ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags child custody , human rights , international law

Reply
Old 22nd February 2013, 06:47 PM   #241
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
Has anyone actually said she was right to abscond with the children? Or have people just been saying their removal from Australia was unnecessarily violent?
Many have said that it was wrong to return them to their father. I'm not certain how this is different than approving of kidnapping as no one has been able to clarify that point. Maybe they believe that there should be an 18 month statute of limitations? If you get the child and keep him away from his or her parent for 18 months you win?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 06:50 PM   #242
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Sweetie, it's the weekend. And there's not a damn bit of point in arguing further. Everybody's already decided what they think and refused to consider otherwise.
Yes, principles are suspended on weekends, just like parental rights are suspended when someone manages to kidnap a child. Finders keepers? Possession is nine tenths? You snooze you lose? Something like that?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 06:57 PM   #243
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Are you saying I'm anti-father? You couldn't be more wrong.

It looks like you were on the wrong end of a custody dispute, and if so, you have my sympathies. But I can disagree with you without warranting a label, as much as labels (like kidnapper and unfit mother) are popular in this thread.
It seems that pretty early on you alluded to the idea that the mother is the more fit parent. I don't know if I misread you there but I haven't seen anything you've said to distance yourself from that position.

And no, I was on the right end of a custody dispute (thank you for your sympathies just the same). I am in a position where I could legally terminate all of my ex's parental rights but I don't because I recognize that it would not be to my son's benefit. I have a great many reasons to hate his mother but I have managed to put those aside for the sake of a child. I'm wondering why there is no recognition that this is the best arrangement for the children when a mother takes the kids.

Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Suppose the father was living in Australia and then snatched the kids and brought them to Italy? Would you have felt so negatively towards the mother winning her children back in the Italian courts?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 07:17 PM   #244
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
There is a hell of a lot of assuming going on, here.
Yep

Many people are assuming that they know all about this family; assuming that the father is blameless in any of this; assuming that the mother is unfit.

Yes, a lot of assuming is going on alright.
__________________
OCCAMS Razor - 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists organised by Osama Bin Laden; the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.
► "Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition." - JayUtah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 07:18 PM   #245
katy_did
Graduate Poster
 
katy_did's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You can be happy with bad people and unhappy with good. Thats why I would let the kids decide rather than rule on the merits of which parent followed the rules the most.
The problem is that what the kids want and what is in their best interests aren't necessarily the same thing. That's not to say their wishes shouldn't factor into the decision in a major way, and I think the court took that into account. For example, the judge seemed to imply that if he'd only been making a decision on the two older kids, he may have allowed them to stay on the grounds that they were nearly old enough to decide for themselves anyway, but that he had to make a single decision for all the children as neither party wanted to separate them. So he had to balance the best interests of the younger children, who still had a large portion of their childhood ahead of them, with the stated wishes of the older ones. At least the younger kids will now have a chance to rebuild their relationship with their father, even if too much damage has been done for the older ones to ever restore that bond.

To me it looks like the court decision took into account the children's specific circumstances and their wishes, as well as the possible implications for other abducted children if Australia were to ignore the Hague Convention on this one case (which the court could however have done if there were exceptional reasons for them to stay). In contrast, as joesixpack has said, the argument they should've been allowed to stay seems mainly based on the emotional scene where they were taken to the airport, not on a consideration of all the circumstances in their entirety. Which of course, is exactly the reaction the mother and her family were hoping for.
__________________
"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".
katy_did is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 07:40 PM   #246
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yep

Many people are assuming that they know all about this family; assuming that the father is blameless in any of this; assuming that the mother is unfit.

Yes, a lot of assuming is going on alright.
There is evidence of the mother's unfitness: she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence of the father's unfitness.
No assumptions there, just statements of fact.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 07:47 PM   #247
slow lurker
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
I don't know if anyone else has seen the 60 Minutes program on the case? It has interviews with the father and with the mother's family. I just watched it and it's...revealing, let's say.
Thank you.
Very interesting.

There is a lot of hurt for all, no matter the final outcome.
slow lurker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 08:19 PM   #248
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
There is evidence of the mother's unfitness: she kidnapped the children.
Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 08:22 PM   #249
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,237
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No, its not not hard to grasp, but without knowing the family circumstances, we should not even be attempting to make judgements about the fitness of the mother. No-one on this forum knows the detailed circumstances of this family, and if they claim they do, then they are lying!

Making your children safe from harm might include having to remove them from the person harming them, and that might include kidnapping them. You do what you have to do!
And yet when push came to shove she didn't bother telling the courts that as a reason to get the return order overturned. So I guess that means she's in on it, or that this whole "daddy is a child molester" thing is just apologia on your part for whatever strange reason you happen to hold.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff

Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 08:28 PM   #250
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,026
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit.
The mother kidnapped the kids and held them hostage for two years. She's made it clear that she wanted this to become a media circus and trained the kids specifically for that.

The father has as yet done nothing wrong that anyone knows of.

By the evidence, the mother is less fit than the father.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 08:38 PM   #251
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Less fit for what?

She defied a court. That doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.

ETA "Hostage"??? Some are really letting their emotions get out of control.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 22nd February 2013 at 08:40 PM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 08:57 PM   #252
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.
The fact is she kidnapped the children. It is not personal bias. It is fact. It has nothing to do with her motives. By the definition of 'kidnapped' that is what she did.
That is the evidence of her unfitness.
What there is not evidence of is the father's unfitness.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:01 PM   #253
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Less fit for what?

She defied a court. That doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.
ETA "Hostage"??? Some are really letting their emotions get out of control

You are indeed, doing that when you replace 'kidnapped' (which is founded in fact) with 'rescued' (which is founded in unsubstantiated emotion)
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:05 PM   #254
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,972
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I don't see where all this BS about her being an unfit mother comes from when we don''t even know either the family or personal circumstances of these people.

Scenario:
Two separate families have similar circumstances; the parents are separated and the father has custody of all the daughters. Recently, the oldest daughters in each family have finally confided to their mothers that her fathers been sexually abusing them for many years, and are now turning their interests towards the next oldest daughters.

In Family "A" both the mother and the oldest daughter are afraid that the pattern will continue with the younger daughter, so they formulate a and execute a plan to get all the daughters away from the father and to safety in another country.

In Family "B". the mother tells the daughter she is a liar, and she carries on in denial of what she can see has been happening right in front of her for many years.

Who's the unfit mother now, A or B?

Now I'm not saying that this is what is happening with THIS family, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios that fits the picture, especially with the two oldest daughters being the most upset about having to go back to their father.


This is insane.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:06 PM   #255
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
The fact is she kidnapped the children. It is not personal bias. It is fact. It has nothing to do with her motives. By the definition of 'kidnapped' that is what she did.
That is the evidence of her unfitness.
What there is not evidence of is the father's unfitness.
And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so. And her motives are certainly relevant. If the mother thought, based on the feelings of her children, that she was doing the right thing by them, how does that make her an unfit mother?

She defied a court order. That doesn't in any way make her an unfit mother.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:07 PM   #256
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
You are indeed, doing that when you replace 'kidnapped' (which is founded in fact) with 'rescued' (which is founded in unsubstantiated emotion)
My comment was related to the children being held hostage. Do you think they were?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:28 PM   #257
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so. And her motives are certainly relevant. If the mother thought, based on the feelings of her children, that she was doing the right thing by them, how does that make her an unfit mother?

She defied a court order. That doesn't in any way make her an unfit mother.
What if the moon is made of green cheese?
I was talking of what there is evidence for.
There is evidence that the mother is unfit, since she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence that the father is unfit.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:30 PM   #258
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
My comment was related to the children being held hostage. Do you think they were?
My comment was related to your replacing 'kidnapped' with 'rescued'.
That is based on emotion, which you found undesirable from another poster, but seem happy to indulge in yourself
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:36 PM   #259
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
What if the moon is made of green cheese?
I was talking of what there is evidence for.
There is evidence that the mother is unfit, since she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence that the father is unfit.
Again, completely wrong. The mother's action do not ipso facto make her an unfit mother. Your claim, prove it.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:36 PM   #260
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Nope. One person's kidnapped is another person's rescued.

You have absolutely no evidence that the mother is unfit. I don't know of any mother who wouldn't do what she thought was in the best interests of her children, courts notwithstanding. You are dealing in personal bias not fact.
And what was she rescuing her children from exactly? Do you have some evidence that the Australian courts didn't have about the horrible sort of person their father was?

You suggest that it's plausible that she was rescuing her children from abuse therefore it must be so?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 09:43 PM   #261
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post

You suggest that it's plausible that she was rescuing her children from abuse therefore it must be so?
I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:17 PM   #262
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Again, completely wrong. The mother's action do not ipso facto make her an unfit mother. Your claim, prove it.
Why is it that you don't have to prove that the father is unfit? We're supposed to just accept that? Did you read the Australian judge's decision?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:21 PM   #263
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Again, completely wrong. The mother's action do not ipso facto make her an unfit mother. Your claim, prove it.
It is proven by the fact that she kidnapped the children.
That is not to say she is totally unfit: there are degrees of unfitness. But kidnapping the children is a start.
Unfit she is, and there is no evidence of the father's unfitness.

Last edited by kerikiwi; 22nd February 2013 at 10:36 PM.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:23 PM   #264
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.
It has been pretty clearly proven that she broke the laws of both Australia and Italy, and that she has actively alienated the children from their father. At the same time, given ample opportunity, she has produced not one single reason as to why the father should be denied access to his children.

You are only defending a fictionalized version of this woman. The real one is a kidnapper.

Please provide some evidence that her actions were a rescue and not a kidnapping.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:29 PM   #265
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Why is it that you don't have to prove that the father is unfit? We're supposed to just accept that? Did you read the Australian judge's decision?
I haven't been talking about the father. I didn't say he was unfit, I have been countering the argument that the mother is unfit because, and only because, she tried to keep her daughters. I have seen no evidence of this.

Do you realise that this story is months old? Soon enough the older girls will be able to decide where to live. My money's on them deciding on the mother.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:36 PM   #266
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I haven't been talking about the father. I didn't say he was unfit,
The **** you say. You are the one who suggested that they were "rescued"
Quote:
I have been countering the argument that the mother is unfit because, and only because, she tried to keep her daughters
...from ever seeing their father." You should have finished that sentence.
Quote:
. I have seen no evidence of this.
Because you haven't made an honest effort. Simply read the judge's decision posted above. It's based on evidence.
Quote:

Do you realise that this story is months old? Soon enough the older girls will be able to decide where to live. My money's on them deciding on the mother.
My money's on them realizing what a bat**** crazy mother they have once they become adults and/or have spent some time in therapy. Any connection that they maintain with her will be out of pity.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:49 PM   #267
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
The **** you say. You are the one who suggested that they were "rescued" ...from ever seeing their father." You should have finished that sentence.
Because you haven't made an honest effort. Simply read the judge's decision posted above. It's based on evidence.


My money's on them realizing what a bat**** crazy mother they have once they become adults and/or have spent some time in therapy. Any connection that they maintain with her will be out of pity.
You are too emotionally involved to have a sensible debate with at the moment. All of these comments are questionable, to say the least. If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I never said the mother rescued the girls from the father. And ******* crazy mother? That's a reasonable way to continue a debate?

I think I'll leave you with your absolute certainties. At least some others see shades of grey.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:50 PM   #268
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,536
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Yes, principles are suspended on weekends, just like parental rights are suspended when someone manages to kidnap a child. Finders keepers? Possession is nine tenths? You snooze you lose? Something like that?
Not all. What I meant was, I'm not going to be responding very much or looking at this site every ten minutes to continue arguing with you because it's the weekend and I have other things to do, so addressing me personally and demanding I answer you will avail you naught.

But by all means, continue arguing with the strawman version of what you think I said, if it entertains you.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:02 PM   #269
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,489
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
The problem is that what the kids want and what is in their best interests aren't necessarily the same thing.
Do you really think that what was done to them last fall was in their best interest? You'll never convince me. I don't even think the court system believes they served the best interest of the kids. They saw it as fulfilling the requirements of the law, under which the father has rights, and the kids don't.

Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
That's not to say their wishes shouldn't factor into the decision in a major way, and I think the court took that into account. For example, the judge seemed to imply that if he'd only been making a decision on the two older kids, he may have allowed them to stay
Hmmm. They were dragged kicking and screaming from their home against their wishes, they were separated from their mother against their wishes, they were flown to the other side of the planet against their wishes, and they were put under the control of their father against their wishes. But the judge "seemed to imply" something or other, which proves that he cares about their wishes and that he really and truly factored their wishes into his decision.

Really?

Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
on the grounds that they were nearly old enough to decide for themselves anyway, but that he had to make a single decision for all the children as neither party wanted to separate them. So he had to balance the best interests of the younger children, who still had a large portion of their childhood ahead of them, with the stated wishes of the older ones. At least the younger kids will now have a chance to rebuild their relationship with their father, even if too much damage has been done for the older ones to ever restore that bond.

To me it looks like the court decision took into account the children's specific circumstances and their wishes, as well as the possible implications for other abducted children if Australia were to ignore the Hague Convention on this one case (which the court could however have done if there were exceptional reasons for them to stay). In contrast, as joesixpack has said, the argument they should've been allowed to stay seems mainly based on the emotional scene where they were taken to the airport, not on a consideration of all the circumstances in their entirety. Which of course, is exactly the reaction the mother and her family were hoping for.
Perhaps. But the police played into her hand with great enthusiasm, wouldn't you say?

"We are the police! You are UNDER ARREST!"

Everyone in this saga has made choices, and that was their choice - to wrestle hysterical children to the ground in front of a news camera.

That wasn't scripted by the mother, or the kids, or the crazy grandmother.

BTW, I watched the 60 Minutes episode; thanks for the link. It largely confirmed what I already knew or suspected about the people involved. What I hadn't realized was the extent to which the Australian embassy abetted this drama. That is interesting.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:11 PM   #270
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,489
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
And yet when push came to shove she didn't bother telling the courts that as a reason to get the return order overturned. So I guess that means she's in on it, or that this whole "daddy is a child molester" thing is just apologia on your part for whatever strange reason you happen to hold.
Take a look at the 60 Minutes clip Katy linked. The kids' mother - at the cost of making a liar out of her own mother - drew a line on this, and made it clear she does not think the father would sexually abuse the kids.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 02:39 AM   #271
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,237
And that makes what smartcooky said even less likely.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff

Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 03:14 AM   #272
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Many have said that it was wrong to return them to their father. I'm not certain how this is different than approving of kidnapping as no one has been able to clarify that point. Maybe they believe that there should be an 18 month statute of limitations? If you get the child and keep him away from his or her parent for 18 months you win?
So the answer to my first question was no. People aren't saying they should be allowed to stay because what the mother did was ok. Only that the kids should have had some say. Your saying that because she dragged them half way around the world illegally that they should be dragged back in order to make things right. But it's not about the mother or the father, it's about the kids. And this incident was certainly not in their best interests psychologically.
DreamingNaiad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 03:44 AM   #273
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Re: The Australian "custody sisters"

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
Where in that post did I say this whole situation wasn't the mother's fault? Just because she started this chain of events doesn't mean the police handled it well. Or that the way the kids removal degenerated was entirely her fault. I've even already agreed that the court was right to remove the kids from her custody. She sounds unstable and untrustworthy and I doubt she'll get any unsupervised access after pulling this stunt.
What should they have done other than give up and let her keep the kids?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 03:49 AM   #274
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Re: The Australian "custody sisters"

Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
There is evidence of the mother's unfitness: she kidnapped the children.
There is no evidence of the father's unfitness.
No assumptions there, just statements of fact.
You are forgetting the obvious evidence of his unfitness, being a father instead of a mother.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 03:52 AM   #275
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Re: The Australian "custody sisters"

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Less fit for what?

She defied a court. That doesn't necessarily make her an unfit mother. Oh, and replace "rescued" for "kidnapped" and see how your post reads.

ETA "Hostage"??? Some are really letting their emotions get out of control.
Kids need to be raise by relatives that hate their ethnicity to make them know their worth. Lying scumbag Italians.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 03:54 AM   #276
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Re: The Australian "custody sisters"

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so. And her motives are certainly relevant. If the mother thought, based on the feelings of her children, that she was doing the right thing by them, how does that make her an unfit mother?

She defied a court order. That doesn't in any way make her an unfit mother.
At least she was doing everything she could to poison them against their father like all responsible parents.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 03:58 AM   #277
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Re: The Australian "custody sisters"

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'm not suggesting any such thing. My point is that the mother's actions do not make her unfit, as so many assume without any evidence at all.
So as kidnapping your kids blocking access and turning your kids against their other parent isn't evidence of being unfit what is?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 04:06 AM   #278
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,918
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
And what if the "kidnapping" is justified? There are certainly circumstances where this is so.

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.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 04:06 AM   #279
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
Re: The Australian "custody sisters"

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
So the answer to my first question was no. People aren't saying they should be allowed to stay because what the mother did was ok. Only that the kids should have had some say. Your saying that because she dragged them half way around the world illegally that they should be dragged back in order to make things right. But it's not about the mother or the father, it's about the kids. And this incident was certainly not in their best interests psychologically.
So whay do you think about pulling kids away from the only family they knew? Like the example of the mother winning in the courts against the father who took them to islamic countries? Clearly that is as wrong to tear them away from the only family they knew.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2013, 04:08 AM   #280
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,117
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
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.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.