The Speculist

I felt really bad for the kid when I read that story, too. What a horrible thing for him. That was only balanced by the anger I felt at the mother.

What really attracted me to this post, though, was the idea that I might actually get my fifteen minutes of privacy at some point. That would be awfully nice.

Are you guys serious? Do you think that woman really deserved to go to jail? Do you think the kid would have said anything about it to his teacher if he knew it would result in his mother being arrested? Do you think that kid is happy his mom is in jail? Do you think that kid is better off in foster care in fucking LOS ANGELES than he was with his mom?

Do you think that woman really deserved to go to jail?

Well, as I said, I don't know all the facts. I don't think a child is better off in foster care than with a parent, but (as a divorced father) I *do* think that any parent -- mother or father --who whisks a child off to Mexico in violation of court-ordered custody, and then deprives the other parent of any contact with their child for 13 years, has committed a serious offense. There may be mitigating circumstances, but unless the father was abusive and the mother had no legal recourse to protect her child, she committed a crime.

Let's reverse the roles. If the father abducted his son from the mother, would you be outraged if he did jail time for it?

Do you think the kid would have said anything about it to his teacher if he knew it would result in his mother being arrested? Do you think that kid is happy his mom is in jail?

Obviously not. I think the kid is very much a victim, here. As is the father.

However, after reading over the original story, I can see your point. Putting the mother in jail only makes things worse for the kid. I'm not sure what the right answer is. It's a messy situation.

The right answer would be to let the people involved sort it out themselves, via the dispute resolution service of their choice - as for all disputes.

This is pretty much a sterling example of why you never, never, want to involve the State in your life if you can possibly avoid it.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme

I did not mean to suggest that I did not think that what the mother did was wrong. But that has nothing to do with any court order. She transgressed against both her son and his father. However, I do not believe that in any sane universe, the mother should be in jail, and the child in the custody of the State. This is not justice.

The mother committed a felony. She was arrested. A boy was deprived of the love of his father for 14 years, and had to live with the lies of his mother. He will soon be reunited with family he was told did not exist. Yeah, there's a lot of pain and anguish involved in the process. The person who is responsible for that pain is now in jail. What's the problem?

We all have pain in our lives. Trying to "protect" the child and ignore the fact the mother is a kidnapper is ludicrous. There is a reason the court saw fit to give custody to the father. Rather than fix what was wrong in her life, the mother ran away and caused this suffering.

As for the "horrors" of foster care, you have just insulted tens of thousands of foster parents who can tell you hundreds of thousands of stories about how horrible life was for children living with mom.

Let's face another fact, if a 3 year old is kidnapped tomorrow, there would be amber alerts and news stories all across the country. When the mother was found she would be arrested, and we would all breathe a sigh of relief as we read the warm and fuzzy stories about the return of the child to his father. One day, 14 years, where do you draw the line?

Or is it a Bad Thing, because it provides a means of stumbling upon ugly personal and family history?

Huh? I say thank God the child no longer has to live the lies his mother fed him.

The mother was a kidnapper. Kidnappers deserve to go to jail. Yes, I'm happy she's in jail.

Simple, no?

Simple, no?

Are you laboring under the misapprehension that an answer being simple is some indication of how likely it is to be correct? Additionally, do you believe that every law the State imposes is automatically just?

The mother wronged both the son and the father. She owes them both whatever restitution is possible. Did jailing her benefit or harm her son? I am of the opinion that jailing her harmed her son, by further disrupting his life, and causing him to be put into foster care. If the son would rather be at home with his mother than in foster care, then by definition, he is being harmed. Hasn't he been hurt enough? How does jailing her benefit either the son or the father?

Again, I never said I didn't think the mother did wrong, I just said I did not think it was just or helpful for her to go to jail. It is compounding the harm on her son, not alleviating it.

I also think that pretending that there is no difference at all between a child being abducted by a non-custodial parent, and a child being abducted by a total stranger is disingenuous. This in no way diminishes the wrong suffered by the father, but it certainly alters the relationship between the abductor and abductee.

I am not defending the actions of the mother, I am merely pointing out that jailing her does additional harm to her son, and is therefore, by definition, unjust. If we can stop pretending that jailing the mother is to the benefit of the son, then the real reason is left bare--revenge. Is getting revenge on the woman really more important that avoiding further harm to the son? If anyone deserves revenge against her, it is the father, but what does he gain by her being jailed? Wouldn't he be better off if he could sue her in civil court for 14 years of child support, plus pain and suffering for being deprived of the company of his son?

When you say the woman has committed a "felony", and that therefore she should be in jail, you are arguing that the theoretical "crime" she has committed against the State of California is more important than the real crime she actually committed against her son and his father, and that somehow justifies further harms to the son in service of "punishing" the mother for her "crime" against the State.

The set of "that which is moral" and the set of "that which is legal" intersect, but are by no means identical.

Well, like I said. This is messy.

Virginia writes:

I also think that pretending that there is no difference at all between a child being abducted by a non-custodial parent, and a child being abducted by a total stranger is disingenuous.

It might be equally disingenuous to suggest that there's no difference between a woman being raped by her husband and a woman being raped by a total stranger. In both instances, you have one party taking by force what they believe should be, in the normal course of circumstances, theirs by right.

How about a father who beats his misbehaving son into a coma? Surely that's not the same as if he did it to a stranger. Or a grandson who steals his grandmother's life savings -- it's not like it was stolen by a real burglar; he was probably going to inherit some of it anyway!

One of the few legitimate arguments for the existence of the state is the enforcement of civil order. I don't believe that there should be any kind of family-based immunity from criminal prosecution.

Your points about the laying additional trauma on the son are well taken. In all of the examples I gave above, the interests of the state and the interests of the victim coincide. In the case of parental kidnapping, it appears that they diverge. It's in the state's interests to put a kidnapper in jail, but not necessarily in a child's interests to see his mom cuffed and carted off, particularly when he feels responsible for creating the situation.

If the child's interests are seen as prevailing over those of the state -- which only makes sense -- I don't see why the offending parent couldn't be given probation or house arrest. (If risk of flight and repeat offenses were deemed sufficiently low.) The mother in this case is never going to have anything other than supervised contact with the boy from here on, anyway. For his benefit, I don't see why that would have to be in jail.

But I don't think that changes the fact that the state has a legitimate interest in enforcing its laws and protecting its citizens...even from (especially from?) family members.

The State doesn't have interests, only people do. People commit crimes against other people, not the State.

The State doesn't have interests, only people do. People commit crimes against other people, not the State.

If the state doesn't have any interests, why does it prosecute criminals? Why does it do anything, for that matter?

Or are you suggesting that there should be no state, and no prosecutions?

We are given basically two restricted, heavy-handed choices, that is, leaving the mother free or imprisoning her temporarily. I think the latter is more moral. We don't know how dangerous she will be to the child, but she has committed serious wrongs that harmed the child in the past. We must consider the possibility. In that case, holding her in prison until she guarantees (eg, by court appearance and payment of bail) that she isn't a danger to the child. IMHO, this is the better moral choice.