GoFundMe Campaign for CP Member - Children Stuck in Australia in Custody Battle

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Slava

...Sometimes adults can disagree on things and not hate each...I know that seems weird to some people!..

Hear, hear. Civility of the forum communications is diminishing rapidly.

[pylon]

It is impossible to donate to this thing with a clear conscious.

Without all of the details and circumstances, how can we know if the kids aren't better off in Australia than they are here? How do we know the father isn't a better parent? How are we to know he doesn't have substantially better means to provide for them?

This is putting blind faith in he said/she said.

I've donated to a lot of gofundme's in the past, but the causes were a lot more cut and dry and was based on a lot more substantiated fact than this is. Donating to this without all of the facts could actually create more harm than good. This isn't exactly "Help a guy who broke his neck in a beer league game." or something.

I'm sorry to come across so cynical. But if you are holding your hand out for a VERY substantial donation, you have to provide every fact available.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by pylon

It is impossible to donate to this thing with a clear conscious.

Without all of the details and circumstances, how can we know if the kids aren't better off in Australia than they are here? How do we know the father isn't a better parent? How are we to know he doesn't have substantially better means to provide for them?

This is putting blind faith in he said/she said.

I've donated to a lot of gofundme's in the past, but the causes were a lot more cut and dry and was based on a lot more substantiated fact than this is. Donating to this without all of the facts could actually create more harm than good. This isn't exactly "Help a guy who broke his neck in a beer league game." or something.

I'm sorry to come across so cynical. But if you are holding your hand out for a VERY substantial donation, you have to provide every fact available.

Took the words right out of my mouth. It would be impossible for me to donate with a clear conscious knowing I could possibly be screwing over a totally innocent man.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Took the words right out of my mouth. It would be impossible for me to donate with a clear conscious knowing I could possibly be screwing over a totally innocent man.

It's less about screwing over an innocent man to me than potentially screwing over innocent kids.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I was going by my experience with my children but that was US/Canada. They were born in US, but Canada automatically grants Canadian citizenship at birth. I did paperwork to get them a certificate saying so, but they were citizens without that paperwork. It looks like that is not necessarily the case in Australia thougn, where they'd have to apply.

It does seem questionable that she would allow them to go to Australia for 6 months without her and without the plan of them coming back if I read that right. Why didn't he go to Australia and she stay with the kids? It makes me think that maybe he was the more involved and responsible parent and has just as much right (or more) to the kids as she does. Without knowing his side of the case, I'd hate to assume that her side is the right side to be on just because she is the mom and on the Canadian side.

Perhaps you didn't read the GFM page, that's fine, I will reiterate for you.
She couldn't return to Australia as she had overstayed on a prior Visa when they previously lived there.

Additionally, they had accumulated debts during their time in Canada as he didn't work. She stayed back to pay those off, she was able to pay them off faster as she didn't have to pay for childcare.

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

This is not attending a funeral, though. It's agreeing to allow the father to move the children to the other side of the world (during the middle of a school year) with no (stated) plan to come back, simply that the mother would visit them 6 months later, and maybe, at that point, bring them back.

I don't question the validity of the post in terms of asking for assistance in travel costs, but the original reason they are down there seems very poorly planned from the start.

Hope the family can find a solution, for the kids sake.

You're correct in that is was more than just a funeral. It was the suicide of his brother-in-law. His younger sisters' husband, who also had young children. The family was turned upside down. We all agreed that her and his parents would benefit from having him home.

The plan - as stated on the GFM page - was for her to either join them when she was legally able (in May). Or, if things had settled with his family for all of them to return to Canada.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

In my opinion, the "unwilling or unable" part really should be clarified if you are hoping to get some public donations, because if it is unwilling, then who the hell are we, as complete outsiders, to contribute to a custody battle? If the father is simply unable financially to send the kids back to Canada, but is otherwise ok with them returning here, then yes I would be happy to contribute.

If the father is unwilling in sending the kids back to Canada (for whatever reason), then perhaps a better course of action would be raising funds for your daughter to at least go to Australia for an extended period of time so she can visit and be with her children while the case plays itself out through legal channels.

I know this is a sticky point for people. I will restate - I purposely left it vague as I don't want any backlash against my son-in-law.

Despite the typical bitterness between couples; both my daughter and I want the kids father in their lives.

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Hey, I'm just not buying the one-sided story from someone who is (basically) a complete stranger.

Wondering why the marriage flamed out in March too? Woman frustrated with her rocky relationship, alone for months without her family... doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Nice assumption about a complete stranger. /sarc

They are both equally responsible for the breakdown.
Either of them will admit that.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Slava

I totally agree. I might be a soft touch, but I generally feel like CP is a community and we generally help people out. I know I have for people on here, and done so for people that I've never met and maybe never will.

I am quite sure that when she did post here, FL and I disagreed on basically everything. I met her a few times through the years and despite us being on opposite ends of the spectrum she was always kind to me. Sometimes adults can disagree on things and not hate each...I know that seems weird to some people!

Anyway, I wish her well. I guess she might not have thought of every little angle and maybe not checked everything before she put out her plea for help, but I don't think that we need to criticize every little thing that someone does or doesn't do.

How do you know her daughter isn't a total nutjob and these kids aren't safer in Australia?

Custody is messy, and blindly aligning yourself with one side on these issues and providing them resources without being intimately familiar with the situation is reckless, and possibly even dangerous for the children involved.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's not clear to me how you'd be able to show up in Australia, grab four kids from the parent they've been living with for over a year (one of whom isn't even a Canadian!) and fly them back to Calgary over the span of a day or two.

Day or two? Where are you getting that from? It takes 24-48 hours to even get there.

I understand if you can't divulge all the details, but I don't think anybody should donate anything based on the information you've posted. There is no way for us to know where the kids should be, but the plan as presented is over priced and seems ill conceived.

I'm not asking you to know or decide where the kids should be. The courts have already done that.

First Lady - have you spoken with your bank?

Yes, turned down.

I noticed in your post history you are a homeowner (or were in 2013, anyway). Do you have any equity in the house you could access as a line of credit or something to take care of this familial issue yourselves? Any RRSPs you could cash in? Any savings at all? An extra car you could sell?

LOC, check.
RRSP cashed, check
Extra car sold, check

All that was done 2 years ago for us to start a business.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

How do you know her daughter isn't a total nutjob and these kids aren't safer in Australia?

Custody is messy, and blindly aligning yourself with one side on these issues and providing them resources without being intimately familiar with the situation is reckless, and possibly even dangerous for the children involved.

Oh I don't! She could well be, and I have no idea. Everyone is fighting their own battles though, and if she is I don't need to pile on or pass judgment. I'm not saying that everyone should throw money at this either; but some of the posts come across as pretty accusatory and I don't think that's necessary either.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

Exactly what I was asking in my post on the very first page.

I'm not going to get into who is "right", or who the kids should stay with, because frankly, that is none of my, or anyone else's business.

What I am asking is, what's the benefit of going?

Generally speaking, not specifically in regards to this situation, this plan doesn't sound very solid to me. If 'Parent A' has the kids in a far away country, and 'Parent B' wants to fly there, pick up the kids and come back right away when 'Parent A' doesn't want that to happen...how exactly is that...possible?

Look, I'm not saying people should or shouldn't donate, or that she should or shouldn't fly there. As I said, none of anyone's business. But like someone said previously, is it 'unable', or 'unwilling'?

'Unable' would mean a serious financial burden on both parties.

'Unwilling', on the other hand...well, how would one expect to fly there and come back in the span of a week, let alone a day? Even with the assistance of local law enforcement, this sort of matter could take months to solve. Is there much point to raising thousands of dollars for flight tickets that may go to waste?

Perhaps this person should raise money for a single one-way ticket, seek assistance from local law/consular agencies, while raising the remainder of the funds.

I just hope the kids turn out okay in all of this.

As previously stated, I'm not going to go into particulars of agencies involved.

Let me put it this way:

If you are given a choice of having social services go in and grab your kids (who are all under 8 yrs old) with just the clothes on their backs and escort them back to Canada with two adult strangers
OR
going yourself, with another family member, helping them pack and decide which special things they want to bring home - which would you pick?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by First Lady

As previously stated, I'm not going to go into particulars of agencies involved.

Let me put it this way:

If you are given a choice of having social services go in and grab your kids (who are all under 8 yrs old) with just the clothes on their backs and escort them back to Canada with two adult strangers
OR
going yourself, with another family member, helping them pack and decide which special things they want to bring home - which would you pick?

I think it is fair to say that we don't know - it is impossible to predict how one would react to these situations.
If my daughter was being kept from me, I would probably make some irrational decisions and not necessarily good ones.
Which makes this all very complicated.
The question posed above makes the assumption that if you show up at his door he will be cooperative and simply hand the children over? Is that the case (asking honestly). Has he said that?
If not that assuming that's how it is going to play out may be a mistake, and leaning more on the agencies and authorities.

So I think that's part of what people are struggling with. What is the plan when on the ground there and to what degree is it known that the husband will allow the kids to be removed? Are the agencies/police accompanying everyone to the house?

My priority would be taking the path that allows the kids to return home with the greatest confidence of their safety. If that means leaving with their clothes on their back, with some strangers on a flight - it seems to me that would still be the way to go if that gets them back here safely.

But again - pretending to know how we would all react in a situation like this would be foolish.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by First Lady

As previously stated, I'm not going to go into particulars of agencies involved.

Let me put it this way:

If you are given a choice of having social services go in and grab your kids (who are all under 8 yrs old) with just the clothes on their backs and escort them back to Canada with two adult strangers
OR
going yourself, with another family member, helping them pack and decide which special things they want to bring home - which would you pick?

Have you actually been given this choice and opted for option 2?

[BigNumbers]

I think, if you read between the lines, Aussie social services has given the mother the option to attend while the children are removed and travel with them.

So what we're being asked is to fund a difficult time for the kids being made easier... While the authorities remove the father and allow the children to pack, that their mother/grandma/whoever is there to help them, as this will be a challenging time.

If it was phrased that way, I'd have been much more understanding in my initial read of the thread - I was also skeptical to begin with, but reading FirstLady's posts, it does sound like this is simply a way of making the removal and return to Canada easier on the kids by having family there.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think it is fair to say that we don't know - it is impossible to predict how one would react to these situations.
If my daughter was being kept from me, I would probably make some irrational decisions and not necessarily good ones.
Which makes this all very complicated.
The question posed above makes the assumption that if you show up at his door he will be cooperative and simply hand the children over? Is that the case (asking honestly). Has he said that?
If not that assuming that's how it is going to play out may be a mistake, and leaning more on the agencies and authorities.

So I think that's part of what people are struggling with. What is the plan when on the ground there and to what degree is it known that the husband will allow the kids to be removed? Are the agencies/police accompanying everyone to the house?

My priority would be taking the path that allows the kids to return home with the greatest confidence of their safety. If that means leaving with their clothes on their back, with some strangers on a flight - it seems to me that would still be the way to go if that gets them back here safely.

But again - pretending to know how we would all react in a situation like this would be foolish.

Fair enough. I can say both parents are very supportive of the children's well-being and will not purposely put them in a stressful situation.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by First Lady

If you are given a choice of having social services go in and grab your kids (who are all under 8 yrs old) with just the clothes on their backs and escort them back to Canada with two adult strangers
OR
going yourself, with another family member, helping them pack and decide which special things they want to bring home - which would you pick?

The one I could afford.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

I think, if you read between the lines, Aussie social services has given the mother the option to attend while the children are removed and travel with them.

So what we're being asked is to fund a difficult time for the kids being made easier... While the authorities remove the father and allow the children to pack, that their mother/grandma/whoever is there to help them, as this will be a challenging time.

If it was phrased that way, I'd have been much more understanding in my initial read of the thread - I was also skeptical to begin with, but reading FirstLady's posts, it does sound like this is simply a way of making the removal and return to Canada easier on the kids by having family there.

Thank you, this is pretty accurate, though the removal of father is unlikely. He understands and accepts the process.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Thank you, this is pretty accurate, though the removal of father is unlikely. He understands and accepts the process.

Why'd she have to go to court if the father accepts the process?

Edit: don't bother answering that. I'm going to step out of the thread as I know for certain we aren't getting 100% of the story as everything you've said is 100% in favor of your daughter which any mother would do so I'm not blaming you at all but there is no way this is as cut and dry as you're trying to make it seem.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Probably not fair to lump Jane in with her crazy husband but they've rallied against the left, handouts, occupy movement so much in the past it's hard to not raise an eye at her looking for a helpful handout.

Life can be a good teacher. Hopefully things work out for the kids.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Why'd she have to go to court if the father accepts the process?

Edit: don't bother answering that. I'm going to step out of the thread as I know for certain we aren't getting 100% of the story as everything you've said is 100% in favor of your daughter which any mother would do so I'm not blaming you at all but there is no way this is as cut and dry as you're trying to make it seem.

No, it certainly isn't cut and dry. These things never are.

I think it will come as no surprise that once people go to court, they accept the outcome, even if it's not the outcome they hoped for.

I'm supporting my grandchildren. If the roles were reversed and court ruled the other way, I would be doing the same thing for my son-in-law.

[Stealth22]

Originally Posted by First Lady

As previously stated, I'm not going to go into particulars of agencies involved.

Let me put it this way:

If you are given a choice of having social services go in and grab your kids (who are all under 8 yrs old) with just the clothes on their backs and escort them back to Canada with two adult strangers
OR
going yourself, with another family member, helping them pack and decide which special things they want to bring home - which would you pick?

Understood, I don't expect you to divulge personal details online.

The choice between the two things you said above is no contest, obviously. I was actually under the impression that Australian authorities were not involved, and your daughter planned to simply fly there, say, "I'm taking the kids home with me", and hope for the best. Perhaps that was me reading too fast, perhaps there is too much info flying around this thread. Either way, my apologies.

As long as all your ducks are in a row, and the authorities are supervising and supporting the process, then there's no debate. I just wanted to ensure this trip wasn't being made 'for nothing', for lack of a better phrase, and that there was going to be a concrete benefit to going. Otherwise, you'd end up in a situation where you'd be flying to another country, engage in a tug of war, and the children simply get caught in the middle. But it looks like aside from the funds, you're all set.

Good luck.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Stealth22

Understood, I don't expect you to divulge personal details online.

The choice between the two things you said above is no contest, obviously. I was actually under the impression that Australian authorities were not involved, and your daughter planned to simply fly there, say, "I'm taking the kids home with me", and hope for the best. Perhaps that was me reading too fast, perhaps there is too much info flying around this thread. Either way, my apologies.

As long as all your ducks are in a row, and the authorities are supervising and supporting the process, then there's no debate. I just wanted to ensure this trip wasn't being made 'for nothing', for lack of a better phrase, and that there was going to be a concrete benefit to going. Otherwise, you'd end up in a situation where you'd be flying to another country, engage in a tug of war, and the children simply get caught in the middle. But it looks like aside from the funds, you're all set.

Good luck.

No need to apologize.

I wouldn't spend my own money on a fly-by-night venture, I'm sure as hell not going to do it with other people's money. And if for some bizarre reason the whole thing falls through all donations would be refunded.