debate with you difficult, and your reading comprehension isn't the best either, but let me comment on this. If you have a look at my user profile you will see my age. I've made it clear in many posts that I have a lot of kids and am part of a large family. My work also puts me in direst contact with many mothers. This "clear" comment is as "clear" as many of others you have made, that is, not at all.

The hatred you display for the mother in question is quite telling.

The willingness with which you invent fictional justification for the mother's actions is even more telling. Other than my obvious personal history in such affairs you have been unable to even address (let alone rebut) my argument on it's merits. Instead you say "oh you're just too emotional I can't talk to you". That's not an argument, that's just a dodge.

You seem pretty invested in the image of heroic mothers doing anything to protect their children, yet 5 children die per day in the US due to abuse and neglect, and statistically they are more likely to be abused by their mother. Do I think all mothers are child abusers? Certainly not. Most are loving caregivers. But guess what, so are fathers.

Your assertion that children are better off with their mother than with their father is baseless. Either or both might be excellent caregivers. Either or both may be selfish, manipulative, neglectful or abusive. Gender has not been found to be a predictor of parental fitness.

Your assertion that this may have been a "rescue" is also baseless. There is nothing to indicate it was anything other than using the children as pawns in an ugly divorce.

Finally, I have no hatred for this woman, only contempt for her actions. She is in desperate need of mental health intervention, and now her children are as well.

You will note that I have never suggested that she lose her children. I think children are best served by having access to both parents. Interesting thing about that opinion is that I share it in common with most developmental psychologists, social workers, and child welfare advocates. What do you have? Some experience with other mothers you've known who think their ex husbands are worthless?
 
Strangely, another poster in this thread agreed with me. I guess the "facts" weren't quite as clear as you thought.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, you can find more than one person who believes in Bigfoot/Fairies/Abstinence Only Education. That doesn't give any of these beliefs a better foundation in reality.

Almost all internet discussions end up with a handful arguing each position.
 
Strangely, another poster in this thread agreed with me. I guess the "facts" weren't quite as clear as you thought.

Formal logic isn't subject to vote. Same with arithmetic. Just because you and one other person don't see your flawed premise doesn't make it suddenly true.
 
You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.

Because if it was not illegal she could just go tell the authorities the reason for the kidnapping, they would take care of it in the appropriate manner, and it would then cease to be a kidnapping.

Therefore, again, you must be saying it is justified and illegal, both at the same time.

And it follows from that that you must be saying that the current law is unjust.

Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.

Wow.

It was dead on, and that's all you have?

Please explain exactly which part of this breakdown is even close to faulty:

Your claim:



Examining your claim:




Literally the only way your claim is logical is if you believe the current law is not just.

This is because if the current law is just, then she could just tell the authorities and it would cease to be kidnapping.

Again, if you are not claiming that the current law is unjust, your claim becomes illogical.

Turning this round, your implied claim here is that a just law can never have unjust consequences. Is that what you believe?

"Turning this around" implies no such thing. This is an example of equivocation and sloppy definitions. Please address how kidnapping can be both illegal and justified.
 
Sigh. I'll try again: it doesn't matter to the children which one, if either, is "good" or "bad". What matters to them is which one they want to be with. You may be the sort of person who would insist they be miserable because you have judged one parent worthy and the other "evil and horrible". I wouldn't. I'd leave the kids with whichever parent they wanted to stay with. Even if they pick the "bad" one.

Does that apply to just parents? What if I went to say India... walked into a home and stole someones child and took it with me? With in months, depending on age of the child I could 1) Give it a better material life (including health care) then it would have ever known.... and 2) Have the child completely turned against the parents.... it's just that easy with children.

Is that scenario still ok with you? Or do biological parents only have the right to kidnap?
 
I'm not interested in bickering with you. Please feel free to use your imagination with regard to the silly question you ask.

If you feel that supporting your argument is "bickering" then you are in the wrong forum.

ETA; Feel free to use the "Ignore" feature.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this, notwithstanding the legalities. We're not talking about babies here, and I'm convinced that they will move back to Australia as soon as they are old enough.

Would you have the same opinion if the women was not a parent at all? Lets say the women traveled to Italy to attempt to kidnap children for herself and took these girls from their parents? Does it matter then?
 
"Turning this around" implies no such thing. This is an example of equivocation and sloppy definitions. Please address how kidnapping can be both illegal and justified.

So is it just kidnapping that cannot be illegal and justified? Or are you extending this to any crime?

If so, you're saying that no criminal act can ever be justified.

If not, why not? What is so unique about kidnapping that makes it impossible to justify?
 
I agree, and one thing is for certain. That father has taken steps to make sure that his daughters hate him, and will hate him for the rest of their lives.

Why their kids? I could have marching with Fred Phelps if you gave me enough time.
 
Your speculations are a bit wilder and a bit more salacious, since a repeated feature of your speculations is underage girls and their boyfriends, but there's no law against you enjoying those speculations.

Pathetic and ridiculously uncalled for.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom