marimoose
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,282
Jul 22, 2014 2:10:14 GMT
|
Post by marimoose on Aug 11, 2015 17:39:16 GMT
What an update, that she did appear in court with the children. I really thought she would be more defiant because once those children leave the US, she loses much of her footing for a fight for them to return. Maybe I am wrong but I would not have obeyed orders and fought until there was some sort of reasonable resolution. I don't understand why the dad has not tried to get his Visa reinstated unless there was truly just cause for it being revoked. I am not questioning his parenting skills but it seems quite unfair that she is the one being forced to have to travel to see her children all the time, especially if she didn't do anything illegal as it might appear he did. It also makes me question our own system if it doesn't stand behind its own citizens. I know there are two sides and we only hear what the media wants to share but there are some parts of this story that no matter what the spin cannot be fair to any of the parties involved.
Nope, no way would I have relinquished custody until the 13th hour and I had no other choice. The children should be number one but theyalso should be able to see there more mother far more than it sounds like they do.
I wonder what the real story really is. What are thew children's rights and who is protecting them?
|
|
|
Post by lurkingsince2001 on Aug 11, 2015 17:56:47 GMT
I have so many questions here. Having seen so many times when a criminal, addict, abuser, what have you, kept custody or visitation even when it was glaringly obvious they shouldn't, I have to wonder what she's done that's so horrendous. If my DH were to up and move to another country I don't think he automatically should get the kids (nor do I think the husband's nationality should be trump any more than hers). And it bothers me that it seems like the judge is using taking away the kids to punish her for interfering with his visa. I'm not comfortable with a judge using kids this way, especially as it has life-long impact. Is ANYONE involved here really looking out for the kids interests?
So she sabotaged his visa? Is he even trying to get his issues resolved or has he given up and will stay away forever? When she did this, did she know he was planning on taking the kids there? Why was she so adamant he not be on the birth certificate? It just seems like there are red flags here that either scream "Genuinely Concerned Mom" or "Desperate with Issues". I can't totally write her off as unstable because I think many of us would go to great lengths to keep our babies close or away from someone we no longer trusted.
And the jurisdiction conundrum: If a court rules it has no authority to rule in a case based on it not being their jurisdiction geographically, not just politically, then how can they later reverse that when the geography hasn't changed? I can see why her lawyer would try the tactic they did. And I keep wondering why Monaco (which I didn't think he was a citizen of) is so vested in this. These kids aren't their citizens, are they? Yet they are American citizens, so should our system has more say? (It's something I've pondered in cases of International Kidnapping on tv). I keep seeing people say that she should move there if she truly loves them (no doubt she should) but at the same time I wonder why the kids couldn't have stayed here and he just get his visa straightened out. (What's the hold-up if it's been proven he wasn't the drug dealer she alleged?) I've seen people, and I think one judge, saying that she can afford the travel or move and he can't so the onus is on her. Yet I've heard he's successful in business and can't imagine Monaco is a cheap place to live even with their tax structure. And why should the onus be on the wealthier parent anyway? Obviously you don't want an unfair hardship on the poorer parent either, but it seems like there is a middle ground being missed here.
This has drug on so long, and started so early in their lives, that this vitriol and tug-of-war is probably all the kids know. Can you imagine, from either the parent or child point of view, always wondering if you are going to get yanked away today or tomorrow? Or knowing that your baby is with someone you loath on the other side of the world? no knowing when or if you'll see each other again? There are no winners here. Except maybe the lawyers if they ever actually get paid.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Aug 11, 2015 18:23:03 GMT
I remember another story of a man married to a Brazilian woman. She went on vacation to Brazil with their child and never came back. I don't believe he realized things were so bad in their relationship that she would contemplate leaving him. He went to court and nothing happened for a few years during which time he did not see his son. Until his wife oddly died prematurely, then Brazil forced the grandparents to give the child back.
When I was in middle school my mom and I went to Australia for vacation. Then a few years later she wanted to go back but this time the embassy required a letter from my father saying she had permission to take me out of the country, needless to say my mother was livid as she didn't think it was any of his business where she took me. lol
I always think of the movie with Sally Field "Not without my daughter" based on the true story of an American woman who met a man in the US from Iran who was a doctor. They lived in Michigan for 10 years happily married then he said he wanted to take the family to Iran to see his family whom he hadn't seen in years. Once there he announced that he was tired of living in the US and they wouldn't be returning. That movie always scared me to marry anyone from another country. Because even in good times, they can flip the script and kidnap your child.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Aug 11, 2015 18:34:37 GMT
So she sabotaged his visa? Is he even trying to get his issues resolved or has he given up and will stay away forever? When she did this, did she know he was planning on taking the kids there? Why was she so adamant he not be on the birth certificate? It just seems like there are red flags here that either scream "Genuinely Concerned Mom" or "Desperate with Issues". I can't totally write her off as unstable because I think many of us would go to great lengths to keep our babies close or away from someone we no longer trusted. . I keep seeing people say that she should move there if she truly loves them (no doubt she should) but at the same time I wonder why the kids couldn't have stayed here and he just get his visa straightened out My thing is they were legally married and already had one child with his name on the birth certificate, what did she really think she could pull by keeping his name off the other? The fact that she fought something so futile makes her look bad to me. In my eyes, when you fight dirty, whatever legitimate issue you had is disregarded. I know she had filed a restraining order against him at one point for harassment, but now I don't know if I should believe it was the truth? He may not want to come back to the US, Europe is his home. She works in Hollywood so she may not be able to afford to just go live in Monaco, especially after filing bankruptcy. Well she lives in NYC now, must be easier for the long flights to Europe. Let's not forget that even though OJ Simpson was found guilty of killing Nicole Brown in the civil trial, that ruling had no bearing on him getting full custody of his children. So this guy's supposed drug connections don't prevent him in the eyes of the law of getting custody.
|
|
marimoose
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,282
Jul 22, 2014 2:10:14 GMT
|
Post by marimoose on Aug 11, 2015 21:23:02 GMT
So she sabotaged his visa? Is he even trying to get his issues resolved or has he given up and will stay away forever? When she did this, did she know he was planning on taking the kids there? Why was she so adamant he not be on the birth certificate? It just seems like there are red flags here that either scream "Genuinely Concerned Mom" or "Desperate with Issues". I can't totally write her off as unstable because I think many of us would go to great lengths to keep our babies close or away from someone we no longer trusted. . I keep seeing people say that she should move there if she truly loves them (no doubt she should) but at the same time I wonder why the kids couldn't have stayed here and he just get his visa straightened out My thing is they were legally married and already had one child with his name on the birth certificate, what did she really think she could pull by keeping his name off the other? The fact that she fought something so futile makes her look bad to me. In my eyes, when you fight dirty, whatever legitimate issue you had is disregarded. I know she had filed a restraining order against him at one point for harassment, but now I don't know if I should believe it was the truth? He may not want to come back to the US, Europe is his home. She works in Hollywood so she may not be able to afford to just go live in Monaco, especially after filing bankruptcy. Well she lives in NYC now, must be easier for the long flights to Europe. Let's not forget that even though OJ Simpson was found guilty of killing Nicole Brown in the civil trial, that ruling had no bearing on him getting full custody of his children. So this guy's supposed drug connections don't prevent him in the eyes of the law of getting custody. Comparing OJ to this case is rather odd. In OJ's case, he was the only parent since Nicole Simpson Brown was gone. The children only had one parent to consider, no matter what he may or may not have done. His parenting skills had nothing to do with the civil trial nor do I think that the ex-husband's drug connection in this case is even a factor, with the exception that he is not allowed a visa now. At the end of the day it is hard to see how there can be an equitable arrangement for all. All parties suffer. The children do not have access to both parents equally, the parents do not have access to their children to their satisfaction. What happens if Kelly can no longer afford to purchase plane tickets to Monaco based on her bankruptcy? I see that someone said he had to provide the tickets but I find it unlikely that he has to buy her a ticket any time she wants. There are no easy answers to this case.
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Aug 11, 2015 23:39:40 GMT
I remember another story of a man married to a Brazilian woman. She went on vacation to Brazil with their child and never came back. I don't believe he realized things were so bad in their relationship that she would contemplate leaving him. He went to court and nothing happened for a few years during which time he did not see his son. Until his wife oddly died prematurely, then Brazil forced the grandparents to give the child back. When I was in middle school my mom and I went to Australia for vacation. Then a few years later she wanted to go back but this time the embassy required a letter from my father saying she had permission to take me out of the country, needless to say my mother was livid as she didn't think it was any of his business where she took me. lol I always think of the movie with Sally Field "Not without my daughter" based on the true story of an American woman who met a man in the US from Iran who was a doctor. They lived in Michigan for 10 years happily married then he said he wanted to take the family to Iran to see his family whom he hadn't seen in years. Once there he announced that he was tired of living in the US and they wouldn't be returning. That movie always scared me to marry anyone from another country. Because even in good times, they can flip the script and kidnap your child. My grandmother saw that movie so many times! I also thought I would be afraid to marry someone from another country after seeing that movie (I was pretty young then though). The Brazil case was so sad. I felt so bad for the dad. He was on the news often. The woman died in childbirth and they still let her husband have the kid over his dad. At least he finally got his son back.
|
|