Mother Finds Kidnapped Children On Facebook

[snow]

-snip-

Just all depends on how much experience you have in this sort of situation. Though you seem intent with what you believe and I'll let you have that.


All of these, including mine were "How do we know if?" or "It seems like" situations. Those are the shades of gray we are looking for... So quit being rude, we're only looking for more information on the situation.

You can believe the article fully and think it's one big happy moment if you wish... Because it's written to make you feel that way.

 

[Danpascooch]

You think it's sad that someone can be held responsible for kidnapping?

Hell, I'd be freaked out living in a society where kidnappers didn't go to jail.

He kidnapped his own children. It's a little different scenario than kidnapping in general.

And why did he kidnap them? Because a judge was likely about to determine he was an unfit parent, it's not easy to sue for full custody and win, if the mother was going to get full custody, she more than likely deserved it.

Not to mention, right before being deemed completely unfit to be a parent, he KIDNAPPED the kids, so yeah, I think the guy isn't exactly the perfect dad.

oh hi, nice to see u on this thread. anyway there is nothing stated that the mom was or was going to be awarded full custody, hence your conclusion could be wrong.

I could say that perhaps the mom was not fit to be a parent but the dad could not afford the legal fees/time to have a lengthy legal session and hence kidnapped the kids and hence reach a totally different conclusion than u.

don't jump the gun. ur assertion that the dad kidnapped the kid therefore IT MUST BE that he was going to be declared an unfit parent is misguided at best.

As far as the child custody proceedings went, he wouldn't have really needed a lawyer, the burden of proof was on her to prove that he was totally unfit to parent, if he in fact WAS fit to parent, then he could have easily represented himself, it takes a lot for a judge to award full custody to someone.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

-snip-

Just all depends on how much experience you have in this sort of situation. Though you seem intent with what you believe and I'll let you have that.

All of these, including mine were "How do we know if?" or "It seems like" situations. Those are the shades of gray we are looking for... So quit being rude, we're only looking for more information on the situation.

You can believe the article fully and think it's one big happy moment if you wish... Because it's written to make you feel that way.

There is nothing wrong with speculation until you form an opinion around it.

What also concerns me is the need people have to speculate the worst when it isn't warranted.

I do not think it is a "big happy moment", no, thanks for projecting. As the article itself points out, this will be very hard on the children.

Note, however, the revelation that their father had kidnapped them and lied to them about their origins, regardless of his intentions, how "good" of a father he had been, how "bad" a mother she might have been, or how it was revealed to them; would still be very hard for the children. "What else has he lied about?" "What else has he done, or is he capable of?"

Of course, the whole story could be a fabrication of Mark Elliot Zuckerberg.

 

[snow]

-snip-

Just all depends on how much experience you have in this sort of situation. Though you seem intent with what you believe and I'll let you have that.

All of these, including mine were "How do we know if?" or "It seems like" situations. Those are the shades of gray we are looking for... So quit being rude, we're only looking for more information on the situation.

You can believe the article fully and think it's one big happy moment if you wish... Because it's written to make you feel that way.

There is nothing wrong with speculation until you form an opinion around it.

What also concerns me is the need people have to speculate the worst when it isn't warranted.

I do not think it is a "big happy moment", no, thanks for projecting. As the article itself points out, this will be very hard on the children.

Note, however, the revelation that their father had kidnapped them and lied to them about their origins, regardless of his intentions, how "good" of a father he had been, how "bad" a mother she might have been, or how it was revealed to them; would still be very hard for the children. "What else has he lied about?" "What else has he done, or is he capable of?"

Of course, the whole story could be a fabrication of Mark Elliot Zuckerberg.

I feel the speculation comes from the overall worry about the children. Regardless of happy ending or not, the children are going to be having a rough time adapting to their new home and parent. That's a given.

The article doesn't say anything about the parents. It's written in a form to make the reader take sides with the mothers favor in terms of legal justice. So by doing so, if there was any dirt on the father either abusing the children or not taking proper care of them. Wouldn't that have been posted as well to give a greater push towards mom's side?

No, what we do know is, the kids were still alive under the fathers care, and that they had access to a computer to make a facebook page. This means that either, he supplied a computer to the children, which means if he's going to supply an appliance such as that, then he obviously supplied for the children, or they either made a facebook page at school (Which most schools don't allow anyway.) or they had the freedom to go to the local library or LAN center.

Yet there's the situation where he stole the children of course, a deed that landed him in jail and is shunned upon by society, but I can't help but ask... Why? Why did he take the children and run? Was it because he cared for the children? Was he defending them from a greater evil? Or was he being a selfish prick?

There's a lot more written in between the lines about the father than there is about the mother. I feel that most of us who are creating speculations over this situation, worry because of this very reason. We don't know who she is.

What worries me is this.

It's written that she sends an item via farmville to one of her children. Upon receiving one in return she calls the cops...

What this tells me, is there wasn't any communication between the mother and her child. She received a plant and went from point A to point B of calling the police. She didn't find out how things were going with the children and father situation, and it's most likely that she didn't even think of how this would affect the children.

I said "It seems like she did this out of spite against the father." For that very reason. She didn't care what their living standards were or even if they were going to be happy seeing her. As long as she got what was hers, she would be happy.

That's the downfall of split parents... It's not about the children, it's about who gets what, which is why I can't help but feel sorry for the kids. The kids could have been living in a palace or a shit hole. The mother didn't care as long as she was back under mom status. Justice served when it comes to the legal matters, but this is one of those times where I feel it's in the wrong...


Quite the possibility that both parents were being greedy. Like what was said a million times before, there's a lot left open to the reader as there is not enough information to make an accurate assumption, but I hope this makes it clear as to why I and other people feel the mother may have been in the wrong here.

Could the father have lied about other things as well? Sure, chances are he may have told the children that their mother was dead, but was he lying to protect the children or lying because he was being greedy about it? The answer to that simple question may sway the impact of this story in either direction... Though sadly it's one that I feel we may never get an answer too.

 

[Shru1kan]

Yeah, this story is really grey for me. The father and mother were split, adn the father ran off with the kids, denying his former wife's custody.

But he was ostensibly a good father who cared for the kids, and raised them.

So now this woman, who holds a legal claim, finds them and takes them back after 15 years, severing their relationship with their father, and leaving them in the custody of a woman they probably don't even remember, and have no relationship with?

If I were the kids, I'd probably be furious with her.

So yeah, legal justice was served, but are the kids "better off" for it? Unlikely.

-m

That's the heart of the issue I guess. But the father did break the law. Motherly instincts won't give up. I guess the best thing they could do (the court system, not the woman) is transfer him to a prison near them and grant the kids legal rights to visit him once a week or so.

Or, the mother could drop the charges and he could be put under probation/ a large diameter house arrest (like stop him from going more than 50 miles alone). But I doubt that would occur to the courts or the mom.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

-snip-

snip

snip

snip

Both the linked article and the video indicate that they had more interaction than just a Farmville transaction.

Note also that the "kids" are 17 and 18 now, so there's not a lot custody-wise left for her to gain.

 

[snow]

-snip-

snip

snip

snip

Both the linked article and the video indicate that they had more interaction than just a Farmville transaction.

Note also that the "kids" are 17 and 18 now, so there's not a lot custody-wise left for her to gain.

So it was indeed a stab at the father. I'd wish something was posted on behalf of the children, would be interesting to hear their side from it... Instead this seems heavily in the favor of mom gets long lost kids back, facebook is hero, dad's the bad guy.

The video doesn't say what was said between mother and daughter, for all we know, daughter may not even had known what was happening.

They may be 17 or 18, but their lives are still interrupted... I'm sure they were looking forward to graduating with their friends they have made in Florida, now they're going to be graduating with a class full of people they'll only know for a year or two. Sure that happens all the time, but it still sucks, and that's just one of many issues to come.

 

[SarahSyna]

What? really? Think about it for a second. Those kids didn't know their mother, only their father. As he stole them, he probably cared about them and had good relations with them. Now one day police comes, takes your father to jail and gives you to a women YOU DON'T KNOW. And you believe it's good to take children from the only family they knew. Wow, man, that's grand. I bet kids are oh so happy about that fact.

Really people start using your heads. It's interesting but it's a very sad thing.

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm sorry, what? 'He kidnapped them, therefore he must love them!' How does that make any logical sense? How does Kidnapping = Love?

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the mother could have been very spiteful and controlling. Given that he took them precisely so she wouldn't have contact, I think it's far more likely that he's the controlling, spiteful parent in this situation, since his behaviour is the one that fits. Heck, for all we know, he could be an emotionally abusive narcissist and they're delighted to get away from him. It's just as likely as her being a drug addled manipulative tart who only wants them so she can cackle away in her smackhouse like a low budget Bond villain.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

-snip-

snip

snip

snip

Both the linked article and the video indicate that they had more interaction than just a Farmville transaction.

Note also that the "kids" are 17 and 18 now, so there's not a lot custody-wise left for her to gain.

So it was indeed a stab at the father. I'd wish something was posted on behalf of the children, would be interesting to hear their side from it... Instead this seems heavily in the favor of mom gets long lost kids back, facebook is hero, dad's the bad guy.

The video doesn't say what was said between mother and daughter, for all we know, daughter may not even had known what was happening.

They may be 17 or 18, but their lives are still interrupted... I'm sure they were looking forward to graduating with their friends they have made in Florida, now they're going to be graduating with a class full of people they'll only know for a year or two. Sure that happens all the time, but it still sucks, and that's just one of many issues to come.

"It was indeed a stab at the father?"

So, it isn't at all possible she wanted to re-connect with her kids?

Not a possibility at all?

Really?

And he shouldn't have gone to jail for kidnapping, right? She should have been more forgiving because he deprived her of a relationship with her children for 15 years?

 

[cieply]

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm sorry, what? 'He kidnapped them, therefore he must love them!' How does that make any logical sense? How does Kidnapping = Love?

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the mother could have been very spiteful and controlling. Given that he took them precisely so she wouldn't have contact, I think it's far more likely that he's the controlling, spiteful parent in this situation, since his behaviour is the one that fits. Heck, for all we know, he could be an emotionally abusive narcissist and they're delighted to get away from him. It's just as likely as her being a drug addled manipulative tart who only wants them so she can cackle away in her smackhouse like a low budget Bond villain.

I said probably on purpose. But kids are a lot of trouble and money, they are generally a lot of troubles that men usually try to stay as far from as possbile. As they were 3 then he already knew that and maybe I'm naive but I see no other reason to steal your own kids (risk prison, lose a lot of money and such) then care. Of course it IS possible that he is a mean asshole that would just steal them to make his wife suffer but sorry, it's much more likely that (now assumptions assumptions) court rulled against him, I believe I don't have to look over the internet for precise data as this is common knowledge that kids almost ALWAYS go to the mother. That's just how it goes.

Of course, you might be right, I might be wrong, but still this was the only home those kids knew, you cannot deny that. And now it was taken from them. The only parent they ever knew was taken away and now they are going to a woman that is basically a stranger to them. I don't think you can argue that it is in their best interest, regardless of motivation behind the fathers action. Right now those "kids" are entering adult life and just as this hard period is upon them, their life went to shit becouse of their mothers selfishness (justified selfishness but selfishness nontheless).

Think about it from their perspective, not mothers or fathers.

 

[swansman]

Here's how that would go:

Mom *to dad*: "We need to talk"

Dad: Skips town with kids AGAIN.

The dad wrecked the family when he KIDNAPPED THE FUCKING KIDS not the mom!

At which point she calls the police and they track them down because getting two teenagers to uproot their lives quickly without keeping in touch with their friends is impossible.

You don't see illegality as a sign of wrongdoing? Jeez you make it sound like everything that is illegal seem like its the right thing to do.
...
On a side note, how can you not care for laws?

That's not what I mean. What I mean is that laws are hard set on general principles, while life is very much a collection of small details. The general principle will be right most often, but the exceptions happen with enough frequency that I find it necessary to look at the details in every case.

As for visitation rights in the USA it is pretty much guaranteed. The courts would have to decide if the father was a bad parent not the mother, for visitation rights. Sure the mother can say this and that and whatever she wanted but she would have to back that up with evidence and witnesses.

That's how it's supposed to work. I've seen a "good" divorce lawyer get around that before though. I said something about a friend of mine in middleschool before in this thread. Her family ran a mixed martial arts school, and she was very into that. Because she was a girl and that wasn't something teenage girls do though, and she'd surely try and keep up with it during visits, her father lost visitation rights. Again, we have an imperfect system that is very easily abused.

Even if the mother moved to a different state the father could still get the children on every other holiday and every summer vacation. I know that for a fact that if the mother doesn't want to see the father while exchanging the children they can do it at a police station.

That is how it's supposed to work. If it always did, I wouldn't be making the arguement that we need more details

Even if the father was loving and caring and blah blah blah and somehow lost custody or visitation rights he can still APPEAL the decision.

Appeals take time, and children can be very quickly manipulated by their parents. If I were in that situation, I'd be very afraid that my former wife would try and make my children hate me.

So that would give anyone the right to kidnap?

 

[snow]

-

"It was indeed a stab at the father?"

So, it isn't at all possible she wanted to re-connect with her kids?

Not a possibility at all?

Really?

And he shouldn't have gone to jail for kidnapping, right? She should have been more forgiving because he deprived her of a relationship with her children for 15 years?

You ask if there's a possibility that she may have wanted to reconnect, yet, the original statements that you have quoted in your first post asked the possibility that the father may have been protecting the children or other various possibilities.

Why does my possibility sound so unreal compared to yours? I feel I'm being realistic when it comes to split parents atleast. You said previously that she didn't have that much to gain due to their age. That it was going to be hard for the kids...

She obviously didn't think either of those 2 situations over... If she had, then she obviously didn't care, she wanted her kids back whether she actually wanted them, or if she wanted to see the father suffer for his actions 15 years ago. In either case, the children get rushed out of the home they've grown accustomed too, only to appeal to a mother they don't even know.

The father shouldn't have gone to jail? I never said that, he broke the law... Therefore by law he deserves jail time. Could this have been prevented had he not kidnapped the children? Of course!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the father... I'm asking "What if?"

It's important to ask questions when it comes to things like this, especially if there's a lot of holes in the story. But none the less, Yay for mom, sucks for the kids, father had it coming.

 

[SarahSyna]

(Emphasis mine.)

I'm sorry, what? 'He kidnapped them, therefore he must love them!' How does that make any logical sense? How does Kidnapping = Love?

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the mother could have been very spiteful and controlling. Given that he took them precisely so she wouldn't have contact, I think it's far more likely that he's the controlling, spiteful parent in this situation, since his behaviour is the one that fits. Heck, for all we know, he could be an emotionally abusive narcissist and they're delighted to get away from him. It's just as likely as her being a drug addled manipulative tart who only wants them so she can cackle away in her smackhouse like a low budget Bond villain.

I said probably on purpose. But kids are a lot of trouble and money, they are generally a lot of troubles that men usually try to stay as far from as possbile. As they were 3 then he already knew that and maybe I'm naive but I see no other reason to steal your own kids (risk prison, lose a lot of money and such) then care. Of course it IS possible that he is a mean asshole that would just steal them to make his wife suffer but sorry, it's much more likely that (now assumptions assumptions) court rulled against him, I believe I don't have to look over the internet for precise data as this is common knowledge that kids almost ALWAYS go to the mother. That's just how it goes.

Of course, you might be right, I might be wrong, but still this was the only home those kids knew, you cannot deny that. And now it was taken from them. The only parent they ever knew was taken away and now they are going to a woman that is basically a stranger to them. I don't think you can argue that it is in their best interest, regardless of motivation behind the fathers action. Right now those "kids" are entering adult life and just as this hard period is upon them, their life went to shit becouse of their mothers selfishness (justified selfishness but selfishness nontheless).

Think about it from their perspective, not mothers or fathers.

Actually, like most common knowledge, that little tidbit is wrong. The children do not always go to the mother, especially not in a case of full custody. More often than not there is a case of joint custody, unless (and sometimes not even) one parent is physically, sexually or emotionally abusive.

If he was getting joint custody and took them anyways he's a jerk.
If he wasn't getting any custody then it's most likely due to something he's doing wrong and he's definitely the bad guy.

How do you think they felt as children? There's a reason that kids get therapy when their parent divorce. At that age each parent is a half of your world, and he took them away.

And honestly, I don;t see how it's selfish to want to see your children after fifteen years. They are her children. She has every right to be with her own children (and he has the duty of going to gaol for his crime). If anyone is selfish here, then it has to be him because he's the one who started this whole sorry mess.

 

[IHaveNoCoolness]

To all the people who are wondering about the guy and how she probably ruined their relationship, etc, etc...

The guy is a kidnapper who took the children illegally. How much of a decent guy can he be?

Sure, the guy may have sucked, but what about the kid's friends and their lives?
They've been taken from their old life and all their friends. And now have to deal with what their father, the only parent they've known for 15 years, committed an awful crime.

Plus, we know nothing about the father. For all we know he could have been a complete ass. But he could have also been a very loving father. For all we know he probably took the kids because the mother was a bad mother. And trying to get custody of kids away from their mothers is an insanely hard thing to do.

We know nothing either way. We don't know anything about the mother except that she had her kids taken from her by this guy. The only things we know from the news story are that 1) she found her kids using facebook and they've been reunited, and 2) this guy stole the kids and ran away with them. Obviously if they are making a news story about it, they have done fact checking and the child was probably listed as a missing person. There is way too little information either way.

I think it's a horrible situation for the kids to be in, but I don't think leaving the kids with the father who kidnapped them is the solution. Maybe he's looking after them, but having access to facebook and a computer doesn't mean you're living a normal well adjusted life. How many newsposts come up on just this website about people with computers, video games and access to social networking sites who are not well adjusted? Like the other day I read a news post about a guy hunting down a guy and stabbing him over a Counter Strike game.

My post was maybe a little too "pro Mother", but I really think people need to open their eyes. Just because the kids have Facebook, doesn't mean being with the father is or isn't a toxic environment. That doesn't mean anything. However, the guy KNOWINGLY kidnapped children. I don't know what his reasons are, but I'm inclined to belive that the fact that the guy is a kidnapper, says a lot more about his character than allowing his children to be on Facebook does. I mean, the State they lived in awarded custody to the mother, that means that State determined the best place for the children was in the care of their mother, not the father.

It sucks that they may have to move, change schools, etc, etc, etc. And yeah, maybe the father is actually like one of those guys with a heart of gold in the movies, or whatever... But maybe there is a reason the mother was awarded custody in the first place. I don't think you can say "They were allowed to use Facebook. They were obviously in a good place." There are lots of people with access to Facebook that are not in good homes and are in broken homes or have abusive parents. There aren't a lot of people who kidnap children that are probably good people. I'm going to side with the mother.

 

[Irridium]

To all the people who are wondering about the guy and how she probably ruined their relationship, etc, etc...

The guy is a kidnapper who took the children illegally. How much of a decent guy can he be?

Sure, the guy may have sucked, but what about the kid's friends and their lives?
They've been taken from their old life and all their friends. And now have to deal with what their father, the only parent they've known for 15 years, committed an awful crime.

Plus, we know nothing about the father. For all we know he could have been a complete ass. But he could have also been a very loving father. For all we know he probably took the kids because the mother was a bad mother. And trying to get custody of kids away from their mothers is an insanely hard thing to do.

We know nothing either way. We don't know anything about the mother except that she had her kids taken from her by this guy. The only things we know from the news story are that 1) she found her kids using facebook and they've been reunited, and 2) this guy stole the kids and ran away with them. Obviously if they are making a news story about it, they have done fact checking and the child was probably listed as a missing person. There is way too little information either way.

I think it's a horrible situation for the kids to be in, but I don't think leaving the kids with the father who kidnapped them is the solution. Maybe he's looking after them, but having access to facebook and a computer doesn't mean you're living a normal well adjusted life. How many newsposts come up on just this website about people with computers, video games and access to social networking sites who are not well adjusted? Like the other day I read a news post about a guy hunting down a guy and stabbing him over a Counter Strike game.

My post was maybe a little too "pro Mother", but I really think people need to open their eyes. Just because the kids have Facebook, doesn't mean being with the father is or isn't a toxic environment. That doesn't mean anything. However, the guy KNOWINGLY kidnapped children. I don't know what his reasons are, but I'm inclined to belive that the fact that the guy is a kidnapper, says a lot more about his character than allowing his children to be on Facebook does. I mean, the State they lived in awarded custody to the mother, that means that State determined the best place for the children was in the care of their mother, not the father.

It sucks that they may have to move, change schools, etc, etc, etc. And yeah, maybe the father is actually like one of those guys with a heart of gold in the movies, or whatever... But maybe there is a reason the mother was awarded custody in the first place. I don't think you can say "They were allowed to use Facebook. They were obviously in a good place." There are lots of people with access to Facebook that are not in good homes and are in broken homes or have abusive parents. There aren't a lot of people who kidnap children that are probably good people. I'm going to side with the mother.

First: I never said "they have facebook, so they're fine" or anything along those lines.

Second: Its true, the father could be an awful person. But I don't know this. I've seen plenty of decent fathers who's children are worse off with their mothers. The courts and everyone will do anything they possibly can and look for any excuse to keep a child with his/her mother.

But the mother could be a great person. I don't know. And since I don't know anything about the parents, I can't side with either one. All I can do is speculate about what they may or may be not like, and speculate about how this will effect the kids.

 

[cieply]

Actually, like most common knowledge, that little tidbit is wrong. The children do not always go to the mother, especially not in a case of full custody. More often than not there is a case of joint custody, unless (and sometimes not even) one parent is physically, sexually or emotionally abusive.

If he was getting joint custody and took them anyways he's a jerk.
If he wasn't getting any custody then it's most likely due to something he's doing wrong and he's definitely the bad guy.

How do you think they felt as children? There's a reason that kids get therapy when their parent divorce. At that age each parent is a half of your world, and he took them away.

And honestly, I don;t see how it's selfish to want to see your children after fifteen years. They are her children. She has every right to be with her own children (and he has the duty of going to gaol for his crime). If anyone is selfish here, then it has to be him because he's the one who started this whole sorry mess.

Fuck, just as I was about to post, my net had a hickup and all my frantic typing went down the shiter but here's a recap.

As for selfishness, she did what was best for her. Reunion with kids? Great. Reunion at the cost of taking the only parent those kids knew? Not so great. I understand her motivation, but I doubt it's in childerens best intrest. And this is all we know as the fact of the matter is that we don't know shit. I can be right, you can be. But the court will know and I'll live it to them, I only hope they will take everything into account. You say that parents are a world to their childeren. Well, the mother just took that world away from them (as they knew only the father), that's hell of a start of a family reunion isn't it?

 

[SarahSyna]

The only reason he was the only parent they knew is because of what HE did. And he's the one who first shattered that world by taking them away at all.

Not to mention, how is it in their best their best interests to leave them with a kidnapper? If the mother was getting full custody then it was decided that it was in their best interests not to have any contact with their father. Instead they were mostly raised by him.

 

[powell86]

As far as the child custody proceedings went, he wouldn't have really needed a lawyer, the burden of proof was on her to prove that he was totally unfit to parent, if he in fact WAS fit to parent, then he could have easily represented himself, it takes a lot for a judge to award full custody to someone.

dude there will still be court fees. but anyway, i said there could be the possibility that the mom was unfit to be a parent and then he took it upon himself to take the kids away from her as the fast track (yes stupid i know). the thing is, we are unsure of the facts of the case. But u seemed super sure that yes the mom HAS full custody or WILL get full custody which and then spin ur conclusion off it.

all i'm saying is don't jump the gun.

and i think the sensible forumers here are not saying kidnapping is legal, neither did we say the mom shouldn't have called police or what not, or that the dad doesn't belong in jail.

what we are actually talking about here are the welfare of the kids. the fact that they are being shifted from florida to california. Nobody likes that. Furthermore, you would gonna be living with a stranger. What we are discussing is this. I mean, couldn't the mom haf actually continued letting the kids stayed at where they were? and provide monetary support. But no... it is apparent that she either:

1) wants "quality time" with the kids without thinking whether her kids wants it too

2) take the kids as far away from the dad so that they can't even visit him in jail (assuming the kids want to visit their dad)

 

[powell86]

Actually, like most common knowledge, that little tidbit is wrong. The children do not always go to the mother, especially not in a case of full custody. More often than not there is a case of joint custody, unless (and sometimes not even) one parent is physically, sexually or emotionally abusive.

If he was getting joint custody and took them anyways he's a jerk.
If he wasn't getting any custody then it's most likely due to something he's doing wrong and he's definitely the bad guy.

How do you think they felt as children? There's a reason that kids get therapy when their parent divorce. At that age each parent is a half of your world, and he took them away.

And honestly, I don;t see how it's selfish to want to see your children after fifteen years. They are her children. She has every right to be with her own children (and he has the duty of going to gaol for his crime). If anyone is selfish here, then it has to be him because he's the one who started this whole sorry mess.

yupz the dad is a jerk. But are we concerned about the law making restitution for the mom or the law making restitution for the kids?

the mom has every right to be with her own children, but in the law making such restitution for her, did the law bothered about asking the kids whether they want to go back to the mom? Furthermore, if the mom really cared for the kids, would she preferred to uproot her kids from where they grew up to a new place? In the middle of school term to top it up.

You seemed to think that just becuz the kids are now together with their mom, they have been moved from an evil hellish hole to now eternal paradise. Such thinking is naive to say the least. Too many factors are involved and too many facts of the case unknown. We are not saying the dad should haf kidnapped the kids. But questioning the merits of the mom bringing the kids back with her.

things she could haf done:

1) provide financial support while allowing the kids to stay in where they were (i mean they are almost college age, they can bloody take care of themselves)

2) move over to stay with them if the kids do not want to move out

but what she did: "hi i'm your mom, your dad's a jerk, fuck all of u we are moving back to california"