Donate Child Support Calculator

Children in Hiding - Italian case

The case of Tommaso Vincenti and his ex-wife, Laura Garrett is center stage.

Frenzy said
There is no reason why she cannot return to Italy and follow proper procedures to try and get a relocation order granted though the courts there. She would have had that option before leaving.

The family report writer found no evidence that the children fear their father.

Although she claims DV prior to separation, she signed a shared parenting agreement after separation. She also told the magistrate she had asked the father to relocate with them over here, so that he could continue to have a relationship with the children.
 
Totally. And that parenting arrangement had been operating for a period of 3 years prior to the Mother departing Italy with the kids.

4MYDAUGHTER
From what was said in the appeal document, it appears for those 3 years the parents had an amicable relationship. The mother claims she had been going to the fathers house and helping him look on the internet for jobs and a unit to live in Australia. She also apparently offered to send the children back for one month a year to be with him if he chose not to come.

There was only 1 incident of DV mentioned in the appeal, which occurred before separation and after one of their children died, while the father was suffering depression.

From first hand experience I find it hard to believe that if this women was 'truly in fear' of him,that they had such a good 3 year post separation relationship. There is no way I would be asking my violent ex to come on holidays or move countries with me or be setting foot in his house!

From what is being said in the media, the reason she is not disclosing the children's were abouts is because she may face jail on return to Italy and be denied a relationship with her children, which she claims would psychologically damage them. It's her own fate she fears.

As the children themselves do not fear their father and have had a good prior relationship with him, why should they be denied relationship? She has breached international law by bringing those children here for 2 years and the courts are right in ordering them to return.
Frenzy said
From what was said in the appeal document, it appears for those 3 years the parents had an amicable relationship. The mother claims she had been going to the fathers house and helping him look on the internet for jobs and a unit to live in Australia. She also apparently offered to send the children back for one month a year to be with him if he chose not to come.

There was only 1 incident of DV mentioned in the appeal, which occurred before separation and after one of their children died, while the father was suffering depression.

From first hand experience I find it hard to believe that if this women was 'truly in fear' of him,that they had such a good 3 year post separation relationship. There is no way I would be asking my violent ex to come on holidays or move countries with me or be setting foot in his house!

From what is being said in the media, the reason she is not disclosing the children's were abouts is because she may face jail on return to Italy and be denied a relationship with her children, which she claims would psychologically damage them. It's her own fate she fears.

As the children themselves do not fear their father and have had a good prior relationship with him, why should they be denied relationship? She has breached international law by bringing those children here for 2 years and the courts are right in ordering them to return.
 
Totally. The mothers full of sh*t.

4MYDAUGHTER
Gecko what is with the oversize bold print? it's annoying and a pathetic way to try and get your point across. Large bold print makes it appear you have anger issues and need to shout at everybody.

From what you quoted

Hague Convention applications is such that a court in this country has, to a significant degree, accept the capacities of the Courts and the law enforcement agencies of countries, such as Italy from whence these children came, to provide suitable protection and remedies for the mother in such circumstances...

What they are saying is, there is no reason why the alleged violence could not been bought up by her in front of Italian courts, prior to her abducting the children. She had a consent agreement with the father and could have followed the law and applied to the courts to amend the orders she had consented too. Perhapes instead of hanging out at his house with him and trying to get him to move with her, she should have gotten a DVO. No reason why this could not and still cannot be dealt with in Italy by the courts.
Samba said
She did not choose to self represent: "The children's grandmother said her daughter was forced to represent herself in the original Family Court case, after her lawyer did not show for court.

I am finding this debacle has brought out everything that I find distasteful in our society. From the clear mismanagement of the court system with regard to the best interests of the child, to the presumption of the rights of the parents over that of the best interests of the children and the willingness of the Australian public to dismiss domestic violence and disbelieve victims claims.

 
The fact that the Mother was unrepresented didnt matter. The relevant facts are clear and undisputed.

BTW if the GG's words 'I would die before sending the kids to Italy' has not got Australian Child Protection services seriously concerned for the welfare of the children whilst in the care of the GG and Mother - then I don't know what would!

4MYDAUGHTER
Frenzy said
From what was said in the appeal document, it appears for those 3 years the parents had an amicable relationship. The mother claims she had been going to the fathers house and helping him look on the internet for jobs and a unit to live in Australia. She also apparently offered to send the children back for one month a year to be with him if he chose not to come.

There was only 1 incident of DV mentioned in the appeal, which occurred before separation and after one of their children died, while the father was suffering depression.

From first hand experience I find it hard to believe that if this women was 'truly in fear' of him,that they had such a good 3 year post separation relationship. There is no way I would be asking my violent ex to come on holidays or move countries with me or be setting foot in his house!


Not quite, there were several examples of violence against the mother accepted as fact in the first judgement:


9. At that time, a serious incident of domestic violence perpetrated by Mr V against Ms Garning precipitated the separation. Ms Garning left the family villa and took up residence in an apartment in the village. The four girls went with her, no doubt a reflection of the principal care that she had provided them with to that point in time.


89. I am inclined to accept the mother's evidence that she was subjected to emotional, verbal and physical violence prior to, and up to the point of, separation in 2007.

90. The mother gives evidence that since separation she has been subject to some harassment and further verbal abuse by the father and even death threats. She does not assert that he has been physically violent to her since she moved away from the villa they shared in early 2007. Of course, there can be no condoning of any ongoing harassment, threats or verbal abuse but the nature of these Hague Convention applications is such that a court in this country has, to a significant degree, accept the capacities of the Courts and the law enforcement agencies of countries, such as Italy from whence these children came, to provide suitable protection and remedies for the mother in such circumstances…


Samba said
And additionally,  there's this to consider:

This is no longer an issue about the `Best interests of the children, but about the authority of the Courts to force individuals to obey their Orders. It seems to have been overlooked that these children were NOT parties to these proceedings and yet are now the subject of events and outcomes of those proceedings. If the Judge were to make the children parties to t…he proceedings [FLA 1975 Section 65(a)], then there may be some moral justification to the Courts actions. Every individual has the basic human right and it is a fundamental principle of law that everyone has a right to a full and fair hearing before a Court, if that Court wishes to exercise judicial control over their actions and behaviours. Both parents have represented their views to the Court, which may or may not have been co-terminus with the rights of their children, so why can the children not have their views legally represented as they are the most important persons in these proceedings and will be most dramatically affected by the outcomes.I am finding this debacle has brought out everything that I find distasteful in our society. From the clear mismanagement of the court system with regard to the best interests of the child, to the presumption of the rights of the parents over that of the best interests of the children and the willingness of the Australian public to dismiss domestic violence and disbelieve victims claims.
 
From a post off Facebook?

Irrelevant b*ll*cks.

4MYDAUGHTER
why are my posts being deleted?

In 2011, the father sent the mother an email agreeing that the children could remain in Australia with her, and then changed his mind.


With all that in mind, we must remember that Australia became a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991.



These children are old enough to decide themselves where they want to live and not be sent back to somewhere that is not in their best interests.


Hopefully some International Family Law expert will step in and volunteer to be a voice for these children using:
 ….a precedent for overriding Hague Convention mandates: The European Court of Human Rights determined "that a child should not be returned to its habitual residence, even if that is required by the Hague Convention, if it is not in its best interests to do so" based on the reasoning that "nation states may not take steps pursuant to the Hague Convention that are not in conformity with the best interests of the child" (Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, 2010).


I am finding this debacle has brought out everything that I find distasteful in our society. From the clear mismanagement of the court system with regard to the best interests of the child, to the presumption of the rights of the parents over that of the best interests of the children and the willingness of the Australian public to dismiss domestic violence and disbelieve victims claims.
Frenzy said
Gecko what is with the oversize bold print? it's annoying and a pathetic way to try and get your point across. Large bold print makes it appear you have anger issues and need to shout at everybody.

From what you quoted

Hague Convention applications is such that a court in this country has, to a significant degree, accept the capacities of the Courts and the law enforcement agencies of countries, such as Italy from whence these children came, to provide suitable protection and remedies for the mother in such circumstances...
What they are saying is, there is no reason why the alleged violence could not been bought up by her in front of Italian courts, prior to her abducting the children. She had a consent agreement with the father and could have followed the law and applied to the courts to amend the orders she had consented too. Perhapes instead of hanging out at his house with him and trying to get him to move with her, she should have gotten a DVO. No reason why this could not and still cannot be dealt with in Italy by the courts.
 

Frenzy - how about you get your facts straight regarding what I have or haven't posted. I have never posted what you have claimed I have posted, and I have rarely if ever used bold print. You couldnt even use my name to quote what you did because it wasnt from me.

And your statements (and many of other statements on here) again are your complete lack of understanding of what it is like living in a domestic violence situation. I understand that there are rules reagrding the international return of these children, that does not make this situation and the removal of these girls right, or fair to them. I think the true issue here is the age of these chidlren, their needs and not those of the parents - either one. We all would like to think that our children have a say (and there are many many posts on here that prove just that - one parent states the child wants to live with them but they are being stopped by the "opposing parent") so is it only the fact that it is the mother fighting and not the father?

Conan said
As regards Geckos pearls  who knows where they come from. Does Gecko think it
totally disgusting and unethical that someone should be paid for their work?
Read very carefully between the lines Gecko - did they know something was wrong
and did not want to be a part of it? Unsigned affidavits and no witness to
support the material?
  Conan = stop with the personal atatcks. It seems that you are so quick to argue using personal atatcks. It is getting tiring. I have no idea what you you are even referring to.Maybe be more specific in your taunts next time.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Samba said
why are my posts being deleted?
the willingness of the Australian public to dismiss domestic violence and disbelieve victims claims.
 
The reason DV claims not received well in family law circles is because of the high frequency of false or embellished DV and abuse claims.

Got an issue. Blame the parents that go to court and screw it up for other with real problems.

In any event - this situation involving the 4 Italian girls is not a DV matter. It's a red herring advanced by the mother to justify here improper actions.

She thinks she's smarter than everyone else.

4MYDAUGHTER
4mydaughter said
Samba said
why are my posts being deleted?
the willingness of the Australian public to dismiss domestic violence and disbelieve victims claims.
 
The reason DV claims not received well in family law circles is because of the high frequency of false or embellished DV and abuse claims.

Got an issue. Blame the parents that go to court and screw it up for other with real problems.

In any event - this situation involving the 4 Italian girls is not a DV matter. It's a red herring advanced by the mother to justify here improper actions.

She thinks she's smarter than everyone else.
 

How do you know it is not a DV matter? How do you know it is all a red herring? How do you know shw thinks the way you have stated?

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Samba said
… a precedent for overriding Hague Convention mandates: The European Court of Human Rights determined "that a child should not be returned to its habitual residence, even if that is required by the Hague Convention, if it is not in its best interests to do so" based on the reasoning that "nation states may not take steps pursuant to the Hague Convention that are not in conformity with the best interests of the child" (Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, 2010).
Commentary worth exploring further
Samba said
And additionally,  there's this to consider:

This is no longer an issue about the `Best interests of the children, but about the authority of the Courts to force individuals to obey their Orders. It seems to have been overlooked that these children were NOT parties to these proceedings and yet are now the subject of events and outcomes of those proceedings.

 If the Judge were to make the children parties to t…he proceedings [FLA 1975 Section 65(a)], then there may be some moral justification to the Courts actions.
This matter is a Hague matter. That is the children and mother habitually reside in Italy not Australia and that the family contact matters have to be dealt with in Italy where orders were initially made and the parties maintained some sort of contact arrangements. There are some cases where circumstances have been such that return to the country of habitual residence has been either delayed or defeated but in this case a hearing and an appeal have determined that matters are best dealt with in Italy.

The issue is not about anything more than Jurisdiction. It is not available to our court to look into matters other than the primary matter under Regulation 15 which is was the application filed within one year and were the children wrongfully removed. {Appeal 8} Forest J went beyond the requirements to look and examine also the extrinsic material put to him by the mother. {judgement para25}. It was found that orders were in place and that the father was exercising custody components of those orders. Regulation 16 (3) and 16 (3)(b) dealt with the matters around "grave risk". A family consultant had also provided a report {Appeal 15}.

So far in all of this there is no reference to the Family Law Act. The Hague matter was filed almost immediately or certainly within 12 months so It cannot be claimed the children were settled. Claims that the father consented are dealt with in the appeal {37-42}. The DFAT material shows clearly that the Australian Consulate officials repeatedly informed the mother she could not remove the children permanently from Italy without the fathers consent. {50-51}. I also bring your attention to {54} in relation to the affidavit from her "dear friend" that never came forward and note the relevance referred in the matter of Jones and Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 in which summarising suggests failure to produce evidence "may" in appropriate circumstances lead to an inference that the uncalled evidence  or missing material would not have assisted that party's case. In the subsequent appeal {25} the affidavit was not made available either.

The evidence is thin at best and the news paper article gave little comfort for the appeal judges to weight evidence for the mothers version of events. I also bring to attention 38 and 39 of the appeal. Evidence was against the mother in this issue of her relocation to Australia and that is the first fundamental issue here.
His Honour, in 39 said
Well, its not just your word against him. The weight of the evidence, the other evidence, is against you. Its your word against other evidence, not just his. And thats the difficulty for you.
Also as discussed admission of further evidence in the Family Court is governed by s 93A(2) which provides:
(2) Subject to section 96, in an appeal the Family Court shall have regard to the evidence given in the proceedings out of which the appeal arose and has power to draw inferences of fact and, in its discretion, to receive further evidence upon questions of fact, which evidence may be given:
(a) by affidavit; or
(b) by oral examination before the Family Court Court or a Judge ; or
© as provided for in Division 2 of Part XI.

s 93A(2) is its remedial nature. Its principal purpose is to give to the Full Court a discretionary power to admit further evidence where that evidence, if accepted, would demonstrate that the order under appeal is erroneous {51}. For a detailed discussion on the evidence read on through to {62}. The evidence is not in a  form which has been sworn or affirmed notarised in any way and does not meet or comply with s93 A(2). You can also refer to the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and a witness must be available and take an oath or make an affirmation before giving evidence. This was not possible as the party did not appear. This may well have been a costly exercise or not for the mother as it was left open to the Italian central Authority to file submissions in relation to this if they so desired (wishes to)
Samba said
Every individual has the basic human right and it is a fundamental principle of law that everyone has a right to a full and fair hearing before a Court, if that Court wishes to exercise judicial control over their actions and behaviours.
Yes indeed so but in this case the court is the Central Authority in Italy not the Family Court in Australia.
Samba said
Both parents have represented their views to the Court, which may or may not have been co-terminus with the rights of their children, so why can the children not have their views legally represented as they are the most important persons in these proceedings and will be most dramatically affected by the outcomes.I am finding this debacle has brought out everything that I find distasteful in our society. From the clear mismanagement of the court system with regard to the best interests of the child, to the presumption of the rights of the parents over that of the best interests of the children and the willingness of the Australian public to dismiss domestic violence and disbelieve victims claims.
Both parents have given views to the court in Australia and unfortunately the mothers evidence did not rise to a sufficient standard as to overwhelm the court to make an alternate decision. Surely that is not the fault of the court? The fact that she came to Australia for a holiday and stayed is now not in dispute. The Hague convention orders will return them to Italy where a new hearing will need to be commenced. The result may well be a return to Australia.

Has the mother considered an option to assist the father to relocate nearby to her location in Australia as it seems he did not have a job or job prospects were poor. Would that have been an interesting solution to this dilemma. The father appears to have been somewhat interested in the concept of moving to Australia but as the discussions were in English he had difficulty finding a job and on the internet everything was in English. Here is a situation where you need to think outside the square of litigation and court. Could the Italian Community assist these parents to locate to Australia for the benefit of the children. I cannot see anywhere in any reports that any consideration is being given to such a solution. Simply writing off the father as flotsam and Jetsam is not a solution here and alternatives must be explored.

If they are not, then the result is that the family must return for yet another court hearing.


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If not, feedback
If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Samba said
And additionally,  there's this to consider:

This is no longer an issue about the `Best interests of the children, but about the authority of the Courts to force individuals to obey their Orders. It seems to have been overlooked that these children were NOT parties to these proceedings and yet are now the subject of events and outcomes of those proceedings.
If the Judge were to make the children parties to t…he proceedings [FLA 1975 Section 65(a)], then there may be some moral justification to the Courts actions.
To clarify

Division 6 Parenting orders other than child maintenance orders
Subdivision A Introductory
65A What this Division does

(1) This Division deals with:
(a ) applying for and making parenting orders, other than child maintenance orders (Subdivision B); and
(b ) the general obligations created by parenting orders, other than child maintenance orders (Subdivision C); and
(c ) dealing with people who have been arrested (Subdivision D); and
(d ) the obligations under parenting orders, other than child maintenance orders, relating to taking or sending children from Australia (Subdivision E).

Note: Paragraph (a)section 60I provides that people with disputes about matters that may be dealt with in a Part VII order (which includes a parenting order) should generally make use of family dispute resolution before applying for the order.
(2) Measures designed to improve communication between separated parents and to educate parents about their respective responsibilities in relation to their children are contained in this Division (see section 65DA).
Note: Division 13A provides for the compliance regime for dealing with contraventions, and alleged contraventions, of parenting orders.

How does 65A help here? The court is not making any parenting orders if you are thinking about 65AA.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If not, feedback
If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Aussie News Coverage of Child Abduction Case Blatantly Anti-Dad by Robert Franklin, Esq

"…Assuming the girls are located and returned to Italy, the salient feature of this case is that the Hague Convention process worked.  We don't see that very often, but in this case, it seems to have functioned approximately as intended.  The Convention seeks a judicial decision within 60 days, and in this case it took about twice that long, but otherwise it did what it's supposed to do  ensure the return of abducted children as long as it's safe to do so.

But that's not the way the Australian media are playing it.  No, media coverage there has been essentially 100% pro-mother.  Lurid claims that Australian authorities intend to drug the girls, handcuff them and force them aboard a plane bound for Italy have appeared in essentially every article.  

Into the bargain, the mother's claims of abuse by the father are unquestioningly reprised despite the fact that the Australian judge considered and rejected them. Stranger still is the notion that, for some reason, Australia shouldn't be bound by the terms of a Convention it signed.  As such of course, it is part of the law of the land, but more than one article suggests that Australian courts should refuse to honor it.

And then of course there's the matter of the father.  Of the half dozen or so articles on the case, not one reporter has picked up the phone, called the guy and asked him for his side of the story.  Does no one in any media outlet speak Italian or know someone who does?  Somehow I doubt it.  Nor does a single one consider the heartbreaking loss to a father when his children are taken from him or the emotional/psychological damage done to children when they lose one of their parents and the only life theyve ever known.

As with every case of abduction, there's a court in the country of origin that was available to hear the mother's claims of abuse and rule on them.  I don't know Italian cus tody law, but my guess is it includes restrictions on cus tody and child access to abusive parents.  So why didn't the mother just apply to the appropriate Italian court and have her claims adjudicated there instead of committing the crime of child kidnapping?  Unsurprisingly, the articles decline to address that question.  

I'd say she didn't because she didn't have the evidence to support her case and she figured that, after a few years in Australia, the courts would just accept the fait accompli on behalf of an Australian citizen.  

Hence her dismay and incomprehension when the courts actually enforced the law as it's written and intended.

Finally, there's the fact that the mother committed a crime.  Parental kidnapping is a crime in Australia, but apparently no authority has seen fit to prosecute the mother.  So, by any stretch of the imagination, she's been given a significant break by law enforcement and the courts, but to read the media coverage, you'd think she was a victim of a horrendous miscarriage of justice.

The media coverage of this case is in many ways a throwback to the bad old days in which fathers, their rights and their humanity were routinely ignored in favor of the most outrageous claims against them.  Sometimes I think the world is changing to finally acknowledge the reality of fathers and their value to children, and mostly I think I'm right.  But the reporting on cases like this, in which the father becomes a non-entity, entirely deprived of a voice regarding the children he helped bring into the world and raise for almost all of their lives, shows us that the fight for fathers equality with mothers is ongoing and likely will be far into the future."

Finally in regards to the rights of the child to be heard essentially advocating UNCROC. The incorporation of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child into domestic family law is an assault on parental authority, and a blank check for governmental interference in family affairs. What is described as the child's voice comes out of the mouth of a lawyer or some other government official. In effect, it designs to transfer control of children from their parents to the collectivised childrearing of the global village  which means government, the courts, lawyers &social workers.

And another nice little earner for the lawyers union and employment for an army of feminist dominated executive and legislative officials and private hangers-on: psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, child support agents, child protection workers and more… with 40% pay increases in anticipation of an orgy of litigation/persecution from child "voices".  

Conan said
As regards Geckos pearls who knows where they come from. Does Gecko think it totally disgusting and unethical that someone should be paid for their work? Read very carefully between the lines Gecko - did they know something was wrong
and did not want to be a part of it? Unsigned affidavits and no witness to support the material?
Gecko said
Conan = stop with the personal atatcks. It seems that you are so quick to argue using personal atatcks. It is getting tiring. I have no idea what you you are even referring to.Maybe be more specific in your taunts next time.
Not taunts, just getting you to face up to reality and perhaps be more objective - I am referring to this post
Gecko said
……………… From what I believe the mother had a lawyer, but they were not allowed to be present on a crucial day in court due to the lawyers firm stating that there was more important clients needing assistant (clients who paid). I think this is abhorrent. The thought that a lawyer can just decide this is disgusting and unethical. How can lawyers "choose" like that? Does that allow right of appeal at all?

Your implication and thinking is clear in this post, you believe they should work for nothing. What is disturbing is that you either seem to have forgotten what you wrote or cannot interpret what I responded to. This implies that you cannot understand what else has been written about this case. So do us all a favour and stop making supercilious ill informed comments.

I think the father's had the good sense not to say anything. Although I thought he made a statement on TV last night. Didn't see it though.

Most of the misinformation is being propagated in the media by friends of the children through Facebook and Twitter. Some of them are very hostile and claim its all about DV.

4MYDAUGHTER
srldad101 said
…Into the bargain, the mother's claims of abuse by the father are unquestioningly reprised despite the fact that the Australian judge considered and rejected them. Stranger still is the notion that, for some reason, Australia shouldn't be bound by the terms of a Convention it signed.  As such of course, it is part of the law of the land, but more than one article suggests that Australian courts should refuse to honor it.
I just needed to comment here that it is not ONE Judge but in fact one in the initial hearing, THREE MOST Senior (at the appeal) and quite frankly you could not have picked three more experienced judges who did the appeal and you would HAVE to acknowledge the lee way they gave the mother at every juncture to provide evidence. I can even picture in my mind, His Honour DCJ Faulks asking that very question during the appeal because the appeal court explored every possible avenue for the mother to provide the affidavit evidence in the correct form and I gained an impression, which may or may not be valid, that they actually went to extreme lengths to get the evidence before them. I suspect they may have even heard on oath a statement by video conference from Italy from the deponent if that had availed itself. BUT nothing came up. It is clear in the appeal what the issues were. You cannot turn away from the law which is unequivocally clear without ambiguity in this case. The social issues arising are a different story but here we are only focused on the law.

There was also another judge this week.

Yes the case is a difficult one but it has to be sorted out in Italy OR the mother has to accommodate the father, who cannot speak English or well, and try and accommodate him coming to Australia. There has been no comment on that option. He doesn't have to live with the family but the children are entitled, by law to be in the father's life in some shape or form and it is trying to find some arrangement that is now the key thing to be done before arrest warrants are issued.

Has any one any other ideas on settling the father in Australia? Would that be a valid option for them now to explore?

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If not, feedback
If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
What i find funny is that facts get twisted to suit them, ie  "he has a bad temper" i wonder how many phone calls were made pleading the girls to come back home from the father before the father was pushed to a breaking point? i think any parent on this forum would eventually "lose their blob" when the other parent has ran off with the kids and not coming back. They know they have stuffed up and now its at the point where theres no going back, the girls are probably actually scared now, theres ALOT of uncertainty in the lives right now and there is a massive tug of war between parents. Now how to decide where the kids reside… i believe the kids should return to italy along with the mother and plead their case their. DO IT PROPERLY in regards to law. If the system fails them (the system fails alot of parents and children every day) then they have to bide their time or negotiate on their own terms.

I wonder what the opinion would be should it have been a father run off with the kids? we all know he would locked up and shamed.
Samba said
the nature of these Hague Convention applications is such that a court in this country has, to a significant degree, accept the capacities of the Courts and the law enforcement agencies of countries, such as Italy from whence these children came, to provide suitable protection and remedies…




Well put by the Judge.

A little piece from the press this morning

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

The girls' father said
Expressing his deep love for his children, the father earlier said: "I am just an ordinary person called upon for a great task, that of being a father."My children were born in Italy and have all lived there for the greater parts of their lives.

"In Italy they have a strong and large family who love them and await them, their grandparents, uncles, aunts, and all their friends who for two years have not seen them and wait for them with open arms."


Of course, the gyno-journalism continues, with the reporter pseud-quoting "home" when referring to Italy and failing to mention that the youngest of the girls has expressed a desire to return home to Italy in strong terms. Moreover, there is no analysis of the fact that this is a Hague matter and that the Italian legal system is the proper place for the matter to be resolved. There is no discussion of the fact that the mother may have chosen to use the Australian system because she thought it was significantly biased in favour of mothers. This is the first time it has been mentioned that their father has come to Brisbane to participate in the case. If one was to take the gyno-journalism as proper press reportage, one would think the children had no family other than the dishonest mother and somewhat hysterical maternal female relatives.

I note that the mother has now tried to move the matter to Sydney. How much longer will these children and their father have to put up with these shenanigans and why is there no "Orange Alert" for a child abduction being broadcast every few minutes as there would be if Dad had disappeared with them, especially in view of the grandmother's threat to kill the children rather than allow them to be returned to their father? Why are the mother and the grandmother not in jail for contempt, which is what a father who behaved this way would be facing?

Why the double standard?

I note that the Courier Mail has not enabled comments for the "story" referenced above…
Frenzy said
 Obvious case of abduction and alienation. The mother is using 'fear' as an excuse as she wishes to live in Australia, horrible that tax payers have to support these kinds of lowlife parents.
  My daughter is seeing a psychologist for the same thing…The mother & grand mother are talking poorly about me infront of OUR child… Im very disappointed in persons that stoop so low in using this manipulation on children…
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets