Mother Finds Kidnapped Children On Facebook

[luckshot]

They probably bonded with the father more by now, well, good job destroying that relation Mrs.

That.

The article doesn't provide enough information.

For all we care, that mother could be a total ***** and her ex-husband 'kidnapped" the kids because he cared about them and because the legal system is extremely biased towards men in these issues. The woman almost always gets the custody, WTF.

and good people rarely kidnap their kids from legal guardians

 

[Billion Backs]

yeah, the kids probably didn't even remember mom and forming a real parent/child relationship will be difficult at best

but, imo it seems like a better idea than leaving them with the kidnapping father who could be:
1. a good guy and parent who felt cheated by the system
2. an asshat that felt cheated by the system and didn't want to pay child support
3. an abusive alcoholic that the kids wanted to get away from anyway, again he probably felt cheated by the system
4.a half crazed person who believes the world is out to get him and he must protect his children from skynet

and kidnapping and hiding kids for 15 years is an unlikely action of the regular guy who would most likely prefer a less felonious/name changing approach

I'm pretty sure if he didn't want to pay child support, he would leave the children with the mother and try to lose all the contact, perhaps moving a few states or what not. Sure, it's illegal, but so is "kidnapping" children. Assuming the children live with the father as is indicated, he probably didn't care too much about not paying child support - it takes a fuckload of money to raise children. The article provides no information about their quality of life, however, so it's pointless to speculate. One could create a facebook profile on a public computer, so having one might not mean that the children have a personal computer at home which might be indicative of their life at home, but then again, pointless to speculate at this point.

For number 3, I doubt that 2 year old children have the mindset required to want to get away from an abusive alcoholic father. And considering that they survived into teenage years might indicate that perhaps their father knows what he's doing, or at least lives with someone who does. It doesn't really say anything about how much money the father makes, he could be hiring a nanny or something...

For number 4, that's just not very realistic. Sure, there are plenty fucked up Christian cults, or simply fucked up people, in USA, but the article hardly provides any information on that. And I don't think that someone who wanted to protect their kids from Skynet would let them enter personal information on Facebook or internet in general in fear that Skynet finds out =p

So, uh, I think it's a pretty safe bet number 1 is closer to truth, although it could be a mix of things.

 

[Billion Backs]

They probably bonded with the father more by now, well, good job destroying that relation Mrs.

That.

The article doesn't provide enough information.

For all we care, that mother could be a total ***** and her ex-husband 'kidnapped" the kids because he cared about them and because the legal system is extremely biased towards men in these issues. The woman almost always gets the custody, WTF.

and good people rarely kidnap their kids from legal guardians

I have no idea on who you call "good people".

For all I care, the kind of people you might consider 'good people' are the people I would, well, not.

 

[Danpascooch]

Your post in one easy sentence:

Kidnapping is fine, Mom is a jerk for ratting him out.

Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Have you missed the whole "We don't know all the details here and thus NONE of us should be making judgment calls" bit? Because that's my post in one easy sentence. So stop trying to define my argument as the direct opposite of yours.

I couldn't disagree more, she shouldn't give him another chance to do something stupid/dangerous by not calling the cops

Considering if it wasn't for Facebook, he would have gotten away with it, I don't think it's stupid in that it more or less accomplished what he wanted. As for being dangerous, how is what he did dangerous? With what we know about this case(which is next to nothing, he's done nothing ti endanger anyone. You can argue it was immoral if you like(though I'll argue straight back that it might not be depending on the circumstances), but we haven't seen him do anything stupid or dangerous.

he kidnapped these kids, and you're worried about how SHE might manipulate them?

I meant if she had gotten custody originally. If I was going through a divorce, and my wife wanted FULL CUSTODY, I would in fact be very worried she'd try and turn my kids against me. I think that's a rather logical thing to worry about under those circumstances.

In your head is a wondrous, magical contraption based on sending electrical pulses through nerves, use it.

I am. By using it I have determined that I know very little about this case and there are lots of conceivable circumstances for the father, mother, both, or neither of them to be in the wrong.

I just did a presentation on child custody law for my US law class, joint custody is default, if a parent wants full custody, they have to sue the other parent for it, and then the burden of proof is on them to prove the other parent is unfit.

In short, if she was going to get full custody, she probably deserved full custody, and the fact that he committed a crime just reaffirms that she deserved the custody. Judges don't give out full custody at the drop of a hat, there needs to be a powerful and compelling reason for it. The fact is, he was willing to kidnap over this, so who knows what he would have done if the mother had let him know she was on to him without talking to the cops, people do crazy things to avoid jail time.

 

[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.

 

[Boba Frag]

Mother Finds Kidnapped Children On Facebook

Thanks to Facebook, a mother was able to find her two children that were kidnapped fifteen years ago.

Believe it or not, Facebook can be useful for more than inane status updates about bacon and hassling people to give you virtual gifts. A California mother was able to reunite with her kidnapped children after successfully searching for them on the social network.

The mother, who was not named, lost contact with her 3-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son when they were kidnapped by her husband Faustino Utrera 15 years ago. She never gave up the hunt, and discovered that the now teenagers were living in Central Florida when she searched for and found her daughter on Facebook. I guess we know who the favorite child is.

After first finding her daughter, she requested a FarmVille ostrich topiary in exchange for an apple tree. After receiving the topiary, she contacted police, who were able to locate Utrera and the children in Florida. Did you really expect a Facebook story without a FarmVille mention?

Utrera is now in jail, and the children are back in custody of the mother. Sadly, even though proper justice was served here, it'll likely be tough for both parties involved to rebuild the relationship that was severed for 15 years. Facebook and other social networks have plenty of downfalls, this situation shows the power that they have to do good in this crazy world.

Source: Gizmodo [http://www.wesh.com/news/23716131/detail.html]

Permalink

That is fantastic news

More credit should go to the mum than Facebook though.

 

[powell86]

This calls for logic!
Assuming that goodness is a quantifiable constant,
Statement A = The mother is a good person with good intentions
Statement B = The father is a bad person with bad intentions
If the mother has been searching for them all this time, then A must be true.
If B = true, then this is a happy story.
If B = false, then this is a happy story.

Therefore, this is a happy story no matter which way you look at it.

But there is no evidence that the mother has been searching for them all this time. Think about it, the kids have facebook accounts. What are the odds that the kids are not in school? By all logical deductions I believed they led rather average and normal lives. Hence it is very easy for the mum to tracked the kids down by school records. And I'm assuming that the dad would have had a normal day job which is also traceable.

Seriously, if she even reported a kidnapped case 15 years ago, I'm sure Feds would have traced the guy down. But it is obvious she didn't. Furthermore, if she is really looking for the kids, she would haf found the kids thru face book at least 1-2 years ago rather than now don't you think?

Someone in this thread said that perhaps the woman found the daughter WHILE she was farming and that sounds more likely. Seriously. 15 years... If she has been trying really hard to find 2 normal kids with no name changed and studying in proper schools, she doesn't have the capabilities to be someone's mother.

 

[Shycte]

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.

 

[powell86]

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.

 

[powell86]

T"So I was kidnapped? Well fuck me, off to jail with you then!"

tat totally made me laugh =) cookie for you sir

 

[powell86]

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.

 

[luckshot]

yeah, the kids probably didn't even remember mom and forming a real parent/child relationship will be difficult at best

but, imo it seems like a better idea than leaving them with the kidnapping father who could be:
1. a good guy and parent who felt cheated by the system
2. an asshat that felt cheated by the system and didn't want to pay child support
3. an abusive alcoholic that the kids wanted to get away from anyway, again he probably felt cheated by the system
4.a half crazed person who believes the world is out to get him and he must protect his children from skynet

and kidnapping and hiding kids for 15 years is an unlikely action of the regular guy who would most likely prefer a less felonious/name changing approach

I'm pretty sure if he didn't want to pay child support, he would leave the children with the mother and try to lose all the contact, perhaps moving a few states or what not. Sure, it's illegal, but so is "kidnapping" children. Assuming the children live with the father as is indicated, he probably didn't care too much about not paying child support - it takes a fuckload of money to raise children. The article provides no information about their quality of life, however, so it's pointless to speculate. One could create a facebook profile on a public computer, so having one might not mean that the children have a personal computer at home which might be indicative of their life at home, but then again, pointless to speculate at this point.

For number 3, I doubt that 2 year old children have the mindset required to want to get away from an abusive alcoholic father. And considering that they survived into teenage years might indicate that perhaps their father knows what he's doing, or at least lives with someone who does. It doesn't really say anything about how much money the father makes, he could be hiring a nanny or something...

For number 4, that's just not very realistic. Sure, there are plenty fucked up Christian cults, or simply fucked up people, in USA, but the article hardly provides any information on that. And I don't think that someone who wanted to protect their kids from Skynet would let them enter personal information on Facebook or internet in general in fear that Skynet finds out =p

So, uh, I think it's a pretty safe bet number 1 is closer to truth, although it could be a mix of things.

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

 

[kickyourass]

Wow, that's insane, who'd have thunk that Facebook would be involved in a Kidnapping in a good way?

 

[Waif]

Do my eyes deceive me? A positive post about Facebook? I have learned to expect the usual bias from certain people, and because of that, this came as a surprise.

 

[luckshot]

They probably bonded with the father more by now, well, good job destroying that relation Mrs.

That.

The article doesn't provide enough information.

For all we care, that mother could be a total ***** and her ex-husband 'kidnapped" the kids because he cared about them and because the legal system is extremely biased towards men in these issues. The woman almost always gets the custody, WTF.

and good people rarely kidnap their kids from legal guardians

I have no idea on who you call "good people".

For all I care, the kind of people you might consider 'good people' are the people I would, well, not.

well we can start with kidnapping and taking the kids across a continent and living in hiding as being "wrong"...right?

 

[cieply]

Oh, oh wow...

Facebook, I think you deserve a cookie, for once...

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.

 

[Billion Backs]

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.

 

[Billion Backs]

Oh, oh wow...

Facebook, I think you deserve a cookie, for once...

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.

There, another reasonable person in this thread.

A dying breed.

 

[luckshot]

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

 

[chenry]

Was it the security hole that helped them find the kids? 'Cos FB had that glitch where you IP would be included in notifications from FB, so other people could tell where you are.