Bells, you have had some experiance with the family court right? Does this judgement sound correct under the principles of that court As far as i have herd it shouldnt matter what hertitage the people were, the defult possition is that if the biological parents can provide a safe and stable home then the children should reside with the parents. There for even putting aside the Aborigional and non aborigional issues this case (as its been reported) should have gone with the mother shouldnt it?
In this instance, the biological parent was not providing a safe and stable home for the children. Quite the contrary. In the past the children were subject to abuse and violence while in their mother's care. The mother then abandoned the children with their paternal grandmother and then took them back again a year later. She has now found another man who she deems is alright because he does not drink. But here is something you also need to consider: Family Court hearings such as this one will always appoint therapists to talk to the children and they will normally appoint an independent representative for the children, who will look after the children's best interests. Which I believe is what happened here. Not all parents win custody of their biological children. The court will look at previous years and they will assess any damage or trauma the children may have suffered and they will find the best option available. In this instance, the Grandmother who had been caring for them for the last few years was deemed the more appropriate guardian for those children.
Something I've never understood about family court and it's proceedings, is why the grandparents aren't scrutinized more closely. The mother was raised by the grandmother, and she made all sorts of bad choices that hurt her children... and we want said grandmother to raise more children? It isn't logical, and often times grandparents aren't subjected to the same psyche evals and rigorous home screenings because the court assumes that because they are a relative, they will provide superior care. But these grandparents are the ones who raised completely dysfuntional children who became parents. Why would a court think they could do better a second time? Do they not question it because we give respect to the elderly? It's routine for family court to place these children with grandparents... why? Crack addicts, alcoholics, domestic (physical or mental) abuse... it's accepted practice with very few questions.
Grandparents are scrutinised closely. In this instance, the paternal Grandmother was deemed the better guardian for the children because of the mother's history and the violence and trauma she placed the children in previously. The only difference now is that she has now become involved with a man who apparently does not drink. There is no indication that it won't change in the future, placing the children in a very unstable environment. As a parent, you will, in most circumstances, do everything right for and by your children. If one's child ends up being a drug addict or violent, it is not always the fault of the parents. I have seen many instances of this myself in work and with family and friends, who have brought up their children in the best way possible, given them all that they could to give them a good start in life and the children grow up and become addicts or violent arseholes (for lack of a better term). I know of one couple, who when their child became involved with drugs, forced the child into rehab and did everything humanly possible to get that child off the drugs and away from the people who got him into it in the first place. The child ended up running away from home and after nearly a $100,000 spent trying to find him, there was really nothing much they could have done. The child is now in jail for theft to fund his drug habit. It is not always the fault of the parents how one's child will turn out as adults. This particular grandmother in question was found to have provided the children with a stable home environment and education, along with love and care, and the children were found to have done well in said environment. She provided them with something their own mother was unable to provide for them in the past.
There is no indication that it will change either. He wasn't the same man, and she appears to be making better choices. Plus, the children would be raised around their culture which in the case of aboriginals, is quite important to their self-identity. It is clear that there are mother daughter issues with the choices the mother made in the past, but that doesn't mean she'll make those same choices. And it is clear that the grandmother has done everything in her power to sway them to "her side" but what if she doesn't have the children's best interest in mind, and is only wanting to punish the mother? Just saying that the mother already served her time, and has paid her debt by law. What justification, other than the past, do they really have against this woman?
You're not getting the point. Individual counselors, therapist, and psychologist have agreed that the children are doing INFINITELY better under the Paternal Grandmother's care. Family courts do not make such decisions lightly. Heritage takes a back seat to the childs welfare. Since the children are doing so well and WANT to stay with the Paternal Grandmother, the courts are right in denying the biological mother's appeal.
Obviously not as important as their wellbeing at this point in time. She may be making better choices now, but there is no indication that she will not change again in the near future. The Grandmother in this instance is the paternal Grandmother. Not maternal Grandmother. There is nothing at all to indicate that the Grandmother has done anything of the sort. She had let the mother retake the children once, after her former daughter inlaw dumped them into her care. After a year, the children's mother returned and took them, only for the same thing to happen again. The paternal Grandmother was then awarded care of the children and the custody hearing was held recently. She has cared for those children since that time. This was a judgement call and after the children would have spoken to therapists, psychologists, etc, who would have assessed who would be able to provide better care for the children and who the children would have been better off with. The court determined the Grandmother. You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Grandmother in this case is the parent of the mother. She is not. She is the parent of the children's biological father. So there is no Grandmother wanting revenge on her daughter or bad mother/daughter dynamics. This grandmother has been the one who has provided the children with care for many years. It is based on the care that she has given them and how the children have been able to thrive in her care, that this decision was based on. The children's best interest is taken into consideration. The mother was not found to have been able to provide her children with long a standing stable environment.
