4 girls dragged kicking/screaming onto aircraft after Australian judge rules they return to father

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

No offense mate but you are showing a clear anti-mother stance. You have accused others of being sexist, yet that is exactly what you are doing yourself.



She clearly is being sexist by asserting that mothers should be automatically awarded custody of girls.

In child custody cases, the children's interests are paramount. Not the mother's and not the father's.




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by oasisjack

Italian courts will generally choose their country men over any other nationality no matter what the evidence shows just ask amanda knox.


Amanda Knox was an American who was accused of murdering a British girl so I'm not quite sure what you are driving at.

What relevance does an Italian criminal case involving an American accused and a British victim have to do with this case?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I only presented a possible logical alternative viewpoint.

You're the woman hater blaming everything on the woman.


I take it the female Australian judge who agrees with my assessment is a women hater as well?

Furthermore, I only blame the mother for having abducted four children from their father and making up lies that she couldn't substantiate in court that the father was an abuser.

The real victims here are the children and the father.

I am surprised that you can not see that.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Okay so the father had full custody in the first place? Then the mother basically keeps the children after being aloud to see her? Am I right?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by smilesmcgee
reply to post by ollncasino
 


The kids don't care what is legal.. they want to be with their mother because of that special bond. Kids are adaptable.
That being said, it is probably better for them to be with the father at this point.

But I forsee a lot of resentment from the children towards the father for forcing them to leave mom behind.

I don't blame them.. I'd rather live in Austrailia over Italy as well.


They're too old for dad's opinion, mom's opinion, a judge's opinion OR YOUR OPINION. It's what they want that counts.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee

I only presented a possible logical alternative viewpoint.

You're the woman hater blaming everything on the woman.


I take it the female Australian judge who agrees with my assessment is a women hater as well?


That's stupid.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Yeah - kinda what I was thinking. I wasn't being sexist - - - more old world culture.


Don't fall for it mate - a certain poster is trying to paint others as sexist in order to cover up his/her own sexist views on this subject.

It's as clear as day to me, and extremely poor form.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Don't fall for it mate - a certain poster is trying to paint others as sexist in order to cover up his/her own sexist views on this subject.

It's as clear as day to me, and extremely poor form.


This case is about the interests of the children and the consequent right of the father to enforce his right of custody as awarded by the original Italian family law court.

It isn't about sexism.

Bear in mind that the Australian family law judge who returned the children to the father was herself a women hence accusations of sexism are inappropriate.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

It isn't about sexism.


I really wish I could believe you, but your words speak differently.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Y didnt the dad fly to Australia n get them...? I would have got them after a week, then took the mother back to Italy with me n eliminate her existence....



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Don't fall for it mate - a certain poster is trying to paint others as sexist in order to cover up his/her own sexist views on this subject.

It's as clear as day to me, and extremely poor form.


We clearly have a difference in perceptions.

I personally perceive this case as one turning on the interests of the children and the consequent right of the father who was awarded custody on that basis to enforce his right of custody against his wife who abducted the children.

You appear, on the other hand, to prefer to frame this case in terms of sexism.

While such a feminist analytical framework is not intellectually dishonest, it does bring with it certain inherent biases, including the assumption that women are victims of male sexism.

In this case, the real victims have been the children and the father who has had to fight for 2 years at considerable emotional and financial cost to enforce the custody of his children.

If you prefer to see this case as turning on sexism rather than the best interests of the children, then so be it. I however respectfully disagree.

edit on 6-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

If you prefer to see this case as turning on sexism rather than the best interests of the children, then so be it. I however respectfully disagree.


You are twisting my words. Very poor form.


What I said was: You are accusing others in this thread of being sexist and yet it is actually you who are being sexist and accusing others of it in order to cover that up - and failing dismally.

Do I need to make that any clearer?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Gotta go with the girls on this. HIDING from their father??? Proof of physical abuse.....hmmmm.....seems the court might be wrong on this. I tell you what, I was raised in foster care since the age of three. The court was wrong MANY times!
edit on 6-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
Gotta go with the girls on this. HIDING from their father??? Proof of physical abuse.....hmmmm.....seems the court might be wrong on this. I tell you what, I was raised in foster care since the age of three. The court was wrong MANY times!


Courts can be wrong but I'm not sure the wrong decision has been made in this case.

The mother hid the children with their maternal grandmother in contravention of an Australian court order to return them.

The Australian court found that the girls had initially stated their desire to return to their father in Italy. Furthermore the court also found that only after they had been influenced by their mother and those around them did they no longer wish to return to their father.

The court also found that the girls loved their father.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Gridrebel
Gotta go with the girls on this. HIDING from their father??? Proof of physical abuse.....hmmmm.....seems the court might be wrong on this. I tell you what, I was raised in foster care since the age of three. The court was wrong MANY times!


Courts can be wrong but I'm not sure the wrong decision has been made in this case.

The mother hid the children with their maternal grandmother in contravention of an Australian court order to return them.

The Australian court found that the girls had initially stated their desire to return to their father in Italy. Furthermore the court also found that only after they had been influenced by their mother and those around them did they no longer wish to return to their father.

The court also found that the girls loved their father.










So the "dragged, kicking and screaming is ????? It appears you might have been wronged in a domestic dispute. You can't take it out on these girls. They loved their father, uum okay. That doesn't mean they want to live with him. All I'm saying is the hiding, the dragging, kicking and screaming says a lot. I loved my dad to pieces. I did NOT want to live with him. He was a drunk and a pervert. I STILL LOVED HIM.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

What I said was: You are accusing others in this thread of being sexist and yet it is actually you who are being sexist and accusing others of it in order to cover that up - and failing dismally.



Again, you frame this debate in terms of sexism. This case is about the best interests of the children, not that of the mother.

My only accusation of sexist bias has been directed at a poster who stated that mothers should automatically be awarded custody of girls.


Originally posted by nixie_nox

Girls should be kept with their mothers, especially a girl at the very awkward age of 15, who is developing, most certainly should be, and is better off in Austrailia than the male dominated society of Italy.


Clearly, the above statement is sexist against fathers who would be denied custody on the basis of their biological sex, not on the basis of their fitness as a parent.

To point that out does not amount to sexism against women. To accuse me of sexism on that basis, as you have done, does suggest that you are employing an underlying feminist analytical framework in which women are assumed to be victims of male sexism.

I believe that family law custody cases should turn on the best interests of the children. While I admire your single minded pursuit of the mother's right in this case, I conversely believe that the children's rights should be paramount.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

It appears you might have been wronged in a domestic dispute. You can't take it out on these girls.


No, I have not been. I have no axe to grind.


Originally posted by Gridrebel

I loved my dad to pieces. I did NOT want to live with him. He was a drunk and a pervert. I STILL LOVED HIM.


I am sorry to hear that your father was a drunk and a pervert.

Nonetheless, no one has accused the father in this case of being a drunk and a pervert.

The Australian court found that the girls had originally expressed the desire to return to their father after being abducted, but only after being influenced by their mother and those around them (including the maternal grandmother who hid them from the Australian authorities) did they prefer to stay with their mother.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
i think the point that most people are seeing here is that the girls choice, obvious choice, is to remain with their mother. they are all old enough to express their wishes. the fact that they've been clearly against going back to their father should be of paramount importance.

personally, after reading the little that's available to read, i would order the parents to find a way to get along for their girls sake. i realise this can be difficult for a lot of couples, but if they were TRULY thinking about their children, this is what they'd do.

selfish parents, manipulative parents, ... they have no place in the interests of these children.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

So the "dragged, kicking and screaming is ????? It appears you might have been wronged in a domestic dispute. You can't take it out on these girls. They loved their father, uum okay. That doesn't mean they want to live with him. All I'm saying is the hiding, the dragging, kicking and screaming says a lot. I loved my dad to pieces. I did NOT want to live with him. He was a drunk and a pervert. I STILL LOVED HIM.


the "dragging, kicking and screaming can say a lot. the problem is what does it mean? it could mean that they are scared of their father, but that still leaves everything in the shadows as to what it means. does it mean that they have been abused by the father? or does it mean that the grandmother and mother have "programmed" that fear into them? keep in mind that the grandmother and mother had 2 years to achieve this. cults can do this in rather short time with adults, how much resistance do young impressionable children have to this especially since the "programmers" in this case are the mother and grandmother? people that they would trust implicitly. i know i believed my parents. and with the father not being able to see them since they were "in hiding", he would not be able to counter it. that is the biggest issue here. at this point what the girls think is a moot point due to the possibility of being programmed against the father.

sadly IF the father is an abuser and something happens to those girls then unfortunately the fault lies with the mother. first she should have worked within the system. i am sure Italy like many countries has government sponsored help for abused people. if not there would likely be private citizens doing it, that she should have turned to for help. along with pursuing the matter through the courts. heck go to the media, get the story out there, even use the net to seek help. only after every legal option is use should she use the "run and hide" card. at that point as soon as she was ENTERING Australia she should have gone to the immigration officers (every international airport has them). and ask for asylum. i have to think none of this was done as it would have helped to back up the mother's claim of abuse, at this point tho i would have to speculate that the ABUSERS are actually the MOTHER and grandmother.

can you really see an abuser GIVING PERMISSION to take the kids to another country, for a vacation? that seems to go against what i know of an abuser. normally wouldn't an abuser fight tooth and nail to stop them from leaving and possibly escaping? it seems to me abusers are normally stalker types that have to know every movement of their family members and generally don't like them going across town forget about halfway around the world. and yet we are told that this supposed abuser GAVE PERMISSION.

i had a family friend who had something similar happen. it was THE ABUSER that KIDNAPPED the child to another country. food for thought.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyteeny
i think the point that most people are seeing here is that the girls choice, obvious choice, is to remain with their mother. they are all old enough to express their wishes. the fact that they've been clearly against going back to their father should be of paramount importance.


I'm not sure your analysis is consistent with the known facts.

The court found that the girls did express their wish to return to their father after they were abducted and that they did and still do love their father.

Only after being influenced by their mother and others around them, according to the court, did they change their mind.

Incidentally, the girls are aged from 9 to 15. While their wishes should be taken into account, children are easy to manipulate, hence courts are reluctant to allow children's wishes be the only factor taken into account in custody cases.

edit on 6-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join