I don’t know if we can even say that the kids aren’t interested in a relationship with the mother. That could have been the father who typed the “not interested” message on Facebook before shutting it down.
I’d like to know what the original custody arrangement was.
But we don’t know that the father is the better choice either. Why are you assuming that the father is the better choice? So far we’ve only seen evidence that he isn’t. A court gave the mother custody and his reaction to that was to commit a crime. So far I’m not seeing any reason why he sounds like a good parent.
What would be the second wrong? I can’t imagine anything that would be more wrong than rewarding this criminal with continued custody. That would make a mockery of all custodial rights for all parents. You’d be establishing a precedent that it’s ok to abduct kids if you don’t get caught for a long time.
i have to wonder about the custody hearings 15 years ago. It’s very difficult for a father to gain custody, even today. I’ve seen instances where the mothers were so vindictive that I wouldnt leave my kids with them for an hour let alone a lifetime. For all we know the mother was a lousy mom, the court didnt recognize it, and the father felt the need to get them away from her. Perhaps she was trying to “poisen” them against the father, a common occurance. Thing is, we just dont know what happened 15 years ago. Jailing the father will only intensify the childrens pain right now. If she had just worked with him to build a relationship with them, I think it would have worked out a lot better for the kids. Dont put words in my mouth, I think what he did was wrong, but the kids?, they want thier dad out of jail I presume.
The best interests of the child would have been to have a relationship with both parents which dad pretty specifically denied them in violation of the court order. Also, to go after dad serves as a deterrent to any one thinking about doing the same. To not go after the father lets people know that they can get away with kidnapping their child.
Patty Hearst didn’t want to leave the SLA either. Around here, a religious fanatic and his wife kidnapped a girl eventually had children with her, and brainwashed her into considering themselves married. She was kept hidden, but was also allowed out, and she never spoke up. When the cops finally identified her, and saved her, were they wrong in breaking up this happy family?
Families get broken up all the time when a parent commits a crime. I don’t see how this is any different.
Plus, do you consider the claim that he bad-mouthed the mother extraordinary?
Because, you know, the best interest of the children is compeltely unaffected by anything that happened in those 15 years. Yes, the father screwed up big time, but when children are involved, I’m much more interested in seeing that their best interest is at heart of whatever the resolution is that punishing or rewarding the parents. IMO, the facts in the article make me question whether uprooting the children and putting them with a parent they not only don’t know, but in all likelihood will hate at this point, is in the best interest of the children.
Who does or doesn’t drop the charges is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be dropped, nor am I arguing that they necessarily should, but rather that it’s something that should be considered. Ideally, yes, the father should be punished severely and the mother and children would be blissfully reunited, but that is pretty much the exact opposite of what is going to happen in this case.
As for the Stockholm Syndrome, I’d say it might be relevant if it was clear that the mother had the children’s best interest at heart, but I don’t think it is. If she had contacted the police as soon as she found them, that’s one thing, but here she contacted them, got rejected, and then got their dad thrown in jail. In the first case, the kids might be upset, but they wouldn’t have reason to resent their mom, but the way it went down, they will now actively resent their mother.
In either case, my whole point is, there isn’t going to be a perfect resolution to this case. We don’t know anything about the father except that he moved away with the kids. Maybe he felt he had good reasons for it? How much does his parenting since then account for? How much of a role does or should the age and will of the children and that they’ve been living with him for the last 15 years play in it? Cases with child custody are seldom something that can easily be cut and dry, and this is an example of exactly why. I won’t begin to hazard a guess as to whether the children should stay with their dad or live with their mom, both have clear negatives (father kidnapped them, they don’t know and likely hate their mother), so automatically saying it’s in their best interest to send them to their mother just doesn’t make sense, but that doesn’t mean that leaving them with their dad just because that’s who they know makes any more sense. This needs to be judged on it’s own merits and decided based on what’s best for the kids.
Doesn’t matter what they want. The father cannot be allowed to benefit or even escape punishment for his wrongful act. There is no legal excuse to take the action he took. He’s in contempt of court, and in violation of state–and possibly federal–criminal law. The kids can’t stay with him. To allow that would be to say the custody order, which appears valid on its face, is a meaningless piece of paper. It isn’t. It’s a judgment of the Court, enforceable with the full power of the state, and if state lines are crossed, possibly with the full power of the feds as well.
Assuming the father is jailed, the kids have to go somewhere. The mother, who has been looking for them for the last 15 years, is the logical place for them to go.
Well, but you could use that sort of argument to justify withholding legal consequences for anything that parents do, if it would disrupt the lives of children who are, on the whole, happy with their parents.
Parent embezzles thousands of dollars from employers? Parent robs a bank? Parent launders money and buys weapons for terrorist organization? “Don’t send them to jail! Yes, they screwed up big time, but the best interest of the children is more important than punishing the parents!”
The way you seem to want it, having children would be just one big Get Out of Jail Free card, as long as you do a decent enough job at child-rearing that the kids are reasonably happy with you.
I think the negative effects upon children of punishing parents in the criminal justice system should act as an incentive for parents to avoid crime, not as an excuse for parents to avoid punishment if they commit a crime.
I don’t like kids, so this is my opinion from that perspective:
Revenge is ok. So what if the kids will be messed up and aren’t happy about it? The lives they shared with their dad should have been with their mom instead. If they aren’t happy, tough. They need to be forced to see their dad as a kidnapper and bond with the non-criminal in the family instead. They should be made to see their dad as who he really is, a felon that thinks kidnapping is ok.
Questioning the mother is one thing, but I’m surprised at how eager people are to vilify the mother when they actually know nothing about the case. What the heck did she do to make herself the bad guy? I’m sorry, if someone kidnapped my kids I’d do everything in my power to make sure they get what’s coming to them, even if I did get a Facebook message from a emotionally distressed teen asking me to do different. Kidnap my kids and heads will roll.
Let’s remember, if anyone is to blame for any trauma that results from this, it is entirely and squarely on the shoulders of the father. His bad choices led to each and every thing that happens next. He denied the mother any control of the situation when he made the unilateral decision to kidnap them. He knew it was illegal and could result in him being thrown in jail at any point in his children’s development. And he did it anyway. It was 100% under his control, and he simply chose not to care about the predicament he was putting his kids in. Not father of the year material.
And let’s stop saying the kids are going to automatically be sent to live with their mother. There is almost no chance that is going to happen. I doubt the mother would even want custody of a couple of angry teenage strangers. Chances are they will be placed in a grandparent’s home or some other friend or relative’s while the mother has visitation. They are 16 and 17. They are going to be on their own in a year or two anyway. They may even be emancipated at this point. Anyway, it’d be the same thing that happens to any kid whose dipshit parent gets thrown in jail for breaking the law. In a year or two they will be completely free to have whatever relationship they want with their dad, and if that relationship has to be during prison visitation house, that’s entirely his doing and any anger they feel should be directed at him. He should never have put his kids in that situation.
in “Not Without My Daughter”, wasn’t it the mother who abducted her daughter because she knew that if she divorced her husband, under Iranian law, he would be given custody?
Doesn’t work that way in my state, dunno about the jurisdictions involved here. In my state, a natural parent automatically wins a custody battle with any third party, including grandparents, UNLESS the natural parent can be shown to have abandoned the child, or to be otherwise unfit. The kidnapping would negate any claim of abandonment, and unless the mother is a crackhead or something, she would get custody.
There’s not enough evidence to rule in favor of the father. For all any of us know, he could have done a lot of bad things to those kids (above and beyond kidnapping and brainwashing them). However, there is evidence that he 1) violated a court order that gave custody to the mother and 2) kidnapped his kids from their custodial parent for 15 years.
Just the known facts of the case make it pretty hard to defend allowing him to keep custody. A reasonable person should have known his actions were likely to lead to a devasting outcome for his kids and himself, and yet he chose those actions regardless. This also doesn’t speak well for his fitness as a parent.
Which is probably what he was saying ten minutes before he took off to defy a custody order that he presumably felt amounted to state-sanctioned kidnapping by mom. Doesn’t make him right, but (absent the case where some denied parent kills the kids), taking them to raise them yourself is the flip side of the mother thinking she was the one to do it. Yes, she had the law on her side. The law is sometimes right. Other times? Let me ask you and other concerned parents – if you had a really, really messed up relationship and the court wrongly (in your view, a well-considered honest view) gave full custody to your messed up partner, who you were convinced would endanger the kids or raise them wrong – will you absolutely rule out the possibility that you would resort to self-help to “save” the kids? I’m not saying it would be (or was here) right, legal, responsible. But will you absolutely rule it out?
It’s completely irrelevant how he felt about the original court order. You don’t get to violate court orders just because you don’t like them. This animal needs to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Endangering the kids is very different from “raising them wrong”. Has there been any evidence that the father thought the mother would hurt the kids?
Please note as well that in a normal custody case, both parents would be able to have a relationship with their children so I would not say that giving the mother custody is close to equivalent to what the father did.
Wow. Strong stuff. People spend less time for murder.
People violate court orders all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. Probably only a minority go to jail at all for it, let alone for the rest of their lives.
Any of you guys read about the Solomon guy and the baby?
Not because anyone asked me.
They do when the violation involves snatching toddlers.
Solomon can kiss my ass.
So by Solomon esque logic, the custody should go to the one who wanted the kid so bad he violated the law over it?