Mother Finds Kidnapped Children On Facebook

[powell86]

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.

there is nowhere that says she is getting full custody. pls do not speculate that portion.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Criminals being brought down by the online social network of the interwebz. I like it haha.

 

[Danilo Morales]

snip

The question is though? Does it matter if they are "better off". We live in a society based on actions and consequenses. He did a action and now he must suffer the consequenses of that action. It might be the oldest rule in human civilization.

Is... Is that a joke? The ONLY thing that matters is if the kids are "better off". If the mother had their best interests at heart, she could have at least moved to them so their lives aren't destroyed for a year before they move away from 'that woman that got dad arrested and made us move accross America'...

I think a lot of people who are saying the mother is a bad person are thinking of the children. Nice to see someone is...

So you're saying that we should ignore the written laws just because? You know, the laws are there for a reason. He did a crime and now he shall suffer the consequenses of his action. That is the most basic rule among humans on planet earth. Even cave-men had that rule, without it, everything we know would fall apart.

Laws dont always have morality, or true justice in mind, take the slave laws or Muslim law, or Chinese suppression law or Hitler's laws, the law of the land is not always right my friend

True that, but this is not such a extreme case as the Nuremberg Laws and the laws are still to be obeyed, like it or not.

So, let me get this straight what you are saying is that no matter what the law is you still have to obey it?
So basically if there was a law on the book that said you could go out and kill as many people as you want as long as you do it on the second Tuesday of every month you would have to follow it because it is a law?

 

[fletch_talon]

I think too many people in this thread have "Mummy issues".
Honestly you want to make the point that maybe she was a bad mother, fine, that's a fair point. Too many of you however are making these claims as though its the most likely scenario.

dun think so, but rather we're still amazed that
1) the woman took 15 years to find her 2 kids that are actually living normal lives without hiding.

2) she's uprooting her kids from their comfortable area to where she is now

think more people are arguing abt the merits of point 2. none of us like to be uprooted and live with someone we haven't met in 15 years.

Its going to be pretty damn hard to find someone regardless of how normal a life they are living. They could be anywhere and unless you've got some idea of where to start looking then you're looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
She only found them by chance on Facebook. Now I think we can safely assume that until the kids were at least 10 or so, they weren't going to have their own account. As people have said, the father could easily have been unaware of their use of the site and if he was, he probably wouldn't even think of the possibility that his wife would search for their children on there. Especially after the initial 5+ years had passed. Like a lot of you, he probably underestimated how distressing it can be for a parent (especially a mother) to be seperated from their children.
(I also just realised that Facebook hasn't even existed all that time.)

As for your second point... bullshit... honestly. If they're that worried by it then they're both capable of getting a job and living on their own. Families move, often. Why would the mother move to them, when she can't be certain of finding a job there and thus can't be certain of being able to support her children. Kids (or in this case young adults) are more flexible than a grown woman who potentially has a steady job or career, maybe even paying off a home. There's more to life than highschool friends, but if they really do miss them, they can always stay in touch via facebook.

I understand that it would be hard for the kids, but they're old enough and hopefully smart enough to realise that whether he treated them well or not, its the father's fault that they're in their current situation.
I also realise that there is the possibility that the mum is the kook and the dad's a hero (who should still have abided by the law) but nothing revealed so far has really provided evidence for either case.

 

[Danilo Morales]

for number 3 remember they are now 15 years older, i wasn't referring to the day and hour they were kidnapped


for the others when does humanity make sense. and good parents don't abandon the rest of their families (grandparents, aunts/uncles, former friends, everyone they knew) to disappear with their kids, saying that the kidnapper was most likely a good parent is like saying hitler must have deserved a Nobel peace prize

I disagree. What does Hitler have to do with anything in this thread?

Your values are unrealistic and based on things I don't agree with. I do not think a family "should stick around" if they hate each others guts. And I do not think that living and keeping relations with one's biological ancestors matters. You parent is whoever assumes the role of parenthood and cares for you. They don't need to be traceable to your DNA.

The article itself doesn't provide enough information to solidly state anything in this case. Although given that the kids had facebook, and thus access to the internet and the outer world, kind of means that whoever the parent is, he's not like that guy who locked his daughter for 20 years in a room or something. So it's +1 point to the whole 'good parent" thing.

hitler is to the peace prize as the kidnapper is to the father of the year award

internet access: he didn't keep the kids locked in a closet. maybe they attended school where they could have gained access, or escaped to friends where ever possible, maybe used his computer
--and i'm a little curious how having internet access translates to good parenting, what if to afford it he cut back on their food? more than one can pointlessly speculate

Kids should be eating less food now a days the way they are now...

 

[Doomsday11]

Warms my heart a little.

Best of luck to them and hopefully they'll be able to rebuild they're family.


Also, isin't a bit odd that the father would let his two KIDNAPPED kids on facebook?

After 15 years he probally thought the mother had given up looking.

 

[cieply]

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.

Why do you assume she was granted full custody? I don't remember seeing it in the article. Yet again, assumptions, assumptions. And yet again you refuse to look at this from childerens perspective. Their world WAS NOT SHATTERED as they were babies. That means they remember shit and what you don;t remember, can't hurt ya'. In their minds the grew up not with a kidnapper but with a father, how can you not see that? Sometimes I don't even know why I'm trying...

As it can be hard for you to just consider what a random guy on the internets is tellin' ya', here you have a quote from the article.

"There is no relationship there," Hoeppner said. "You don't have that immediate joyful reunification. If in fact that is what will progress, it will take time. These children will have to build a relationship, and that is something that will not happen overnight."

 

[powell86]

Its going to be pretty damn hard to find someone regardless of how normal a life they are living. They could be anywhere and unless you've got some idea of where to start looking then you're looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack.
She only found them by chance on Facebook. Now I think we can safely assume that until the kids were at least 10 or so, they weren't going to have their own account. As people have said, the father could easily have been unaware of their use of the site and if he was, he probably wouldn't even think of the possibility that his wife would search for their children on there. Especially after the initial 5+ years had passed. Like a lot of you, he probably underestimated how distressing it can be for a parent (especially a mother) to be seperated from their children.
(I also just realised that Facebook hasn't even existed all that time.)

As for your second point... bullshit... honestly. If they're that worried by it then they're both capable of getting a job and living on their own. Families move, often. Why would the mother move to them, when she can't be certain of finding a job there and thus can't be certain of being able to support her children. Kids (or in this case young adults) are more flexible than a grown woman who potentially has a steady job or career, maybe even paying off a home. There's more to life than highschool friends, but if they really do miss them, they can always stay in touch via facebook.

I understand that it would be hard for the kids, but they're old enough and hopefully smart enough to realise that whether he treated them well or not, its the father's fault that they're in their current situation.
I also realise that there is the possibility that the mum is the kook and the dad's a hero (who should still have abided by the law) but nothing revealed so far has really provided evidence for either case.

and hence the kids welfare is not taken care of like u said. if the only way of maintaining their previous lifestyle is by them working, then obviously the mum has actually caused detriment to their way of living. So basically u are saying the mum is justified to cause a change of way of live to the kids just becuz she's the mom even though the kids will most prob treat her like a stranger.

now lets put this under perspective:

assuming ur parents kidnapped you and you are not their child. Suddenly a couple pops up and say hey you're actually my son. Now off to chicago you go while ur "parents" go to jail. How would you feel? I'm sure you're not going to embrace your real parents and give them real hugs and kisses and say "oh thanks for coming, i love chicago and these people were douche anyway". yeah and i'm sure u'll love the transition and say "oh this is all so worth it, i can keep in touch with my friends thru facebook anyway, screw them"

 

[MGlBlaze]

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

-m

The morality is rather grey. On the one hand the father committed a pretty serious crime and should be punished for it and the children should be able to meet the person they were taken from, and the mother herself should be able to see her kids again. On the other hand, the father obviously cared for them (I'm not sure if he was a GOOD father or not, but that's beside the point) and the children are now separated from the one person they considered their parent and placed with a woman they don't know, as you stated.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what people thought and how they acted. Pretty much like everyone else in this thread.

Note to self; resist human nature harder. (not being sarcastic)

I guess a lot of people just automatically make assumptions with things like this.
For all anyone knows maybe the mother was a good mother and the father was a heartless bastard or vice versa. Or any other kind of combination of circumstances.

As I already said though, the father still comitted a pretty serious crime and needs to be punished regardless of the reasons. If it turns out he had good reasons then I wouldn't hold it too much against him, but the thing is, none of us knows WHAT was going on.

 

[fletch_talon]

and hence the kids welfare is not taken care of like u said. if the only way of maintaining their previous lifestyle is by them working, then obviously the mum has actually caused detriment to their way of living.

You didn't read much of my post did you?
If you consider a person's welfare to be determined, more so by their geographic location than by the need for the parent to have a steady job and thus ensure adequate food and shelter is provided, then there is something wrong with you.
People move throughout life. Sometimes its because of work, or a girlfriend, sometimes its because the parents say so. Assuming she hasn't asked them to move into the center of a nuclear testing ground, then their welfare isn't really at stake. As I said, if their friends and geographical location is more important than the fact that their father has lied to them their whole lives, then they can pursue their own lives.

So basically u are saying the mum is justified to cause a change of way of live to the kids just becuz she's the mom even though the kids will most prob treat her like a stranger.

So basically you're saying that the father is allowed to get away with kidnapping just because its been 15 years. I'll keep that in mind next time I want to commit a crime.

now lets put this under perspective:

assuming ur parents kidnapped you and you are not their child. Suddenly a couple pops up and say hey you're actually my son. Now off to chicago you go while ur "parents" go to jail. How would you feel? I'm sure you're not going to embrace your real parents and give them real hugs and kisses and say "oh thanks for coming, i love chicago and these people were douche anyway". yeah and i'm sure u'll love the transition and say "oh this is all so worth it, i can keep in touch with my friends thru facebook anyway, screw them"

I would be somewhat distraught, but being an intelligent person I would eventually realise that my "parents" had lied to me for 18 years of my life and are pathetic excuses for human beings as they forcefully removed me from my real parents. Whether I embrace or connect to the real parents is irrelevant, unless you think the children should continue living with their "parents"... in jail.

Kidnapper's go to jail, end of story. So the kids could either live on their own where they were, or with their mother in an environment where she has an established life which she can use to support "her" children until they decide to leave.

 

[ZephrC]

Well, this page http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=1708 doesn't say a whole lot more, but it does say "The girl told her mother that she wanted nothing to do with her and deleted her Facebook page, but authorities had enough information to track the family down."

That's... probably not a good sign. I don't know for certain, but it seems an awful lot like this is one of those situations where mercy would have been wiser than "justice".

 

[powell86]

and hence the kids welfare is not taken care of like u said. if the only way of maintaining their previous lifestyle is by them working, then obviously the mum has actually caused detriment to their way of living.

You didn't read much of my post did you?
If you consider a person's welfare to be determined, more so by their geographic location than by the need for the parent to have a steady job and thus ensure adequate food and shelter is provided, then there is something wrong with you.
People move throughout life. Sometimes its because of work, or a girlfriend, sometimes its because the parents say so. Assuming she hasn't asked them to move into the center of a nuclear testing ground, then their welfare isn't really at stake. As I said, if their friends and geographical location is more important than the fact that their father has lied to them their whole lives, then they can pursue their own lives.

So basically u are saying the mum is justified to cause a change of way of live to the kids just becuz she's the mom even though the kids will most prob treat her like a stranger.

So basically you're saying that the father is allowed to get away with kidnapping just because its been 15 years. I'll keep that in mind next time I want to commit a crime.

now lets put this under perspective:

assuming ur parents kidnapped you and you are not their child. Suddenly a couple pops up and say hey you're actually my son. Now off to chicago you go while ur "parents" go to jail. How would you feel? I'm sure you're not going to embrace your real parents and give them real hugs and kisses and say "oh thanks for coming, i love chicago and these people were douche anyway". yeah and i'm sure u'll love the transition and say "oh this is all so worth it, i can keep in touch with my friends thru facebook anyway, screw them"

I would be somewhat distraught, but being an intelligent person I would eventually realise that my "parents" had lied to me for 18 years of my life and are pathetic excuses for human beings as they forcefully removed me from my real parents. Whether I embrace or connect to the real parents is irrelevant, unless you think the children should continue living with their "parents"... in jail.

Kidnapper's go to jail, end of story. So the kids could either live on their own where they were, or with their mother in an environment where she has an established life which she can use to support "her" children until they decide to leave.

dude... nowhere did i say the father should not go to jail. i think the father SHOULD go to jail becuz he did commit a crime of kidnapping. I'm only targeting on the fact that the kids are being relocated. and further more, refer to this http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=1708 where "The girl told her mother that she wanted nothing to do with her and deleted her Facebook page, but authorities had enough information to track the family down." yupz, so i'm in total agreement with your last portion where u said the kids could either live on their own where they were or with their mother etc BUT that CHOICE was NOT GIVEN to them BECUZ they are still considered MINORS. and lo and behold! they are now stuck in Florida Department of Children and Families until they will be sent to california. Yupz they do not haf a say in it. And that is my biggest bone.

Seriously, when did i ever said the dad shouldn't go to jail? many of us are saying that the law did wrong BECUZ they are not giving the children choice and NOT becuz the dad is going to jail. We just said that the mom did the wrong thing that is to ship back her kids back to sunny california but we're not saying let the dad go free. bunch of hyperbole people...

and btw when i meant change a way of life, i refer to being transferred to another state across america. Seriously, if the dad is in jail but all of the kids expenses are taken care of, i'm sure they would have loved it even more. No adult supervision ftw lol.

so thanks for misreading me when we're actually agreeing on the same thing: the kids SHOULD have a choice whether to go back with mummy dearest or not. In this case, sorry they weren't given a choice.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Glad to hear it, Facebook isnt really that bad. No one i know actually plays Farmville.

 

[Firia]

I want to know more; why did the father leave. Did the kids ever wonder about mommy? How do they feel about the accusations of being kidnapped. How do they feel about their dad, esspecially now that he's in jail. What about their suddenly-now mother? While on the surface, it sounds very "justice has been served," the article makes no mention of the childrens quality of life, opinions, or if the mother is ready to take them in.

Want to learn more!

 

[JayJayinMay]

Cool beans.

But you seem to be forgetting,times have changed.Maybe the father had a change of heart and wanted to fin her again but couldnt?

As said before,so many unanswered questions.

 

[fletch_talon]

snip

One of the kids is 18, I'm pretty sure they're entitled to be living on their own and are only considered minors in regards to drinking and smoking. The other, as has been said, can apply for emancipation, or could probably be cared for by the older sibling. Otherwise, if they have family where they were living, then they can move there. They have options, but for the time being they have been relocated so that their mother, the one who has had to deal with the pain of seperation for 15 years, can see them and attempt to form a connection with her biological children who were taken from her against her will. If the kids want to piss off and live their lives without any parents (assuming they aren't stupid enough to still be on good terms with their lying father) then they can.

My issue with this has been people's insistance that the mother is a bad person for wanting to be with her children.

 

[powell86]

snip

One of the kids is 18, I'm pretty sure they're entitled to be living on their own and are only considered minors in regards to drinking and smoking. The other, as has been said, can apply for emancipation, or could probably be cared for by the older sibling. Otherwise, if they have family where they were living, then they can move there. They have options, but for the time being they have been relocated so that their mother, the one who has had to deal with the pain of seperation for 15 years, can see them and attempt to form a connection with her biological children who were taken from her against her will. If the kids want to piss off and live their lives without any parents (assuming they aren't stupid enough to still be on good terms with their lying father) then they can.

My issue with this has been people's insistance that the mother is a bad person for wanting to be with her children.

i would agree with you that the mother is not a bad person for wanting to be with her children. I guess she's entitled to be reunited with them. But you see, here you keep insisting that the father has lied, or is still lying abt the mom. Which may or may not be true. Truth is, the daughter wanted to haf nothing to do with her mom (for the right or wrong reasons), but now she's placed in Department of Childcare. And they are to be transferred to california so nope you think they have the choice, i'm telling you they don't. and the facts of this case support what i've said so far. (in the link i've shown you previously)

So in light of this, though i would say the mom is entitled to do so (reconciling with the kids), her method to do so has indeed cuz quite a bit of disturbance to the kids lives without giving the kids any choice in the matter.

And seriously, wads with the dad bashing? why keep saying that he's a liar? i mean there's nothing in the article that says he lied to the kids (even though i will agree that there's a large probability that the parent will brainwash the kid with character assassination of the other parent). There is simply too much blanks that needed to be filled for us to make a judgement call on whether the mom or the dad did the right thing (e.g. creating a better welfare for the kid)

but on this count, it is quite apparent that the woman did think of her welfare first before her children. I wouldn't go so far to call her a *****, but would haf liked her to think abt her own kids better.

 

[fletch_talon]

i would agree with you that the mother is not a bad person for wanting to be with her children. I guess she's entitled to be reunited with them. But you see, here you keep insisting that the father has lied, or is still lying abt the mom. Which may or may not be true. Truth is, the daughter wanted to haf nothing to do with her mom (for the right or wrong reasons), but now she's placed in Department of Childcare. And they are to be transferred to california so nope you think they have the choice, i'm telling you they don't. and the facts of this case support what i've said so far. (in the link i've shown you previously)

So in light of this, though i would say the mom is entitled to do so (reconciling with the kids), her method to do so has indeed cuz quite a bit of disturbance to the kids lives without giving the kids any choice in the matter.

And seriously, wads with the dad bashing? why keep saying that he's a liar? i mean there's nothing in the article that says he lied to the kids (even though i will agree that there's a large probability that the parent will brainwash the kid with character assassination of the other parent). There is simply too much blanks that needed to be filled for us to make a judgement call on whether the mom or the dad did the right thing (e.g. creating a better welfare for the kid)

but on this count, it is quite apparent that the woman did think of her welfare first before her children. I wouldn't go so far to call her a *****, but would haf liked her to think abt her own kids better.

The dad bashing comes from his actions. I should I suppose be more careful with the accusations of lying, but I find it hard to believe he would have told them that he disobeyed the law and took them away from their mother.

As for the mother thinking of her own welfare. The point I keep trying to get across is that a child's welfare is inextricably linked to their parent's. Chances are pretty good that the only way to ensure this was for the parent to stay put and move the children to her.

At least we can agree the mother isn't necessarily a bad person. And that the father should be in jail. Lacking vital knowledge of their personal lives these are the main points.