To think this 'child abductor' does NOT deserve prison?

[WomanInChains]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/uk-mother-indea-ford-guilty-abduction-charges-alaska-extradition-a8531361.html

and a slightly different spin..........

www.kcaw.org/2018/03/08/expat-mom-raising-healthy-girls-means-going-prison/

The law is in fact an ass!

@TheWinterofOurDiscountTentsMk2

Yes love,LOL!

I don't have time for cheap little liars....i don't see how I raise my sons has any bearing on the odd girl they meet who is a dramalama.... more a reflection on their own upbringing!! How odd your reasoning is there!! I have no control over these silly girls

What happened to "we believe her"?

She was shown in court to have lied at least once. Tends to affect credibility.

Absolutely!!!

No matter wha the truth is, I hope that there is a judge out there that can disentangle this mess and reach the best outcome for the children and their future. That's the main thing.

What’s the lie she was shown to have made in court? Was that the fraudulent passport application or something else?

She was shown in court to have lied at least once. Tends to affect credibility

I'll make sure all the DV victims I meet during the course of my job that if they have ever lied about anything, ever, no-one will believe them about the abuse they have suffered.
Good to know, thanks.

I think she should remain in jail until the children are returned to their brother in the UK.
That should clear her mind.

Well the best outcome for the children was certainly not losing their primary carer for 18 months (I believe the time she spent under house arrest has been taken off).

The father chose not to apply for the children's return under the Hague Convention. I understand that the mother would have then have had the opportunity to state why they shouldn't be returned to him.

I didn't see the comments on the son she left behind until after I posted which changes the perception somewhat or not? It's not clear if the child was fathered by someone else and in her mind he was safe with his father. Seems like a very desperate measure. Not sure of what to make of her family's comments but then again I come from a very toxic family and they have said similar about me but in a totally different scenario so meh.

@GladAllOver yes I agree with that!

The fathers explanation is that the firm he approached in the states re. The Hague Convention application wanted a $20k initial retainer that he couldn’t afford (despite the law requiring firms to do work of that nature on a pro-bono basis).

It’s strange because he certainly seems to have made some efforts and initiated multiple court applications, but ultimately not the correct one.

It’s hard to assess if he was misadvised or insufficiently motivated.

If the dad is so upstanding why haven’t the children be returned to him immediately very odd

Also judging the age of the children no matter what law dad says she had broke

He put the mum in jail and that has not resulted in getting them back

So it just revenge and it’s unlikey the children will want to see the father ever now

If the dad is so upstanding why haven’t the children be returned to him immediately very odd

Because the kids are living in America with their stepdad and have been for nearly 3 years, so the judge deemed them "settled" there, which to some extent makes sense. They barely know their father right now.

DiegoMad0nna

So if the children were unlikey to be retunred all he has done is deprive the children of there mother

Thus proving the point of him being controlling

As I said earlier in the thread: It's pointless us speculating? None of us know what's gone on, and there are two very opposing possibilities

a ) either he's abusive and the courts failed her, he threatened to kill her, etc. and so she fled

b) or he's not abusive and she just said that as an excuse for abducting her kids and moving halfway around the world and not letting him see them for 3 years

I don't really see the point of debating one way or the other, none of us know the truth of the circumstances.

It seems to be that his "efforts" and main complaint was about the mum abducting them,rather than getting the kids back.

Was he misguided? Looking for revenge? Controlling? Who knows?

Regardless of which side you believe (I believe her) at this moment there are two little girls , with a parent in jail,one across the ocean,living with a step parent and uncertain about what the future might bring.

Yes wonder if they will be settled now with the loss of their primary caretaker and having to move home so their stepfather can keep his job.

He can't be their legal guardian as he wouldn't have been able to adopt them without the father's consent? How does that work?

If she was willing to abandon one child (only 7/8 from the sound of it), just so she could start a new life with her new man, why not ditch all of them?

The family commented that she upped and left without a word while her son was at school but in the court documents it is stated that she went on a planned 10 day trip and never came back. All very odd.

I’m sure one of the documents said that the father only found out they were gone when he arrived at their home for his weekly visitation, but then he subsequently seems to have received details of a return ticket, which was never used.

Why can't I see the comments on either of OP's links?

I can't see the comments either.

I don't really see the point of debating one way or the other, none of us know the truth of the circumstances.
I agree this and, for me, we are beyond the limits of ‘I believe her’ as an automatic standard.

She removed the children from the country for 6 months before returning, which led to the father’s application restraining her from removing them without consent.

She made an unsuccessful application to have that varied on the basis of complaints of abuse, but the court appears to have ruled in his favour.

I appreciate that a court ruling does not equate to a finding of truth but when there has been a weighing of evidence (that we are not party to) and a decision made, I think that has to be respected. That doesn’t mean accepting the court is necessarily correct but there shouldn’t be a bare assumption that the court must be wrong, particularly absent any real evidence to the contrary.

She just sounds like a woman who wants her own way and will say and do whatever she needs to get it 🤷‍♀️

Surely the father can now just go over to the US and bring them back now anyway? He has parental rights and they have no other legal guardian there. The mother doesn't have US citizenship so they can't have either.