Do we have a legal system that says a mother can kidnap her own kids...before that system even establishes that she does not have custody of them?
In that NZ case, didn’t the mother “kidnap” her child only AFTER the court stepped in and made some decision with regard to custody?
What I was saying in earlier posts is that if a woman, such as we were discussing in the original post, intends to remove herself and her children from her husband, she should do it
a., without involving the court, and
b., intelligently, with foresight and planning.
That means she ought to do her very best to relocate safely, not leaving herself open to criminal charges. She’s in danger of the law just by walking into court (or does anyone think that mental evaluations are objective and infallible?)
I don’t say it’s easy, but IMO she’s better off not availing herself of the legal system. Judges, by and large, are no wiser or more fair than a name picked at random from the phone book.
By going to court, she was betting her children’s future on the wisdom and fairness of a man she did not know to be immaculately unbiased, honorable and wise.
It’s amazing that with all the evidence to the contrary, people believe so much virtue is endowed by a black robe.
The post to which I responded seemed to indicate that you thought the mother should RIGHT NOW take her kids out of the reach of the courts - and I contend that is nothing but a fast trip to prison for the mom. And yes, Dr. Morgan took her daughter to NZ after the courts said that the father must have visitation and that there was no sexual abuse on his part and it was nothing more than a fabricated story by Dr. Morgan for meanness. She fled the country, took on assumed names, and stayed for a long time. No winners there.
If what you are now saying is that the mom should have made arrangements long before the courts were involved, I couldn’t agree more
Once the black robes get involved, there are no winners.