4 sisters returned to Italian father after their Australian Mum took them to Australia.....dragge
d kicking and screaming onto the plane.
Apparently the girls aged between 9-15 are dual citizens.
Link sorry its the DM.
Do they not take the childs view into account in Australia?
Um, I'm a bit pro-dad in this and have been from the start. But I haven't been aggressive or anti-women in any way (just slightly open-mouthed at the turn the thread has taken).
I don't, by the way, prefer my dad over my mum or vice versa or view either of them with fear or distrust.
So I don't really get that post either .
I tend to be generally pro-law-abiding people, men or women.
i think that notion that" the preferred gender will win" ..only applies to the extreme people.
normal healthy people really do want the best for children and i think this case is a good example of this.
the mothers actions are so despicable, the people that usually back preferred genders ( in much less extreme cases perhaps ) are switching sides.
only the hard core gender haters are " backing the gender" on this one i feel.
When I first heard of this case, my initial response was to support the mother and let the girls stay in Oz.
I am an Australian mother who has travelled extensively. I have seen the rest of the world, it is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there and I definitely want to raise my children here in Oz.
However, on further reading and thinking, I realised that my initial response was wrong. That there were more important issues at play.
I have no idea whether there was DV or not, I have no idea whether the dad is a demon or a saint, I have no idea whether this woman is just doing her best or is a lying cow. What I do know is that the Court believed that the children had been unlawfully removed from their home country and should be returned.
It can be sorted out in Italy.
Segue, you're just wrong, dearie. As I just posted, if you don't care much about DV then you can discount or minimize DV accusations.
If you do care, and when you are fiercely opposed, then you learn to draw a line against false accusers. If you have ever done work in an anti-DV org or shelter, you quickly learn just how awful real DV is, and how someone who includes, "he wouldn't help his daughter move the table" as an accusation ought to be ashamed.
"It can be sorted out in Italy."
Yep. More agreement.
Back to the naval. Anyone know a good bellybutton anti-wrinkle cream?
segue, if you are biased towards the mother ..you admit this. ..and " whenever there is a dispute between a man and a woman the preferred gender will win."..- your words...
aren't you saying here you couldn't give a shit what either party does you back the gender?
the real conflict at this time in this forum is between gender haters like this one, and people who are impartial due to the seriousness of the situation.
did i just call her a gender hater? Or did she call herself that?
Should i be censored? or should the conflict continue in a politically correct fashion?
i say if you post things, be prepared to have your motivations analysed and discussed, if that hurts too much...go gardening.
say what you like about my posts, laugh at them, hate them, censor them, get angry at them ..even respond to them..i couldn't care less..but i will always call a spade a spade and i always will.
if it is the case that there are people who post here that hate a gender, and I know there are ..then instead of typing these negative thoughts exclusively in these windows and posting things, i suggest you type some of your negative thoughts in a journal, and then take that journal to a doctor and show him.
Im not saying stay away from here, far from it. The presence of such people is an excellent opportunity for the growth of everyone, the poster and the reader.
i consider censorship to be totally unnecessary, let it all out i say, however i understand that others may not feel this way.
How do we identify what we really are ( and how to deal with the world ) if everythings being hushed hushed?
omg did i type out 'him'? ( the doctor )
I've just been stalking the KWV website and I've noticed the presence of a professional child abductor there.
how is this legal?
Is he a simply mercenary who abducts children on behalf of burnt parents?
What differentiates his actions from anyone else abducting children?
It certainly doesn't sound like a Court Order, what regulates this 'industry'?
Here is another case from today's Times:
Court ruling is vindication, says father of abducted girl
A British father whose young daughter was abducted by his wife while on a family holiday in Mexico in 2008 has won a crucial victory in a four-year legal battle.
Jonathan Hunt won the right for all custody or welfare hearings about the future of his daughter, Lydia, to be heard in a British court, rather than in Mexico, and for her to live here until a family court judge decides otherwise.
Mr Hunts plight, as he was forced to fight case after case in the Mexican courts to try to bring Lydia back, has been covered extensively by The Times.
Close to tears as he heard the judgment in the High Court yesterday, he said he was over the moon.
He added: Its not a case of winners and losers. The only victim here, as it is in all cases of international abduction, is the child. But I am extremely grateful that the British court has found that a childs best interests are served by having a close relationship to both its mother and father. I know this is not the end of the legal action but I am prepared to keep going, fuelled by love for my daughter.
Mr Hunt was eventually reunited with Lydia, now aged 6, in March this year after she was tracked down in Mexico and her mother arrested.
Born in London and a UK citizen, Lydia was abducted by her mother, Maria Obregan, while on holiday in Mexico in May 2008 when she was 2. The mother subsequently severed all contact with Mr Hunt and went on the run for more than three years to evade international law. Mr Hunt spent £140,000 in the Mexican courts trying to establish Lydias right to be returned home. Using Mexican constitutional law, his wife was able to challenge each court decision, even though she was a fugitive.
In the end the case became so bogged down in Mexican courts it was the subject of a debate in the House of Commons. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, urged the Mexican Government to do everything in its power to return the child.
Publicity surrounding the case led to a tip-off earlier this year about Lydias location. She was found and the mother brought to court. But rather than return the child immediately to the UK, under the terms of the International Hague Convention, a Mexican court urged the couple to come to an agreement about Lydias future, including an understanding to make Mexico her permanent residence.
The Mexican judge feared new proceedings under the Hague Convention would be challenged at every step of the way by Ms Obregan and take many months. During this time Lydia would have to stay in a government care home. Signing the agreement allowed Mr Hunt to see Lydia for the first time in almost four years, remove her from the care home and bring her back to the UK for three months.
He agreed to sign but that document was the subject of a week-long court case in the High Court in London that ended with a judgment yesterday. Mrs Justice Macur ruled that, given Lydia was made a ward of court in the UK in 2009, a fact that the Mexican judge was unaware of, Mr Hunt did not have the power to agree to change her residence to Mexico. Lydia should therefore stay here and have any future custody case heard in Britain.
Mr Hunt, a project manager from London, was struggling to take in what the court decided when he spoke to The Times. His life has been ravaged by his daughters abduction. His health has deteriorated, he has been taking anti-depressants and sleeping tablets and, by his own admission, he has not been able to focus on anything else. I have lost friends over this, he says.
Since being reunited with Lydia in March, his life has been transformed. She is the centre of my life. I cannot tell you how I look forward to the weekends and the other times I see her. We just do the normal things together, like going to the park. I think that is important for her. What she has been though, it is a lot of pressure for a 6-year-old to take, too much for her young age.
Lydia was forced to change homes five times while on the run in Mexico, and to use a series of false names. She is currently living with her mother in England and sees her father several times a week. Her English has really come one. It is amazing how quickly a child can pick up a language, Mr Hunt said.
Mr Hunt urges any parent in his situation to keep fighting. Over the years there have been so many times that I have thought of giving up. In the end, I just couldnt and I would urge others to do the same. If you give up you will never know what could have happened. Use all the resources available to you. Reunite [the charity that advises parents in cases of international abduction] can help you. Your MP can help. The British courts can help.
As he prepared to see his daughter again this weekend, Mr Hunt said he could still barely believe that he had won this significant victory. It is going to take a while to sink in. For four years a great black cloud has hung over my life and now its lifting. In my darkest moments and there were many I wondered whether I was doing the right thing.
I feel I have been vindicated.
Why Lydias secrecy was lifted
The strict prohibition on media identification of children in family court cases was lifted in the Hunt case by Mrs Justice Macur after an application from The Times, which argued that it was trying to publicise the growth of child abduction cases, which rose by 47 per cent last year. The Times first reported the case last year, to illustrate the distress caused to parents and the difficulties even of countries that have signed the Hague Convention in returning children.
The Times was allowed to identify Lydia because a judge took the unusual step of asking for media help to find her. Mrs Justice Macur ruled that The Times had a legitimate public interest in reporting this weeks judgment, and the story stripped of its human elements would detract rather than focus on its ultimate purpose.
In addition The Times argued that the high-profile nature of the case, including a lengthy debate in the House of Commons on Lydias abduction, meant that there was already considerable information in the public domain.
It was simply unrealistic to ignore this given that these reports were available online, the judge said.
Join the discussion
Please login first.