|
|
Post by matt on Oct 4, 2012 12:31:25 GMT 10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2012 15:21:59 GMT 10
I haven't seen a picture like that since Evdokia Petrov was taken away by the KGB in 1955. That has to be illegal!
PS. What service do these "officers" belong to? they look like shopping centre security dudes out of their depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by tam on Oct 4, 2012 18:53:45 GMT 10
If this had been a man who illegally kept his daughters in another country whilst on a holiday instead of returning them at the right time who would you be feeling sorry for.
Kids should not be used as a tool between divorced parents.
I feel for the girls as they have made a life for themselves in the years they have been here.
None of this would have happened if they had been returned to their father at the right time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Oct 4, 2012 18:58:48 GMT 10
Agreed Tam, the mother shouldn't have done it. But then again, I feel, all things being equal/ok, children belong with their mother. Especially teenage girls. They should be with their mother, not their father. So I feel they should be able to stay. Kids shouldn't be used as a tool, but children will always belong with their mother. I feel the father should have taken the girls WISHES and needs on board. These girls will not greet at the other end with joy. They will grow to resent him. They will never forget that trauma (pics above). They will never forgive him. He should have taken into consideration the girls feelings. And then he should have let them go. Let them be here, with their mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Oct 4, 2012 18:59:16 GMT 10
all very sad
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 4, 2012 19:45:14 GMT 10
Salem, you are right. The mother and father should have sat down and come to an agreement because in the end the parents should have no "rights" when it comes to custody. I feel the only consideration the courts should have in disputes like these are the children. Sure, International Law was at issue here, and people were afraid about setting a "dangerous" precedent. However, that treaty does have exception clauses, and while in this case they might not have been relevant, the "danger" people spoke of was cases where fathers kidnap kids and take them to places like Pakistan. Reality is, in those cases, the exception clauses would come into question. Finally, one of the girls from what I have read is only 1 year away from turning 16, and the minute she does, the Hague Convention will not apply to her, meaning she will be free (if she is able to escape) to travel to Australia and live here. Whether she does or not is a different matter, perhaps she will stay in Italy to support her two younger sisters.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 5, 2012 5:26:34 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by tam on Oct 5, 2012 6:55:47 GMT 10
Caskur she can't make that decision until she is 16.
It will be interesting to see what they all do as they turn 16.
|
|
anon
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 95
|
Post by anon on Oct 5, 2012 17:25:20 GMT 10
I want to know where the judge gets off apparantly requiring the father to agree to not press charges against the mother if she returns to Italy. If she's broken the law of that country, which apparently she has, then why should she get off scott free. I'm sure the father would be facing the full force of the law if the roles had been reversed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 5, 2012 17:33:57 GMT 10
1 Kings 3; 16-28
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 5, 2012 21:30:42 GMT 10
Parallels here with the Gillespie case.
This is a shit sandwich for the kids. No matter how hard you try to frame laws in the area of family law so that the interests of the kids are paramount, nevertheless anomalies occur.
What happens in these international custody cases is that one of the parents acts in bad faith and, in effect, abducts the kids either through straight out kidnapping (not in this case) or abusing the trust of the other parent by getting him/her to agree to allow the kids to be taken out of the country - temporarily - only to find that what was agreed to be temporary in fact turns out to be permanent.
This is when the Hague Convention is invoked. There are no winners here. Only losers.
My kids are now in their 30s but when they were aged 10 and a little older their mother and the man in her life wanted to get married. He was American and the wedding was to take place in the US but they planned to live in Oz. It's complicated. It had to do with his visa. Anyhoo, the kids were supposed to go to their Mum's wedding and for good measure they were bribed with a trip to Disneyland. But in order for them to be able to go it needed my signature to demonstrate that I, the other parent, gave my consent to their leaving the country. There was no problem, I signed, the kids went, and came back in one piece. But what if it had all been a ruse to get the kids out of the country so that the newlyweds could then set up in California or wherever? I would have hit the roof and fought tooth and nail to get the kids back. And the law would have been on my side.
And that's the thing about families: you really are talking about the most visceral and tribal of relationships which is that between parents and children. Nobody wins in these circumstances: not the parents and certainly not the kids. In this case it appears that there had been some sort of trust between the parents which the mother then abused. A stupid thing to do. Utterly desperate and idiotic. In the court case she never tried to allege that the father was abusive or that he didn't love the children. There was something decent there which was worthwhile defending for the sake of the kids and which she turned to dirt. At least that's how it appears.
No schadenfreude, no "serves her right", no "good on him". Nobody "won", everybody lost. There's the tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Oct 6, 2012 9:56:44 GMT 10
If that were me and my child was taken... 1. I would move close to where they were and done things like offer to babysit, etc and 2. if I could not move, I would make sure there were plenty of phone calls and nice little mailed packages with interesting things inside... that is how I would do it but I certainly wouldn't give whacko courts and lawyers a dime of money fighting over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Oct 9, 2012 7:03:37 GMT 10
The father of four sisters ordered to return to Italy says he will consider moving back to Australia once the hysteria over their international custody battle dies down.
The Family Court in Brisbane last week ordered the four sisters be returned to their father in Italy after their mother brought them to Australia for a holiday in 2010 and never returned.
The father has now spoken to Nine News saying his girls are doing "well" and staying with cousins.
He said he would even consider returning to live in Australia so the girls could be near their mother once the media interest in their case dies down.
"The best interests of the children is to have a father and a mother, not only a mother or only a father," he said.
The father also said he held no hatred for his former wife.
The girls' great aunt in Australia released a video statement on Sunday saying their father was denying their mother the right to speak with them.
"The father has answered her phone calls, then immediately hung up on her, or he simply does not answer her calls. She rings constantly but to no avail," she said.
The father admitted this was true but said he wants his former wife to "calm down" first so the girls can adjust.
"If she calls the kids and get them all upset she ruins everything we're trying to do," he said.
"All four girls are now back together. They are doing well. They are relaxed."
The girls' mother had nothing to fear about coming back to Italy to visit the girls, the father said.
"I don't want to take the children away from their mother; both parents are equally important," he said.
"I hope their mother calms down."
Nine News filmed dramatic scenes outside the father's villa in Florence over the weekend where one of the girls begged a reporter to take her back to Australia.
The girls told reporter Sophie Walsh to "please save them'" and said that they had not been allowed to speak to their mother.
After the incident the father called for privacy to allow his daughters to adjust to being back in Italy.
The four sisters, aged nine to 15, were forcibly separated from their mother on the Sunshine Coast last Wednesday.
The two eldest girls arrived in Rome late on Friday night after being removed from the earlier flight their two younger sisters were on because of their highly emotional state.
The girls' family in Australia are preparing to lodge an official complaint about the actions of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Video footage of the moments AFP officers removed the girls from their mother's home shows the sisters kicking and screaming.
The situation follows a ruling by the Family Court in Brisbane that there were no exceptional circumstances allowing it to disregard Australia's obligations under the Hague Convention on child abduction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 8:43:37 GMT 10
I think the mother has really demonised the father and has done irreparable harm to the family. Maybe later when the girls are older they may be able to rationalise what's happened and to have a loving relationship with their father again.
I really don't know why these women do it. It's not something I would do - to use the kids as a weapon against the ex husband. When my marriage broke up - no matter how much I loathed my husband - there was no way I would deny him a relationship with the kids. He was their father - he loved them and they loved him. He was as much an influence in their lives as I was - as it should be.
But these women who use their kids in this way are so destructive and so vengeful. The victims are not only the husband, but the kids as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Oct 9, 2012 9:42:31 GMT 10
What did she say about him Stellar, I haven't read any demonic comments made by her about her husband, only something to the effect that the whole village has been poisoned against her.
Although it would be sad to separate the sisters, I do think the two older girls should have been allowed to choose which parent they would live with. We don't know how the wife was treated by her husband, but the two older girls would know.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Oct 9, 2012 10:57:27 GMT 10
When my marriage broke up my ex had little to do with his kids and for the past 2 years has had nothing to do with them. I have never stopped him seeing them, it has all been his choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2012 10:57:53 GMT 10
Please note Sonex, I did say "I think ...."
It is my opinion and you have your opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 9, 2012 11:39:39 GMT 10
Hard to talk about these things dispassionately since so many of us have been through divorces where we've had to sort out questions of who the kids live with, what sort of access the other parent gets, how much maintenance is payable ... and so on and so forth. We don't really know what went on between the two parents and I confess to being puzzled by the older girls not being given a choice. Thank goodness these things aren't decided on discussion boards. The best people to work it all out would have been the parents of course, and the tragedy is that this proved impossible. Which is why we have courts and international treaties regarding the issue of parents acting in bad faith and abducting children to a different part of the world. I can understand the mother's anguish and grief. And who knows, maybe the situation with the girls in Italy is so delicate right now that a hysterical phone call from the mother would prove destructive. Who of us here really knows what's going on? Here's a site for the Hague Convention as it relates to Child Abduction www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=21 |
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Oct 9, 2012 11:58:15 GMT 10
Thanks for the link Pim.
Excerpt:
"Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that -
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views."
I think that there is no doubt that (b) definitely applies in this particular situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 9, 2012 12:33:28 GMT 10
Facts are...The mother was in the wrong and she was the one to break the law, she had free access to the childtren and it was she who broke the trust she had with the husband / father, and probably why the courts ruled custody to the father in the first place, she seems to be somewhat selfish, and he reads like a reasonable person who is considering a return to Australia which will help the mother and kids.
Stupid women caused a whole lot of drama that wasn't necessary...in my opinion..
|
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Oct 9, 2012 13:02:48 GMT 10
Yes of course Spindrift, your remarks are quite correct, but we do not know the reasons why she left her husband, they may have been very good. The two older girls were so vehement in their refusal to return to the father, one wonders why.
Welcome to the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Oct 9, 2012 18:56:43 GMT 10
Totally agree with Sonex here. Why would the girls be so AFRAID of their father? It wasn't just that they didn't want to leave their mother and friends, anyone can see that there was *something else* there. They seemed GENUINELY AFFRAID. They seemed absolutely TERRIFIED, in fact, of returning. I think the father is very manipulative. Playing the cool one, 'shes's the crazy one' etc, etc. No. Its all an 'act'. I wonder if he'd ever allow the mother to speak to her children. He seems slimy and smarmy to me. Putting on a 'good parent' act. Notice how it says the girls are staying with their COUSINS? They don't what to have anything to do with him. No, something about this stinks to high heaven. Upset, yeah. But....THAT hysterical reaction? Come on! If you're a mum you'll put 2 and 2 together. Even a if you're a woman you will pick up on it. Those children were clinging to RAILS and SCREAMING. In terror. Their reaction was.....something of genuine fear. The reaction was not normal at all. I think this is a lot more than just not wanting to leaving mum. Was it a holiday, or a planned ESCAPE from their father? There is something far more sinister here, their terrified screams and terror and horror says something else went on/is going on. I tell you, that father truly needs to be investigated.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Oct 9, 2012 18:58:11 GMT 10
Yes agreed.....something isn't right.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 9, 2012 20:03:13 GMT 10
Sonex...(thanx for the welcome,,,being a newbie I'm new to this caper...  ),.. one doesn't know the reasons for the divorce, it happens, its complex...consider that the kids were born in Italy and the Italian courts gave joint custody in the divorce. The women and the ex were married for quite some time and their married life was in Italy, she could have stayed in Italy to be with the girls and have shared custody. It was the women who kidnapped the girls and then demonised the husband by saying he was a drunk and abusive to the kids, and had to save them from him, all of which is untrue....and she turned the girls against him, the Italain courts much the same as here do not give custody of children to a abusive drunk. He allowed the kids to holiday in Australia and that doesn't read like some ogre when also he suggest that he is prepared to move to Australia for the girls...reads like a caring, considerate and loving father...and she and her actions are selfish and possesive. |
|
|
|
Post by tam on Oct 9, 2012 20:13:35 GMT 10
Those kids had lived here for 2yrs. They had made friends, the eldest had a boyfriend.
They were collected and put on planes without saying goodbye to anyone. God knows what poison their mother put in their head in that time.
The young ones are asking to go back to school already and the father has taken them somewhere safe to get away from the Australian media.
He is agreeable to the mother having contact with them further down the track when they have settled.
He is even be willing for her to go back and live in Italy and have input in the kids lives.
The way the mother carried on was so wrong. She knew she had lost, so should have talked with the girls and prepared for this.
|
|
),.. one doesn't know the reasons for the divorce, it happens, its complex...consider that the kids were born in Italy and the Italian courts gave joint custody in the divorce. The women and the ex were married for quite some time and their married life was in Italy, she could have stayed in Italy to be with the girls and have shared custody.