What do to you all think?

[Ausmumof3]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/secret-network-hides-mother-and-kids-from-police-for-years/10075424

about this story?  I really hope the judge is right and she made up the Dv allegations but why did so many people help her if that was the case?  It seems a bit disturbing.

[LMD]

My first thoughts are, mum and grandma received longer sentences than most dv perpetrators ever do. Or pedophiles. Or rapists. 

And, controlling violent narcissists use courts and custody to punish mothers all.the.time.

I believe the mum.

Signed, former kid who was part of a midnight escape from a dv situation. Luckily, violent man was only my step father and we could make a clean break.

[regentrude]

I can't comment on whether her allegations are true or not, but as to why so many people helped: because the story is usually true, the DV victim is usually in danger, and restraining orders and police usually don't deter the violent perpetrator. The people involved in helping DV victims have seen time and time again that the victim is in lethal danger. Who wants to be responsible for the death of a woman they didn't believe?

Edited August 13, 2018 by regentrude

[Ausmumof3]

9 minutes ago, LMD said:

My first thoughts are, mum and grandma received longer sentences than most dv perpetrators ever do. Or pedophiles. Or rapists. 

And, controlling violent narcissists use courts and custody to punish mothers all.the.time.

I believe the mum.

Signed, former kid who was part of a midnight escape from a dv situation. Luckily, violent man was only my step father and we could make a clean break.

That was pretty much my thought process but I wondered if I was being biased.

[Carol in Cal.]

There was this one case years ago here in the US where a woman accused her ex of being s*xually abusive to their DD, and fled to (people think) Australia with their children.  I saw interview with both parents, and I believed the guy.  But I usually don't.  I wish I could remember the name of that family; now I am wondering whether they ever resurfaced.  I think the kids would be grown now.

[LMD]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

Yep.

Re the bolded - and courts allow them to do it. Shame, shame, shame.

 

Institutionalised misogyny.

I read the pedophile conviction lists for my state and the number that get nothing more than probation is staggering. I don't think I've seen one incarceration sentence for child po*n, usually it's 3 months suspended and name on the list. So the fact that a 70year old grandmother with cancer got imprisoned is... I can't actually articulate how I feel about that, it's just red mist rage.

This decision punishes for parental alienation against the father by literally separating and alienating the children from their primary caregiver.

[MEmama]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

According to the article....she put herself and her children into a vehicle with a person she barely knew and was taken to a place where they changed vehicles with someone else they didn't know, and were taken to a rural location she didn't know.

Um, sorry, this is red flag number one for me.  I can't imagine getting into the private vehicle of a person I do not know, with my kids, and being willingly driven to a place I do not know....

Getting into a vehicle with someone I did not know, while not knowing exactly where I was or where he was taking me...once saved my life.

I've learned not to judge actions in dire situations.

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

According to the article....she put herself and her children into a vehicle with a person she barely knew and was taken to a place where they changed vehicles with someone else they didn't know, and were taken to a rural location she didn't know.

 

Um, sorry, this is red flag number one for me.  I can't imagine getting into the private vehicle of a person I do not know, with my kids, and being willingly driven to a place I do not know....with sheets over my head so that I don't even know how to find my way back if I get lost.  Even if she believes her ex is capable of serious violence, there's no way I jump from the frying pan into the fire.

 

The second thing, about the article, for me, is that the kids have been with the father for 8 months, and there is NOTHING printed about any sort of problems the father may have had with authorities since then, the kids haven't been harmed according to the article....if the article wanted to present the mom as purely the victim I would think that any issue that ever happened would be a part.  Sort of a "see, dad really was that bad."

 

And lets not forget, she admits to saying "I would have killed us rather than go back."  IOW....The article states she made that statement.  It does not state, in spite of the fact that it is trying to be sympathetic towards her, that the father ever made any sort of similar threat, or ever has, even now that he has had the kids for 8 months.

Well that was part of what was convincing to me.  I assumed she must have been extremely desperate to act in that way.  As far as the 8 months goes I wouldn’t think that was long enough for stuff to surface.  Abuse often only comes to the surface after the kids are fully grown.  And he may never be or have been violent to the kids it may only have been her. 

But I guess thats assuming she is mentally well and making rational decisions.

but even so paedophiles here sometimes only get 12 months or 2 years.  And she got a year and half.

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

I keep wanting to say more, but I'm reluctant to given the mention of the AFP investigations in the article.

I have reason to believe the network of 'strangers' was trustworthy. 

 

And yes without any inside knowledge whatsoever it seemed like this was less a random stranger and more a group known for helping in those situations.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, StellaM said:

 

That would be an assumption I would make.

Well yes and if she was mentally ill that should have been accounted for in the sentencing surely?

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am fairly sure that you are in the country in question and am therefore not really able to argue about trustworthiness of that particular group, vs what you might have better knowlege of.

 

For me, personally, getting into a private vehicle with someone I do not know, with my kids, and sheets over our heads.....would require a situation so dire that basically, there are guns at my back.  I can't imagine putting my kids into a situation so unknown and sketchy sounding that there isn't literally guns and other such violence should we turn around.  

Well but if she’d been abused by him and was now forced by family court to leave them with him full time or whatever that would feel like a pretty physically risky situation I think.  

[Murphy101]

11 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

And yes without any inside knowledge whatsoever it seemed like this was less a random stranger and more a group known for helping in those situations.

 

This. And those groups are usually extremely selective and careful in who they help. They screw up and the whole network is exposed.

The sentencing was absolutely ridiculous. There’s no way a man who abuses his wife and or kids far worse would be likely to get such a sentence. What the hell kind of messed up justice is that?

[Murphy101]

15 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am fairly sure that you are in the country in question and am therefore not really able to argue about trustworthiness of that particular group, vs what you might have better knowlege of.

 

For me, personally, getting into a private vehicle with someone I do not know, with my kids, and sheets over our heads.....would require a situation so dire that basically, there are guns at my back.  I can't imagine putting my kids into a situation so unknown and sketchy sounding that there isn't literally guns and other such violence should we turn around.  

 

Other such violence is often exactly what abused women are worried about. That’s kinda the entire point of why they feel the desperate need to run.

[katilac]

54 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

There was this one case years ago here in the US where a woman accused her ex of being s*xually abusive to their DD, and fled to (people think) Australia with their children.  I saw interview with both parents, and I believed the guy.  But I usually don't.  I wish I could remember the name of that family; now I am wondering whether they ever resurfaced.  I think the kids would be grown now.

 

I remember that case. I can't track it down now or remember the details, but I remember believing the father also. I think part of it was that the stories kept getting wilder and wilder, and the dd would remember new things whenever mom got really mad at dad. I think some of the specific times or events were proven to be false. That's strictly going by memory, though. 

I would not just a parent too harshly for participating in the underground network, it's not like they're walking into a nightclub and asking who wants to take them home, or hitchhiking by the side of the road. If they didn't have secrecy, they wouldn't have an underground network for very long, and someone had to refer her to it. Dealing with some abusers is exactly like having a loaded gun pointed at your head all the time, even when they haven't yet pulled out a physical gun. The most dangerous time for victims of domestic violence is when they try to leave. 

Very few people would go to such extreme lengths just for spite. Would some? Yes, but I believe the good of helping victims escape outweighs the slight possibility of this. For most situations, it's impossible to properly take crazy into account. They have to use their best judgment, knowing that most people aren't ready and willing to completely abandon their lives and risk prison time. 

[katilac]

18 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

For me, personally, getting into a private vehicle with someone I do not know, with my kids, and sheets over our heads.....would require a situation so dire that basically, there are guns at my back.  I can't imagine putting my kids into a situation so unknown and sketchy sounding that there isn't literally guns and other such violence should we turn around.  

 

 

You're correlating this to getting into a vehicle with a random stranger, but it's not the same thing. You don't know that particular person, but others in the network do. It's not like the driver thinks he can make you disappear and no one will ever know . . . somebody in the network knows he is there. If the parent and kids show up in a shallow grave, I feel quite certain no one would protect the last known driver. 

[LMD]

For information, breaching a domestic violence order in the same state carries a maximum sentence of $14,000 or 3 years in prison.

There was a recent garden variety dv case also in the same state. The guy punched his partner in the face, he already had a domestic violence order against him. He got one month in prison and 3 months suspended. The High court appeal decision said that one month prison was too harsh.

so I absolutely understand why running from an abuser is a more rational reaction than trusting the courts (who the article says she begged for help first...)

Edited August 14, 2018 by LMD

[katilac]

6 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Other such violence is often exactly what abused women are worried about. That’s kinda the entire point of why they feel the desperate need to run.

 

Exactly. Certain violence lies behind them, along with uncertainty and despair. The underground network has uncertainty as well, but also hope and an extremely low chance of violence. imo, a much lower chance than being violently attacked when you go to the grocery store, movies, or participate in any bit of ordinary life. It could happen, but it's not worth worrying about, particularly when you are leaving known violence behind. 

[regentrude]

52 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

For me, personally, getting into a private vehicle with someone I do not know, with my kids, and sheets over our heads.....would require a situation so dire that basically, there are guns at my back.  I can't imagine putting my kids into a situation so unknown and sketchy sounding that there isn't literally guns and other such violence should we turn around.  

which is exactly the situation in which a woman is who is fleeing from a violent abuser.

Every day, 3 women in the US are killed by their partner or ex-partner (boyfriend or husband). Women who seek help from such a network are running in fear of their lives and their children's lives.

Edited August 14, 2018 by regentrude

[kiwik]

I thought the article was somewhat biased towards the father given the 'happy ending" aspect.

Most dv cases you hear of there have been police call outs etc but I guess not all.  I do think it is evil to put a very ill grandmother is prison when she didn't actually take part.  If you had cancer and your daughter and grandchildren turned up to care for you after years away would you report them? Would the police or the judge in that situation?

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

9 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

The second thing, about the article, for me, is that the kids have been with the father for 8 months, and there is NOTHING printed about any sort of problems the father may have had with authorities since then, the kids haven't been harmed according to the article....if the article wanted to present the mom as purely the victim I would think that any issue that ever happened would be a part.  Sort of a "see, dad really was that bad."

 

You would think, but I'd advise you not to bet money on it. 

[Faith-manor]

12 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

There was this one case years ago here in the US where a woman accused her ex of being s*xually abusive to their DD, and fled to (people think) Australia with their children.  I saw interview with both parents, and I believed the guy.  But I usually don't.  I wish I could remember the name of that family; now I am wondering whether they ever resurfaced.  I think the kids would be grown now.

It was Dr. Elizabeth Morgan. She spent 21 + months in jail for contempt when she refused to produce her daughter who was at that time being hidden in New Zealand with relatives. Kiwi courts ruled that the evidence of the father sexually molesting his daughter was overwhelming and refused to send the child back to the US. 

Here is an old article that highlights the basics of the case at the time the battle occurred.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/magazine/who-s-to-judge.html

Here is a link to a summary of his loss of custody to his first daughter, Hilary's half sister.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1990-12-07/news/1990341075_1_foretich-daughter-new-zealand

I find it interesting in the first case that experts in childhood sexual abuse had their testimony dismissed, but "experts" for Foretich who admitted in court that they were not experts, had their testimony admitted.

At any rate, the loss of visitation to the first child is damaging.

As for the original case, I would probably also help. Statistics bear out that it is pretty rare for these cases to be exaggerated or untrue. Abusers are just so good at what they do, and are quite effective at manipulating the legal system. It seems like someone has to end up dead before the courts and prosecutors say, "Well duh! Guess we should have done something. Who knew?" 

As for restraining orders, they mean nothing. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law so making a "rule" isn't going to deter criminal behavior.

[Murphy101]

12 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Perhaps.  But........they have now been with him for 8 months (according to the article.)  And dispite how the article wants to be sympathetic to her, it prints no info regarding incidents in the system since.  Not that I want the kids hurt, but if they aren't in such danger now.....were they really in danger then?

 

It may be years before any current or past abuse is spoken of by the kids. Abusers are very adept at not getting caught and twisting their lives to prevent such a thing. Many women and children are horribly abused for years with very few people knowing the true extent or any extent. 

[TravelingChris]

There was a women here that was getting divorced from her husband, a professor.  He was charged with child sexual abuse,.  Then it came out with further investigation that there was no sexual or any other abuse and that she had trained the small children to tell lies in order to get back at him.  The court and prosecution team made the very unusual announcement that he was innocent, not just not guilty or not enough evidence.  But google remembers everything so I bet if I look up his name, the charges will appear.  

I do not assume that the woman is mentally sound at all.  I remember the case of the other woman who left the country with the child (I think to Australia, maybe)  and thought that woman was off too.

Actually the much more hidden epidemic is the domestic violence of women against men.  There are no shelters for men in this situation and great shame in reporting violent behavior.

[katilac]

Thanks for linking to the Elizabeth Morgan articles, Faith-Manor. 

I was stunned by what I read in a third article: Court Judge Herbert Dixon concluded that the evidence of Hilary’s sexual abuse was “in equipoise,” a legal term meaning 50 percent probable but not proved, and in August 1987 he ordered that Hilary begin a two-week unsupervised visit with her father.

The judge thought the evidence for sexual abuse was 50% probable but ordered two weeks of unsupervised visitation? He didn't believe in half-measures, apparently. Supervised visitation would have let him sustain a relationship with his daughter while offering her some protection. 

In the same article, the father of the accused suggested that the social worker interview the half-sister, then almost five, thinking it would help clear his son. Instead, the social worker said that abuse charges were "founded" for that child, while they had been only "reason to suspect" in Hilary's. So that backfired, but the police at the time still concluded that no abuse occurred, no charges were brought, and they did not investigate further. 

All from this article: https://people.com/archive/vowing-to-protect-her-child-from-rape-elizabeth-morgan-faces-her-23rd-month-in-jail-vol-31-no-23/
 

From various sources: The mom spent over two years in jail for refusing to disclose Hilary's location. Freed in 1989, she joined Hilary and her parents in New Zealand. The father found them in 1990 but New Zealand courts did not grant him visitation. Mom and daughter returned to the states when Hilary was 12 or so (a law had been passed, since rescinded, giving her the choice on whether to see her father). The latest update I found was 2009; Hilary was 26. She publicly stated that her mother was right for hiding her and her father did abuse her, but she had declined to press charges (she had until she was 21 to do so).  She had no relationship with her father. 

It seems possible that the case could have resolved in a very different way had the court ruled for supervised visitation when the evidence for the father's guilt or innocence was seen as 50/50. 

[Rosie_0801]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Abusers are just so good at what they do, and are quite effective at manipulating the legal system. It seems like someone has to end up dead before the courts and prosecutors say, "Well duh! Guess we should have done something. Who knew?" 

 

I wouldn't bet on that either.

[unsinkable]

In the US, you can abduct your son and kill him and get out on $20,000 bond.

As well as malnourish 10 other kids.

It is beyond sickening.

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, katilac said:

Thanks for linking to the Elizabeth Morgan articles, Faith-Manor. 

I was stunned by what I read in a third article: Court Judge Herbert Dixon concluded that the evidence of Hilary’s sexual abuse was “in equipoise,” a legal term meaning 50 percent probable but not proved, and in August 1987 he ordered that Hilary begin a two-week unsupervised visit with her father.

The judge thought the evidence for sexual abuse was 50% probable but ordered two weeks of unsupervised visitation? He didn't believe in half-measures, apparently. Supervised visitation would have let him sustain a relationship with his daughter while offering her some protection. 

In the same article, the father of the accused suggested that the social worker interview the half-sister, then almost five, thinking it would help clear his son. Instead, the social worker said that abuse charges were "founded" for that child, while they had been only "reason to suspect" in Hilary's. So that backfired, but the police at the time still concluded that no abuse occurred, no charges were brought, and they did not investigate further. 

All from this article: https://people.com/archive/vowing-to-protect-her-child-from-rape-elizabeth-morgan-faces-her-23rd-month-in-jail-vol-31-no-23/
 

From various sources: The mom spent over two years in jail for refusing to disclose Hilary's location. Freed in 1989, she joined Hilary and her parents in New Zealand. The father found them in 1990 but New Zealand courts did not grant him visitation. Mom and daughter returned to the states when Hilary was 12 or so (a law had been passed, since rescinded, giving her the choice on whether to see her father). The latest update I found was 2009; Hilary was 26. She publicly stated that her mother was right for hiding her and her father did abuse her, but she had declined to press charges (she had until she was 21 to do so).  She had no relationship with her father. 

It seems possible that the case could have resolved in a very different way had the court ruled for supervised visitation when the evidence for the father's guilt or innocence was seen as 50/50. 

 

Many people think not pressing charges means nothing happened. But the truth is that the deck is stacked heavily against the victim. It’s very difficult to prove any sexual misconduct in the courts and even if it is, the penalty is often laughable wih the financial and emotional cost to the victim more than they are able or willing to spend. 

I understand why our system is like that and even agree with it for the most part but it still doesn’t change the victim situation. 

[Ausmumof3]

20 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Perhaps.  But........they have now been with him for 8 months (according to the article.)  And dispite how the article wants to be sympathetic to her, it prints no info regarding incidents in the system since.  Not that I want the kids hurt, but if they aren't in such danger now.....were they really in danger then?

Well I wouldn’t rely on that.  I had a childhood friend who was being abused by a relative and it only came out when she was over 30.  

[katilac]

20 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Perhaps.  But........they have now been with him for 8 months (according to the article.)  And dispite how the article wants to be sympathetic to her, it prints no info regarding incidents in the system since.  Not that I want the kids hurt, but if they aren't in such danger now.....were they really in danger then?

 

Many people who use violence are equally capable of not using violence when they are being watched or think they may be caught. And a big risk factor for child physical abuse is age - the younger the child, the more at risk they are. These children were in hiding for three years, so substantially older when they came home. Take the increased ages, along with the father's knowledge that he is on the radar, and no, a lack of reported incidents in 8 months does not signify much to me. 

I do think it's often next to impossible to either prove or disprove hidden violence and/or sexual abuse. In America, custody (and other disputes) often comes down to who has the most money to drag it out and hire experts. I'd guess it's the same in other places. The people making these decisions do not have an easy job.

I even think that prosecution of parents who run is probably needed, because I do think it's a deterrent to those who aren't truly desperate. The judge in this case, though!! The 74-yr-old grandmother with mestastized cancer goes to jail for three months, when even the opposition requested no jail time? The mother is spending a significant amount of time in jail, more than many violent offenders. It seems like that would have been sufficient deterrent.