Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    What a dreadful dilemma that must have been for you!
    
    You may never know whether you did in fact take the "right" decision,
    but it certainly sounds as though it was a careful one, and based
    on all the information you could gather.  Hard t'do better than
    that.
    
    					=maggie

    
    I'm afraid I agree with the people who think you betrayed the
    woman.  If she didn't care about her kids it would have been a
    lot easier for her to abandon them and take off across the country
    without them.  Now, after going through all the effort to try to
    keep her children with her she apparently doesn't have them.
    Who knows what reasons she may have had for doing what she did.
    You found out that the kids are OK.  I hope she's okay, too.
    
    I don't think I would ever take steps to separate a mother from
    her children unless I was absolutely certain that she was hurting
    them in some way - not just being poor, or a questionable lifestyle,
    but beating them.
    
    Lorna
    

    I know what a hard decision it was for you, but I must also agree
    that you betrayed the woman, for the same reasons as <-1. The woman
    must have deeply loved her children to have saddled herself with
    them in her escape attempt. I respect your reasons, but I would
    not have contacted outside authorities.
    
    Stel
    

    We can't know what the motives of the woman were. It's also possible
    that she was trying to punish her husband by taking the children.
    I've heard that many people who kidnap their own children aim to
    hurt their spouse rather than help their kids.
    
    .0 had a long time to observe the mother's interaction with her
    kids and to assess how well the kids were faring.  I'm unwilling
    to judge .0's action.
    
    liz

Well, another  opinion  .... I think you _did_ betray the woman, but I think
it was the "right" thing to do.

Although the  court  system  has  a lot of problems, and many judgements are
correct  (otherwise  based  on  the Salem witch trials there really would be
witches!),  in  general  I  believe they are working for the best. ("I hope"
would probably be more accurate.)

.2 and  .3  sided  with the mother as being most important. I think the kids
are,  and  doing  what  is  best  for  them is most important. You've got to
consider  that  the  woman might have been "touched", even totally believing
her own story.  

I think  one  of  the  best things you did was to check back up on the kids.
Granted  the  woman  you had contact with might not have seen things, but if
some  tabs  are kept on them, they should be okay. Living in the poverty you
were  describing  is  no  way to live, and it didn't sound like a 2 year old
wandering around unattended really had the "deep love" of its mother.

The mother is not holy ... the father and children must also be considered.

    Perhaps it's because I'm a man but I have trouble making a blind
    assumption that the mother is right and the father is wrong. The
    conditions described in .0 are not good. I would have reported
    what I knew. There are other options, from running away to random
    wandering, that could have been taken by the mother if the father
    was truly bad.
    
    I think you did the right thing. There is just as much chance that
    the mother was/is out of her head (perhaps more given the description
    in .0) as there is that the father beat the children. Under the
    circumstances I would have done the same thing, though perhaps with
    less guilt.
    
    		Alfred

    Attaway, Alfred!!!!  
    
    I, too, say "Well done, kiddo!" I have a hard time believe that
    the father could be uncaring or abusive and STILL fight that hard
    for the return of his children... When pictures of children appear
    in the new services of milkcartons and tv programs it's because
    they're assumed abducted (read "against their will") or runaways.
    The guy cared enough to put himself thru that and I judge that a
    mother that would have her children unwashed and unfed and unschooled
    was thinking of HERSELF and her vengeance on her husband, not on
    the welfare of the kids....
    
    I think "betray" is a pretty hard word and really out of place here.
    She accepted your food and your company and your kindness... It
    would have been totally out of character for you to have just turned
    away from the situation when you realized the children had been
    forcibly moved from their father.
    
    I'd like to think that if my sister-in-law ran off with my nephews,
    taking them away from a father who adores them, that she'd run right
    into you -- 
    
    I shudder to think of all the other children who really need you....
    I can't laud my praises on you enough.... really, from the bottom
    of my heart, I can't see how anyone could condemn what you did...
    
    If we all looked out for all the children the way other societies
    do, there'd be alot less kids in pain....
    
    As you can tell it's a hot button of mine...
    
    I also think you should keep in touch with them, for your peace
    of mind as much as anything else.  I'd hate to see you hesitate
    in anothe similar situation because you were worried about it.
    
    bugsy

    I support what you did.
    .
    .
    .
    I'm having alot of trouble putting into words why I believe you
    did the right thing. 
    .
    .
    .
    ...I think of the reasons some women have children, to make something
    that will love her unconditionally. A selfish reason, one that I
    think is the absolute worst reason to have a child. The same reason
    that a parent may abduct their child(ren), not that it is in the
    best interest of the child, but only so the abductor will have someone
    to love him/her...
    .
    .
    .
    An extremely difficult situation...
    I think you did right.
    
    sm
    

    
    Situations like this are bad all around - for the children and for
    both parents.  Why is everyone here so confident that the *father*
    is a badly wronged, decent person, who deserves to have his children?
     Just because a woman is confused, desperate and poor does not mean
    she isn't a good mother.  It certainly sounds like she got herself
    into a mess, but what kind of a man would let his wife degenerate
    into such a condition anyway?? 
    
    I don't believe that mothers should be awarded custody simply because
    they are mothers, but there are too many cases today where men are
    awarded custody just because they make the most money.
    
    This woman sounds to me like a typical victim of a sexist society
    and an ill-chosen husband!!!  Sure, give the kids to the men - after
    all it's a man's world.
    
    (As a mother whose daughter lives with her ex-husband I, too, have
    strong feelings.)
    
    Lorna
    
    

    <FLAME ON>
    
    Alright already!!!
    
    There has been an awful lot of heat about this topic from people
    who are obviously responding from their prejudices, without any
    facts with which to make a reasonable decision.
    
    From the base note, it is impossible to tell who is in the right
    here.  Why assume that the woman should have the kids when you don't
    have any knowledge?  
    
    I agree with .1 and .2 that it is wrong *totally wrong* to take
    a woman's children away from her.  But it is just as wrong to take
    a father's children away from him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Why is it that you must assume that the father is not the best parent
    for custody, he may be (he may not be, too!).
    
    I think that you did absolutely the right thing.  I only hope that
    under the same circumstances I would be as brave or as caring.
    
    We don't have the data to make judgements about the decision of
    the court -- we have to assume that the judge was contientious and
    made the best decision he could.
    
    What .0 was asking for was an analysis of his action, not a diatribe
    on the whole pantheon of missing children's cases.  I congratulate
    him on his courage and his caring.
    
    <FLAME LOWERED>
    
    DIRK
    

    re .9:
    
    > Why is everyone here so confident that the *father*
    > is a badly wronged, decent person, who deserves to have his children?
    
    I'm certainly not confident that the father is a wonderful person,
    and/or the mother is raving lunatic. I don't think the others are
    (who have replied so far) are confident either.
    I think the point was: did .0 do the "right thing"? I think she
    did, even if the father was an abusive lunatic. Informing the
    authorities doesnot necessarily imply that the children should be
    returned to the father. .0 (and we) have too little information
    to decide who 'deserves' to have the children. Let the courts decide.
    You may not like the courts because of the way you were treated,
    but they are the only ones, in this situation, who have 'all' the
    relevant facts, and are close to being impartial, and are the only
    ones qualified to make the decision.
    
    > but there are too many cases today where men are
    > awarded custody just because they make the most money.
    
    I think there may be an equal number of men (if not more) who were 
    denied custody just because they aren't the mother.
    
    > This woman sounds to me like a typical victim of a sexist society
    > and an ill-chosen husband!!!  Sure, give the kids to the men - after
    > all it's a man's world.
    
    This man sounds to me like a typical victim of a feminist tirade,
    and an ill-chosen wife.
    Sure give the kids to the woman - after all she *is* the mother.
    
    The point I'm trying to make is: how are you so confident that this
    guy is NOT a warm,lovable, devoted father? Just because the mother
    took her kids on the road, and tells stories? Stories that have
    been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated?
                                      
    (as a father who can't imagine living without his son, I too
    have strong feelings)
    
    sm

    As a single person, without children of my own, and not even
    particularly fond of them overall, I still must cast my vote with
    those who wish to place the author of the base note among the heros
    rather than the goats.
    
    The actions described in .0 display a compassion for fellow human
    beings all too rare among the people in this country (and others.)
    Both times, the author was driven by the compassionate action -
    once for the mother and her children, and once for the father.

    If I'm ever on the road and in trouble - I hope someone like you
    is driving by...
    
    		Peace  --D

        As a parent who has been deeply involved in the raising of
        children, I can identify with both the mother and the father in
        this case, at least from the sketchy information. Both feared,
        and were hurt by losing their children. I don't know how I would
        cope with losing mine. 
        
        As someone who's spent a lot of time hitch-hiking, I can really
        appreciate the kindness shown to the mother and the children in
        picking them up and caring for them. I am also moved by the
        continued involvement later both in passing on the information
        and in trying to see that the correct procedures were followed. 
        
        As someone who is strongly motivated by ethics, and who
        understands that situations are often highly complicated, I can
        sympathize with the moral conundrum that the author of the topic
        note faced. Whatever you did had the strong possibility of being
        wrong for someone, and even perhaps for everyone.
        
        In the end I have nothing but support, encouragement and
        admiration to voice regarding your behavior. All too few people
        stop to help their fellow men, or weigh the consequences of
        their actions, or follow through to make sure that the right
        things happen.
        
        You may have done the wrong thing, but you've done the best that
        you could hope to. You betrayed no-one, although your actions no
        doubt at least displeased the mother. You treated each person
        with as much care and consideration as was possible. You went
        far beyond what most people would. 
        
        JimB. 

    
    I agree that in this case we don't know enough facts to determine
    which parent would be best suited to raise the children.  My view
    is that since we and the original author don't know these details
    then she/he (?) should not have contacted the authorities.  I would
    only turn a person into the authorities if I knew for certain that
    they were quilty.  (Sort of like innocent until proven quilty.)
    
    Courts do make mistakes.  Afterall judges and jurors are only human.
     Keeping this in mind, *I* would not choose to turn someone into
    the authorities just because a judge at determined they were unfit
    but only if I saw it with my own eyes.
    
    I believe it is commendable to help a person in need - a person
    who is hungry, cold, hurt, whatever.  But, there is a difference
    between helping people and tampering with their lives.  There are
    times when it's best for people to mind their own business.  If
    *I'm* ever on the road, I hope .0 passes me by.  I don't want that
    kind of help.
    
    Lorna
    

    There is a great deal of pain, misunderstanding and evil in the
    world.  None of us can take action in every situation we see.  
    Occasionally, though, one becomes drawn into a difficult situation by 
    chance and humanitarian instinct without knowing the full
    ramifications of it, as you did.
    
    After your initial contact with the family, you had to decide whether
    to do nothing, or to act on the knowledge you had.  You decided to 
    take action.  If I had decided to intervene, and had found that my
    actions resulted in a major change for the family,  I would feel
    some ongoing responsibility to them.  I think you did the right
    thing in contacting the church member.  The father will probably
    be on his best behavior at first with all the publicity involved.
    I think it would be important to maintain contact with the church
    and the agency *after* the initial uproar dies down, and to exert
    pressure if you have concerns about the welfare of the children.
    
    If your decision were to end up resulting in a worse situation
    for the children, I think it would be important to intervene again
    in some way.   I would also want to make sure that the mother had
    access to counseling.  If she is being charged with kidnapping,
    is she facing a prison sentence?  Could you (would you want to?)
    make a statement to the court that when you met her she believed
    that she was acting in the best interests of the children?  You
    may have a lot more credibility than she does, unfortunately.
    
    I feel that when I choose to intervene in a situation like that
    and my behavior radically alters the course of events I become a
    key player in it, like it or not.  I appreciate the struggle you
    went through as you attempted to make the best decision in the face
    of this dilemma. 
    
    
                    

    Kidnapping by parent?  Indirect kidnapping by the court?  I'm for
    the concept of a federal advocate for children.  The state courts
    should continue in custody determination, but children should be
    able to petition for "increased" support in emotional/physical
    support from the non-custodial parent.  In four states (Maryland
    is one I think) where custody effectively continues to be a joint
    responsibility watched over by a court officer after a divorce.
    [End of Editorial]
    
    As for the author, a good Samaritan serves the immediate needs and
    then moves on...

    
      As a father who had to chase after his children after their LOVING
    Mother took off with them I feel that you took the right course
    of action.  You certainly analyzed the facts that were available
    and made the best decision you could based on those facts, and anyone
    would be hard pressed to ask for more than that.
    
      <FLAME ON>
    
      A female parent is not necessarily endowed by her creator with
    greater sensitivity, capacity for love or innate parenting skills
    than her male counterpart.  If there is any societal prejudice in
    the matter of parental custody, it is certainly in favor of the
    Mother, in many cases to the detriment of the childrens emotional
    and physical well being.  In my case, it has been six years since
    I got my boys back, and during that time they have heard from their
    mother a total of 4 (four) times.  The children and I have spent
    4 years in joint therapy to enable them to understand that this
    treatment is not the result of some fault of theirs, but the product
    of a rather pathetic mind....So much for motherly love!
    
    <FLAME OFF>
    

    I can't resist this one...
    
    .0, you made a very difficult and courageous decision.  Whether
    or not that mother was a fit or unfit one, the fact was that she
    was depriving the father of seeing those children.  By leaving town
    the way she did, she was breaking the law.
    
    To judge the "fitness" or "unfitness" of the mother OR father wasn't
    the job of .0 or Lorna.  As a former teacher in a poverty area I
    was embroiled in family squabbles where BOTH parents would lie through
    their teeth to obtain (for whatever reason) the custody of their
    children.  AND I DO MEAN BOTH PARENTS!!!  I had my attendance book
    and school records used by the courts many times.  Parents of both 
    sexes wouldswear on a stack of bibles that their children were 
    attending school regularly and doing famously, when in fact the 
    children were rarely present and were doing miserably in school.
    
    It has been my experience that BOTH parents are capable of lying
    (or construing, if you will) when they feel they need to.
    Motherhood is no guarantee of honesty or sanity.
    
    I can't believe the bias towards the mother on this one!  I'm also
    astounded by the individuals who appoint themselves judge and jury!
    "Trial by jury" isn't perfect, but the judgement of only one individual
    (whether "right" or "wrong") amounts to a dictatorship anytime.
    
    
    Amazed and astounded,
    LZP
    
    amounts to 

    I think you did  the right thing.  This way, at least the social
    service agencies, and courts get to decide which, if either parent
    is suitable to have the children.  In any case, at least this way
    both parents know where the children are, that they are allright.
    Definitely, children should not automatically be given to the mother,
    just because she is the MOTHER.
    
    We have no reason to believe one way or another about the mother
    or the father in this case.  We can only hope that the courts did
    adequate investigations and made the right decision.
    
    
    Kathleen

    
    As the originator of this topic I feel it only fair to direct your
    attention to my just-now-added introduction in Note 7.32.  Realizing
    that my original note was unintentionally genderless, as is, by
    default, my NODE::ACCOUNT name, I apoligize to .11 for being
    misidentified as "she".
    
    The intent of my original note was not to unload a guilt burden,
    or to look for a pat on the back.  Simply put, I realize from my
    experience in relating this experience to my church that it is an
    important issue for both men and women.  As a direct result of this,
    the "outraged feminists" are planning a Sunday service this fall
    on the subject of battered women.  
    
    Knowing what the court system can be like and how she must feel
    being behind bars in a place far from family and friends, I had
    intended to do what I could to also aid the mother in some way.
    I was handicapped initially by the fact that I did not know her
    name.  When I originally lent a hand to her and her children I went
    out of my way to avoid even the slightest inference that I might
    be trying to put the make on her.  It maybe seems strange but in
    all of those three days, I never asked her name.  Later, a friend
    warned me against continuing any further involvement in the case.
    If the mother were a little off in the head what would prevent her
    from tracing me across the country and somehow stealing my kid.
    Sounds absurd maybe, but I decided to drop it for the time being.
    
    If any of you NOTErs are out in Seattle, maybe you'd like to follow
    up on it for me.
    

    
    Re .18, *I* was not attempting to judge which parent was fit or
    unfit.   In .0, the author (whoever she/he is?) narrated an incident
    and asked for opinions.  As a reader of this file I felt that I
    had just as much right to offer my opinion as the next person. 
    What I said was that I would not have contacted the authorities
    mainly *because* I am *unwilling to judge* these people.  I would
    have chosen not to get involved.  I am not condemning .0 for his/her
    action.  .0 apparently put a lot more thought into contacting
    authorities than many of the people who have responded would have.
     I am somewhat appalled personally at how readily most you men would
    turn in this poor woman to the authorities!  For all we know she
    could be in jail now, or had a nervous breakdown or something, simply
    because she doesn't have her kids.  Maybe *both* parents deserve
    the kids and *neither* of the do.  Now, I agree with Holly's comments
    that I would hope that .0 would continue to follow-through on the
    wellfare of this family, including the mother.  After starting the
    ball rolling, he/she really should try to find out if their action
    caused any negative results.  Even if the mother doesn't deserve
    the kids she does deserve help, not a felony charge.
    
    In the past, the children were always thought to belong with the
    mother regardless of what she was like.  This was obviously wrong.
     But, now maybe there is danger of the other extreme.  The children
    should be with whichever parent provides the best life for them
    regardless of whether that is the mother or father.  Kids don't
    always belong with their fathers anymore than they always belong
    with their mothers.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE .21:
    
    > I am somewhat appalled personally at how readily most you men would
    > turn in this poor woman to the authorities!  For all we know she
    > could be in jail now, or had a nervous breakdown or something, simply
    > because she doesn't have her kids.
    
    I am somewhat appalled personally at how readily you would let a
    woman deprive a man of his children! For all we know he could have
    had a nervous breakdown simply because he didn't have his kids.
    
    What would you have had .0 do if it was a MAN on the road with his
    kids? Would you still have protected HIM had you seen a distraught
    mother on TV looking for her kids?  
    
   > ...how readily most you men would turn in this poor woman...
                         ^^^^^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Why must you couch this in such sexist terms? I do not think that
    "we men" are the only ones who would "turn in" "this poor woman".
    I would have informed the authorities regardless of the sex of the
    parent. The other parent deserves to know, sort of like innocent
    until proven guilty.
    
    > .0 apparently put a lot more thought into contacting
    > authorities than many of the people who have responded would have.
    
    Why do you say that? just because we would have done the same thing? 
    
    <steam off, the rest of this note is simply comments and questions> 
    
    > I would not have contacted the authorities mainly *because* I am 
    > *unwilling to judge* these people.  I would have chosen not to 
    > get involved.
    
    By NOT contacting the authorities you ARE judging these people.
    You are tacitly deciding that the errant parent does have the best
    interests of the children at heart and is protecting them from an
    ogre back home. I'm afraid that having picked them up and hearing
    their story, you are involved. Technically an accomplise to a felony.
    The only way to NOT pass judgement is to let the courts decide.
    
   > But, now maybe there is danger of the other extreme.  
    
    What is your evidence for this statement? (I'm not saying you're
    wrong, just asking)
    
  >  The children should be with whichever parent provides the best life 
  >  for them regardless of whether that is the mother or father.  Kids don't
  >  always belong with their fathers anymore than they always belong
  >  with their mothers.   
    
    I'm glad to say we agree here.
     
    > Even if the mother doesn't deserve the kids she does deserve help, 
    > not a felony charge.  
    
    Would you say this about the father if the mother's allegation were
    true (that the father abused the children)? (again, just asking)
    
    
        sm
    
p.s. in .11 I did hesitate before referring to .0 as "she" but I figured
    whatthehell if .0 is a 'she' and I use 'he', I'd probably be worse
    off (in this conference) than if I referred to a 'he' as a 'she'.
    Why should 'he' be the default anyway?

    
    Well, .22, (what the heck is a fractal dragon?)  I disagree that
    if I had helped the people originally I was already an accomplice
    to a felony because when .0 originally helped them he didn't know
    about the father, etc.  That knowledge came later on the TV show.
    
    I don't think it should be considered a felony for a natural parent
    to transport their own child over a state line.   I don't think
    it's right necessarily but I don't think it's a problem that can
    be resolved by imprisonment.  I think physically abusing a child
    is a lot worse than taking your own child over statelines as long
    as the child is cared for.  I feel sorry for both parents in these
    instances and I don't think I am as prejudiced against men as you
    seem to think.  From your strong comments about fatherhood, I could
    sling the same at you and say you are prejudiced against women!
    
    Personally, I would be afraid to give a ride to either a strange
    man or woman eating out of garbage cans!  I'd be afraid they'd either
    rob me or kill me considering what I read in the news.  So, I wouldn't
    dare take the chance of helping either of them.  We all have to
    live with our own consciences, ultimately, regardless of what others
    think, and I would not choose to take an action that could so affect
    other people's lives unless I was absolutely positive I was right.
    
    The comment I made about men getting custody because of having more
    money came from an article I read in Ms. magazine awhile back. 
    I can't remember what month it was, but I think it had a picture
    of Richard Gere on the cover.  It was an interesting article that
    also commented on the fact that most divorced men's standard of
    living goes way up after divorce and most women's goes way down.
    It stated that while in the past most men got the worst out of divorce
    the trend now seems to be going the other way - sort of one of the
    negative results of women's equality.
    
    
    Lorna
    

	I don't know what's right or wrong to do in circumstances like
	this, however, I worry that non-involvment might be a cop-out.
	It's non-involvement that allowed a woman to get killed in a
	classic case where her cries were heard by lots of people, but
	no-one called the police.  Yeah, I know this isn't the same,
	but I think that you should *decide* not to contact the
	authorities, rather than let that be the default.  It would haunt 
	me more if I did nothing for those kids than if I contacted the 
	authorities and hoped that they would do the right thing.  You 
	can't always make the "right" decision, but you can try your best.

	As to whether .0 should now follow up on the decision, I think
	that's a moral dilemma.  If you save a life, are you responsible
	for it for the rest of your life?  I think at some point, .0
	has to let go.

	...Karen

    re .23:
    
    You're probably right that I don't understand you. What I was trying
    to do was point out how sexist *your* statements were, so that I might
    better understand you. Maybe you didn't really mean them the way
    I read them. That is why I challenge people to defend themselves,
    not necessarily to prove who is right, but to understand.
    
    As for being an accomplise, I did say "technically", I really hope
    that any judge would throw it out of court. (ignorance is no defense,
    however).
    
    > I think physically abusing a child is a lot worse than taking 
    > your own child over statelines as long as the child is cared for.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    so do I, but read the disclaimer-'
    I don't consider dumpster-picking and hitchhiking "caring for" the
    child(ren).
    
    You may not be as prejudiced against men as (you think) I may think.
    But some of the statements you have made in this file certainly seemed to
    indicate some prejudice against the father and for the mother.
    
    If you'll notice, my "strong statements about fatherhood" were
    your statements with the genders reversed. Which is the more valid
    statement? I don't think either statement is 'a priori' correct.
    And that is why I think it should be left to the only mechanism
    that exists for resolving such disputes. 
    
    But would your decision be the same had it been the father on the
    run and the mother at home looking?
    
    As for the economic effects of divorce. The 'standard of living'
    statistics were also presented on the ABC Special (see note of the
    same name). I was surprised, I was full of all the hollywood images
    of the divorced couple; she gets the elevator, he gets the shaft.
    Just shows to go ya'. I think both should get equally scr*wed.
    I mean, what are the courts trying to do, make up for all those
    years of men getting screwed by sticking it to the women now? I
    too am appalled.
    
    As for a fractal dragon. A fractal is an object that exists somewhere
    between dimensions. That is, it can not be classified as either
    2 or 3 dimensional, the way a circle and a sphere can. An approximation
    of a fractal can be drawn on paper (though usually on a CRT), some
    look very much like abstract dragons. The process of drawing these
    shapes, is never-ending and often addicting, so "beware".
    Its really a paraphrase of "beware the jabberwock" which is my MAIL
    PERSONAL NAME.  
    
    think we can still be friends?
    
    sm

    There is a danger in intervening in other people's lives that has
    nothing to do with any *physical* dangers, which is becoming so involved
    that it takes up more of your life than you can spare. I remember
    once reading that in China a person who saved a life became responsible
    for that person for the rest of their life. This really does happen
    and it's pretty scarey. 
    For example:
    The family across the street from us is
    very messed up. We try as much as possible to do little things with
    the kids 7,5,4,2 and (2)new born out of compassion and also in the
    hopes that we *might* make a difference between having and not having
    monsters in the neighborhood when they are teenagers. Do we tell
    the authorities that the kids are seldom feed or washed? (We haven't)
    I can feel for .0 - it is a very hard position to be put in but
    I do feel that the imprtant people in the situation were the kids
    and it *was not healthy* for them to be on the run and eating 
    out of dumpsters. 
                                                               
    p.s.to LStH - I know that you have had a lot of anger and pain but
    try to be aware that when you make dogmatic statements other people
    are going to "dog" back and don't take it personally. You have
    very strong opinions, which I respect, try to respect the fact that
    someone who disagrees with you isn't against you. 'k?
     Bonnie
       

    Sheesh, Lorna!!  I'm a woman who agrees with the men on this and
    your notes are really sounding sexist and wholly critical of these
    guys just because they're NOT women!
    
    As Bonnie says, you're looking at this issue thru some heavily
    pain-laden eyes and we can all understand that, but please, back
    off just a tad, hmmmm?  You were even starting to get me steamed!!
    
    I'm not steamed now, tho'....  You have every right to feel that
    .0 (and I was feeling embarassed because I thought .0 was a guy
    at first!) should maybe have minded his own business and you yourself
    wouldn't have wanted his interference....
    
    But the *KIDS* weren't old enough to ask him or push him away, and
    they are the pawns in this, are they not??  Whether it's Mom or
    Dad who are in the wrong, who suffers????
    
    And for the sake of the kids, not the sake of the parents, you can't
    fault him!!!
    
    It's been said before -- we don't KNOW who to believe -- so trust
    in God and do as your conscience tells you...
    
    And I'm sorry your daughter is living with your ex, but it sounds
    like you're pounding on .0 instead of your ex....
    
    And... I'm pretty much out of thing to say, so I'll sign off and
    see what happens next...
    
    bugsy
    

    
    Well, actually what's ironic is that my situation is really nothing
    like the woman and kids in this case.  When I decided to leave my
    husband I realized I wouldn't be able to take my then 11 year old
    daughter to live with me.  It didn't make sense.  She has been in
    the same school system since kindergarten, is an A student, and
    has a lot of friends.  My ex-husband lives in a house ("the former
    marital home") on two acres of land which is down the street from
    my mother (who my daughter is very close to).  Also, my ex-husband
    earns enough to money to support a child and still live fairly
    comfortably.  I, as I've complained before in this notesfile, barely
    make enough to support myself.  So, it just didn't make sense for
    me to take her with me.  She and I are close.  We talk on the phone
    every day and I see her two or three times a week.  (The worst problem
    is that I can't compete with her father on buying her things and
    I sometimes feel badly because of it.  Since I left he's bought
    her a VCR, a color TV, a camera, a 10-speed, and a trip to California.
     Things I can't do for her.  But, I hope I'm making up for it in
    other ways.)  I think she understands as much as possible for her
    age why I had to move out.  Only time will tell if it affects her
    in some way later on in life.  I felt I had to leave before I either
    had a nervous breakdown, killed him, or provoked him into killing
    me!  But, since he is basically a decent, intelligent person, who
    loves his daughter (despite the fact he has a terrible temper in
    regard to me, he's not physically violent) I felt she should stay
    with him in the house and continue on in the same school system
    where she is doing so well.
    
    Believe it or not, *I* have gotten some pretty negative feedback
    about this from total strangers who seem to feel that I'm some sort
    of horrible unfeeling woman to *leave* my child!  When I left her
    with her own father and see her a lot!  I hate to even mention it
    sometimes.  To top it off, I now live with a man who has custody
    of *his* two daughters!
    
    All in all, I'm much happier than I was married, but it would be
    ideal if I earned enough money to have a house and support my daughter.
    Sometimes I do have brief moments of bitterness, but I feel I did
    the right thing.
    
    I also thought .0 was a guy.  Not many women go camping alone.
    
    I really don't mean to sound prejudiced against men.  When it comes
    to actually dealing with people in my daily life I like men as well,
    and sometimes more, than women.  But, when I think of some of the
    injustices towards women because they're women I just get so angry.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I was telling a girlfriend (even though I hate "girl" I still use
    the term girlfriend-I don't know what else to use-"woman friend"
    still does sound weird to me) about this note.  It really bothered
    me that a few people thought I sounded prejudiced against men or
    against men as parents.  I realized that the main reason why I reacted
    so strongly against calling the authorities was not because she
    was the mother but because it was "the authorities".  It's not men
    or fathers that I'm prejudiced against it's authority figures. 
    The idea of turning anybody, short of a mass murderer or Nazi war
    criminal, into "the authorities" just goes against the grain.  I
    realize that I *don't* trust authority and I *don't* think that
    I can take it for granted that a judge made the right decision just
    because everybody has to stand up when he comes in the room.  I
    would feel this way even if it had been the father on the run and
    the mother on TV dramatically walking the streets looking for the
    kids.  Somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that police,
    military, judges, and clergy are really "the bad guys" who are going
    to try to keep the masses in line.  I know this isn't always true
    but I recognize my prejudice.  My initial sympathy usually goes
    out to the underdog regardless of the underdog's sex (unless it's
    a case of the underdog being some horrible Charles Manson type killer).
     That's why my initial sympathy went to the woman - because she
    was the misfit being turned in, not because she was female.
    
    
    Lorna
    

    re .29:
    
    Now, THAT I can understand. I think that was what I suspected, and
    I was trying to get you to say it that way, without reference to
    the sex of the two parents.
    
    Language'll be the death of me too!
    
    sm

    RE: .29
    
    I think any of us who lived through the Vietnam and Watergate era
    would be qualified to wear a "QUESTION AUTHORITY" button.  Many
    of us have had some personal experience with a court system that
    was obviously flawed and in fact was of sometimes dubious honesty.
    
    That has a lot to do with why I agonized all night about whether
    or not to call in my information.  Bearing no ill will towards the
    mother, I reluctantly "turned her in" for the sake of the kids.
    There are a lot of vultures out there, and I think they are safer
    being watched over by the court.
    
    By the way, not that it's any consolation to my conscience, I found
    out later that mine was not the only finger.  By the time I called
    the 800 number and gave them the name of the hill town in Kentucky
    where they were headed the year before, two neighbors had already
    turned her in to the local sherrif's office. 

      Associated Press Tue 30-SEP-1986 20:16
      Child Found 

             Missing Child Found After TV Program Shows His Photo

                              By DANIEL J. WAKIN
                           Associated Press Writer

      BRICK TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) - A 7-year-old boy missing for three
      years was located after a neighbor recognized the child's picture,
      which was broadcast after a television movie, police said Tuesday.
      The photograph of Terrence Conner was among pictures of youngsters
      broadcast on NBC on Monday night after ``Adam: The Song
      Continues.'' 

      The neighbor telephoned the San Francisco-based Missing Child
      Foundation, and the foundation called township police with a
      description and birth date of the child, said police Sgt. Louis
      Demeglio said. Police arrested the boy's mother, Ellen Lynn Conner,
      27. She faces Alabama charges of kidnapping and interference with a
      custody warrant. 

      Terrence had been taken from his father in Birmingham, Ala., on
      Nov. 14, 1983. He was placed in the temporary custody of the state
      Division of Youth and Family Services until he could be reunited
      with his father. ``It's a tragedy,'' Demeglio said. ``It's the
      child's natural mother. He's being well-cared for.'' Mrs. Conner
      was distraught after her arrest, said Sgt. Gary Wood of Brick
      Township. Wood called Terrance ``a nice little boy. He's a little
      confused but he's holding up pretty well.'' 

      The television movie is the sequel to ``Adam,'' which dramatized
      the abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh from a Hollywood,
      Fla., shopping mall in 1981. As in the original, a roll-call of 50
      missing children from across the United States appeared at the end
      of the movie, along with a telephone number people could call with
      information. ``The lights on the telephones went on all across the
      room as the roll call ended,'' said Barbara Chapman, media director
      for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in
      Washington, D.C. 

      Starring Daniel J. Travanti and JoBeth Williams, the film detailed
      how Adam's family, and particularly his father, John Walsh, fought
      to raise the awareness of crimes against children. Walsh's
      appointment as special consultant to the newly formed center for
      missing children in Washington and his crusade for children's
      rights across the country were examined in the two-hour docudrama.
      Walsh has played a major role in the passage of the Missing
      Children's Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act, which
      established the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 

    
    It seems to me there's quite a big difference between a child who
    has been kidnapped and murdered (presumably *not* by one of his
    natural parents) and a child who was kidnapped by his natural mother
    because the natural father had been given legal custody, especially
    since the child was well-cared for.  It certainly is a tragedy.
     It is not surprising that the natural mother, who may never have
    committed a "real" crime (such as breaking and entering, armed robbery,
    rape, or murder) in her life, was "distraught" after being arrested.
     So would I be "distraught" were I to be arrested for "kidnapping"
    a child that I had once carried inside my own body for 9 months.
     I admit it!  I *am* prejudiced in the favor of mothers over fathers
    except for obvious cases of neglect or abuse by the mother.  I guess
    in this case I'm just a sexist pig!  But, flames from all you fabulous
    daddys out there will never change my mind.  Well, let me rephrase
    that, maybe you could change my *mind* but you could never change
    my *heart* or lower my blood pressure when I read things like this!!
    
    Maybe this is another very good example of why marriage is *not*
    a good deal for women!  If the couple had never been married the
    father would have no legal claim over the so-called illegimate child.
     Boycotting marriage is a good way for women to stop the threat
    of so many fathers getting custody of kids.  It just seems like
    an example of how women's lib has sometimes backfired for women.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .33:
    
    I don't care if you're a sexist pig, as long as you admit it :-)
    
    But seriously, before I get into another argument with Lorna, let
    me ask for some more information about custody. 
    
    Is custody incontestable once the judge has ruled? 
    Doesn't custody usually go to the mother unless there are
    	some good reasons not to?
    Isn't it illegal to take the law into your own hands and defy court
    	orders? 
    Shouldn't someone who commits such a defiance be punished?
    Aren't there legal avenues to change rulings you disagree with?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I hate having to rewrite things, but after I finished, the 
    "network partner aborted logical link" and I couldn't even do 
    a REPLY/LAST or SEND/LAST.  *sigh
    
    Anyway, to answer some of these questions (quickly, this time):
    
    These things depend much on the judge and the particular state.
    Often a parent who loses a custody case will snatch the child(ren)
    off to a different state, where the case may get another hearing.
    This could be a really big problem if the child/ren were taken to
    several states by one or both parents.
    
    A judge often makes decisions not just on evidence, but on perceptions
    and prejudices.  Although it is often practiced that the child/ren
    will go to the mother unless "evidence" says the mother is "unfit",
    it also happens that the custody goes to the father because he makes
    more money (thus, think the judges, the children will be happier).
    
    I will enter this, then enter another about un-marriages.
    
                    Carol
    

    On unmarried couples becoming parents:
    
    Just because two people are not married when a child is conceived/born
    does not prevent the father from getting custody.  There have been
    several court cases where  1)the unmarried father has won custody
    or visitation rights, and  2)the unmarried father has been forced
    to pay child support.
    
    In addition, if I remember correctly, there was a well publicized
    case a few years ago where a young man went to court to prevent
    his pregnant girlfriend (both teens?) from having an abortion.
    He wanted to raise the child.  I think he may have won.
    
    So, for better or for worse, the times are changing.
    
                  Carol

    

    RE:  .35 "nodelink abortions"
    
    When the nodelink goes down without your knowing it and you're left
    with noplace to put a lengthy reply you've composed, do the following:
    
    		Notes> EVE
    
    			DO
    			BUFFER NOTES$EDIT
    			DO
    			WRITE NOTE.TMP
    
    This will write whatever was in your NOTES buffer into a file that
    you can store in your directory and then when the nodelink comes
    up again you can 
    			Notes> WRITE (or REPLY) note.tmp
    

    addendum to .37:
    
    the simpler thing might be to first do the following:
    
    OPEN {notefile}
    [if it opens okay, then go to where you want your reply, and...]
    REPLY/LAST
    
    and there you are.
    
    re .35:
    
    Are you saying that the parent who is refused custody has no right
    of appeal?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I don't know about the right to appeal.  I have not been in one
    of these battles; I've just read up on them quite a bit.
    It's possible that you can only appeal once, I suppose, or that
    a judge could decide not to take the appeal.  Has anyone here 
    read or experienced this?
    
    Thanks for all the NOTES info.  It gets so frustrating.  (I tried
    SEND/LAST to see if I could mail the info to myself, but it mailed
    blanks.  Don't know if I tried REPLY/LAST since I had thought it
    wouldn't work if I reentered the Notes file)
    
    Oh, BTW, about what Lorna (?) had said about being the parent arrested:
    I tend to think of it from the other parents point of view.  I'm
    sure if I were the kidnapping parent I would not be happy to go
    to jail, but I would not be happy if my child just disappeared one
    day either.  I would be frantic.
    
                       Carol

    The ability to appeal is only limited by your wallet.  However,
    it is probably good judgement to have new material, or the judge
    will quickly dismiss it.  A *good* lawyer will try to get all the
    relevant material in the initial custody hearing in order to make
    appeal less viable.

    
    This whole discussion makes me wonder why people wind up in this
    situation.  Why doesn't everybody just choose joint custody?  It
    certainly seems the fairest way out of it.  It seems really nasty
    for one parent to want to have total custody unless there are
    extenuating circumstances such as the other parent is a drug addict,
    alcoholic, child beater, bag lady, or something equally as bad.
     It's terrible for two fairly normal, decent people to each try
    to get total custody of the kids.  My ex-husband and I have joint
    legal custody, she lives with him and I see her anytime either of
    us feel like it which is fairly often.  I honestly couldn't picture
    us treating each other that way and our daughter wouldn't stand
    for it either.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .41  Why not joint custody
    
    Two reason with which I have personal experience:
    
    1.	Who has custody may have *significant* financial implications,
    	depending on location and particular judge.
    
    2.	"Winning" a custody action can be held up as "proof" of the
    	goodness of the "winner" and the badness of the "loser".  Of
    	course, in reality, the loser is the children.
    
    Joint custody is almost the default outcome in some of the more
    progressive states, but that attitude is not widespread.  It is
    recommended by psychologists and family therapists as the least
    damaging approach to custody.  Judges are told to check for a 
    "no-fault" attitude on the part of the parents before ordering
    joint custody.
    
    

    Re: .41 -- What I sometimes don't like about your notes, Lorna, is your
    attitude, that what is right for you is right for everybody!  Please,
    a little tolerance here for other people's choices.
    
    Re: .42 -- I agree with your reasons, but I wouldn't call them flimsy
    excuses -- I think they're perfectly valid.

    
    Joint custody is NOT for everybody!  I am very sensitive to this issue, I
    have just applied for full custody myself.  My ex-husband and I did
    try joint custody because we thought it would be the best for the children.
    Neither of us are child abusers, alcoholics, drug abusers, promiscuous,
    unemployed, or anything of the kind.  Just two reasonably normal people
    who cannot agree on even the most minor issues surrounding the children.
    The environments we provide for the children are just so different that
    I think it is harmful for the children.  I gave a lot of thought to
    this and agonized a lot over my decision and I'm still not sure it will
    work out.  I have applied for a full custody evaluation (by people whose
    professional full-time job is child custody evaluations) and I feel the
    evaluation will bear me out, but nothing is for certain.
    
    Now, for a dive into my troubles (this will be long):

    When I said above that my husband was a reasonably normal, I was being
    kind.  He was very emotionally abusive person in our marriage, that
    became physical abuse when I learned to block the other abuse out. 
    (I bought into it because of my own low self-esteem issues, but that
    is another story.)  He was and still is verbally abusive to his elderly 
    parents who lived with us during our entire marriage and still live with 
    him.  I expect this to eventually carry over to his children, in fact,
    I can see signs of it already.
    
    Some differences:
    
    I believe in firm, but gentle discipline.  I very rarely give a spanking,
    which is nothing more than a swat on the bottom, followed by a two-minute
    timeout, followed by a discussion afterwards.  Mostly I use the timeout
    and discussion.  My ex-husband insists that the divorce has hurt the
    children so badly that he can't possibly say no to them.
    
    Toys -- I don't really care what kind of toys the children choose to
    play with, trucks, dolls, blocks, pots, pans, play-dough, paints,
    whatever.  But it really burns me up to hear my ex or his parents tell my 
    daughter that girls don't play with trains or trucks or whatever (and vice 
    versa for my son) when they show any kind of interest in those toys.  It's
    subtle, not "You can't play with those toys,"; but "You don't really
    want to play with those, do you?  They're not for <gender>."
    
    My ex and his parents are still hand-feeding the kids and giving them
    bottles.  My son is 4 and my daughter is 2 and they both feed themselves
    at my house, they determine how much they want to eat, (no dessert before 
    eating at least most of what's on their plate), they help around the kitchen
    (as toddlers can :^) ), etc.  On the other hand, Mark is King of the
    house there.  He can do no wrong, even if he does get his way by throwing
    tantrums -- he's just a genius kid who doesn't like to be thwarted.
    Julia is just a girl (she is also secondborn).  Do you think I'm kidding?  
    It's almost like describing two different sets of kids when you visit my 
    ex's house and my house.
    
    I have tried to work these things out with him.  We both came from the
    premise that equal time with both parents would be the best for them.
    But, after more than a year of trying to negotiate with him, meeting
    once or twice a week, I feel like screaming in frustration!  
    
    I left my husband last June (1985), and just last week he informed me that
    he doesn't want me back anymore!  Thanks, we've only been apart for
    18 months or so...  He thought I was still his wife, just living separately!

    Sorry for such a long note, but it feels good to get this out.  I agree with
    family therapists in general, that the best thing for the kids is for
    them to have equal access to the parents if the parents can at least
    support/communicate with each other on childraising issues.  Some divorced
    couples can do that and I think it's wonderful.  But not all divorced
    couples can or should.
    
    
    								Terza
    
    
    

    
    Re -1, Well, yes, sometimes I do think that my opinion on an issue
    is the best opinion, otherwise I would have a different opinion!
     You say that I sound like I always think what's best for me is
    best for everybody, well it sounds to me like you're pretty certain
    that the way you want to raise your kids is superior to any ideas
    your ex or in-laws have!  Apparently, you think your ideas for raising
    children are the best for everybody, eh?
    
    All I said, really, is that I think joint custody seems the most
    fair and works for me.  I never said that there weren't exceptions.
     If your ex is physically abusive and favors the boy, then those
    are both really negative factors.
    
    Hearing stories like yours makes me feel really thankful that my
    husband and I didn't split up when our daughter was very young.
     It also makes me feel lucky that my ex and I still like each other
    as people.
    
    I certainly don't think, as far as lifestyles go, that my choices
    are best for everybody.  But, sometimes on the larger issues I do
    think I have some good ideas.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna - from everything you've written in this file, it seems like
    you've been lucky in your situation with your daughter and ex.
    
    Terza - the *best* of luck to you in getting your kids!  I hope
    you can be a happy person through all of this turmoil, anyway.
    
    	-Ellen G.
    

      Associated Press Tue 07-OCT-1986 21:54
      Child Found 

                      Missing Child Found in Hot Springs
      
      HOT SPRINGS, Ark (AP) - A 9-year-old boy missing for three years
      was reunited with his mother Tuesday after someone recognized his
      photograph on a national television program. Neil Sheehan had been
      missing from Norman, Okla., since August 1983, according to Lt. Ed
      Smith, criminal investigator for the Garland County Sheriff's
      Department. 

      The boy had been taken by his father, John Sheehan, during a
      visitation period, and they lived in a camper in Texas and
      Arkansas, he said. Law enforcement officers, including FBI agents,
      found the boy Monday at a campground near Hot Springs while
      following up on a lead they received from a person who recognized
      him from photographs shown last week during the NBC movie, ``Adam:
      The Song Continues,'' Smith said. 

      The youth was enrolled in school near Hot Springs under the name of
      Neil Howell. ``We went to the school and talked to the boy,'' Smith
      said. ``He told us what his father had told him to tell
      (authorities) that his name was Neal Howell and that he had never
      been to Oklahoma. Of course, the longer we talked to him, the more
      we realized it was the boy. We had a photograph to compare him
      with.'' 

      Authorities notified the National Center for Missing Children in
      Washington that the child had been located, and the agency notified
      Marlita Sheehan, the boy's mother, on Monday night. Mrs. Sheehan
      arrived in Hot Springs on Tuesday morning and was reunited with her
      son at the airport. 

      Juvenile Judge Paul Vasson granted Mrs. Sheehan full custody of the
      boy at an emergency hearing in juvenile court. Sheehan is wanted in
      Oklahoma on child-stealing charges, according to a spokesman for
      the Garland County sheriff's department. 

    re .46:
    
    set note/bitch
    
    is this note to become a repository of newspaper clippings of reunion
    stories?
    
    set note/normal
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE: .47  "clippings bitch"
    
    In extracting the newswire story in .46, I was attempting to balance
    the previous clipping in .32, to show both a father + child and
    a mother + child.

    re .48:
    
    I suspected as much but wanted to head off a trend at the pass.
    
    Now that I think about it, while I do applaud the motive, I question
    the value. I mean how much balance does it actually provide?
    No mention is made of the father's "anguish" at being seperated
    from his son, just mention made that he is wanted for child stealing.
    
    This just furthers the view that children 'rightfully' belong with
    the mother.
    
    Anyway, to phrase my 'bitch' a little more politely: Could I please
    ask that no more missing children clippings be placed in this file
    except to illustrate a point relevant to the discussion of this
    note?
    
    I *think* this is reasonable, but if it isn't, I'll retract it.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Set falme=on
    
    Am I the only one who feels this way or not?  Does the "MISSING
    CHILDREN" stuff we're bombarded with really deserve the attention
    it's getting when at the bottom of it all is usually a miffed
    parent "stealing" (can you really call it that if it's your own
    child?) the child?

    The newspaper clippings posted here confirmed (to me) what I have
    suspected all along - that most of the "missing" children have been
    "kidnapped" by a parent or relative.
        
    I don't think that I should be asked to become involved in what is
    obviously a personal family problem.  If the case involves neglect
    or abuse, then certainly I would step into that situation (at least
    I hope and think I would).  But I think that if I saw a "missing child"
    that was obviously well-cared for and with a parent (male or female),
    I would not get involved in a personal situation.

    So...am I the only one who feels that most of this is hype?

    set flame=only_a_little_bit_lower

    I guess if a parent is missing their child, they'd want to know
    everything possible was being done to locate him or her, even if
    it means having everyone across the country look at their brat on a
    milk carton.  

    It has been said that these are "family affairs" and should perhaps
    stay in the family rather than the court system.
    
    Consider this situation:
    
    You, or a close friend, are married and have children.  Your spouse
    dies, and you are raising the children in a good, loving environment.
    You fall in love again, this time with someone from another race.
    You marry, and together you raise the kids with lots of love and
    support.  However, your parents do not approve of an inter-racial
    relationship, and they believe it is not in the best interests of
    the children to be brought up in that environment, so they take
    the children away from you.
    
    Now what?  If you cannot get them to return your children, what
    is the alternative?  
    
    As was said in the previous note, it is parents and other relatives
    who often steal children.  Does that make it right?
    
                         Carol
    

    It has been said that these are "family affairs" and should perhaps
    stay in the family rather than the court system.
    
    Consider this situation:
    
    You, or a close friend, are married and have children.  Your spouse
    dies, and you are raising the children in a good, loving environment.
    You fall in love again, this time with someone from another race.
    You marry, and together you raise the kids with lots of love and
    support.  However, your parents do not approve of an inter-racial
    relationship, and they believe it is not in the best interests of
    the children to be brought up in that environment, so they take
    the children away from you.
    
    Now what?  If you cannot get them to return your children, what
    is the alternative?  
    
    As was said in other notes, it is parents and other relatives
    who often steal children.  I ask: Does that make it right?
    
                         Carol
    

    The FBI estimated that of the thousands of missing children last year, 
    less than one hundred were actually stolen by strangers. It makes me 
    wonder if the attention to the issue of stolen children is scaring
    kids more than helping them. The experts urge teaching your child
    common sense when a stranger approaches rather than going to extremes
    (such as bonding microchips to dental work).
    
    What do you teach your child to do if a relative (not only an
    estranged parent) tries to steal him or her?
    
    BTW, today is Sara Pryor day - it's been a year since she was stolen.
    
    Lisa    

    I am not sure how you steal a child that knows how to use a phone.
    Does anyone know how many "missing" children ran away from bad
    situations, rather than got taken away?  It just seems to me that
    any kid over 6 could find a way to get in touch with the parent
    he/she most wanted to live with, and being missing very long suggests
    that the child doesn't want to change the situation.  Even if you
    steal a dog, it will find its way home unless restrained.

        I'll have to agree that all of this panic about kidnapping seems
        to be a lot of hype and panic. It would appear that rather than
        taking finger-prints or teaching them a secret password that
        identifies strangers who are really representing mommy or daddy,
        the best way to protect your kids from being kidnapped is to not
        get divorced.
        
        There's a lot of this sort of thing in our culture. We seem to
        love panicking and sensationalistic stories. Remember all of the
        bruhaha about the "Baby Doe" cases where parents were letting
        defective babies die? Well in the one year after they
        established a federal program to investigate these things
        something on the order of 50 cases were investigated, of which
        all but one were determined to be just parents opting for
        non-surgical treatments for their infants or the like. If I
        remember correctly, they didn't actually prove there was
        anything wrong with the one case either. 
        
        JimB.

	Children can be very easily intimidated by adults, so don't depend
	on your six year old child being able to call home if kidnapped.
	And months later, you might see that happy child playing in the
	park.  How can you determine the transient happiness of a child with
	them really being happy and secure.  Can you act miserable all the
	time?  I know that after I experianced the death of my fiance, I
	was cracking jokes the next day.  If you'd seen me at that moment,
	you might not have realized the grief I was feeling.  Who are you
	to judge the well-being of a child?  If I see a child who's face
	was on a milk carton, then I'll report it no matter how happy
	they look.  How can you make any kind of a judgement without knowing
	the entire situation?

	As to the statistics, remember that children whose bodies are found
	are not included in the number of missing children.  And when they
	say they weren't kidnapped by strangers, those people that kidnap
	can be friends, teachers, parents of the kid's friends, any number of
	the people that you meet.  I think the problem should be taken
	seriously.  It's happening to people I work with, to friends of
	my friend's children and it's happening in my town.

	...Karen

    RE: 56.
    
    Can you tell us how many missing children's bodies are found? I
    have no idea. I only remember seeing a special on missing children,
    and that statistic really stuck with me. The statistic is that less 
    than one hundred children a year are stolen by real strangers, people 
    that the child has never met before. So, this excludes anyone who
    knows the child. 
    
    Yes, we all agree it's a serious problem. It happens in every town.
    But the overwhelming chances are that the child knows the kidnapper,
    and this sheds new light on teaching children about kidnapping.
    The child needs to know how to react when approached by anyone,
    be it a divorced parent, a paper-route customer, someone on staff at 
    school, or a total stranger.

    Has anyone here approached the problem of kidnapping from this point
    of view? What can you do without scaring your child? Has anyone
    watched the videotape with Henry Winkler?
        
    Lisa

    Some facts, from a recent article on missing children. (It was a
    local newspaper article, I can get the name and date on request.)
    
    Approximately 30,000 children turn up missing each year.
    
    More than half of those are runaways.
    
    Of the rest, most are stolen by spouses.
    
    Fewer than 1% are stolen by strangers.
    
    [Note: I'm not trying to make a point, just relating some facts]
    
    	-- Charles

    re:.54
    
    On further reflection, I think what I implied in .54 was faulty.
    Children under duress are easily intimidated, and even more easily
    confused when adults (people with real power to a child) can't act
    like parents.  If someone steals my dog, my dog has only one home
    to find.  If my spouse steals my child, that child has a more
    complicated task in figuring out where his home is, and shouldn't
    be expected to solve it by picking up the phone.

    Can anyone answer this question - 
    
    When I was visiting my sister this summer we got on the subject
    of missing kids. (She had just moved to D.C. from Miami where there
    had apparently been a number of cases of girls in the 10 - 14 age
    bracket disappearing.) She told me that "Adam's" father had
    been involved in drug dealing and this was why his son was killed.
    I had never read anything to this effect and found it hard to 
    believe but she swore she'd seen this in the Florida papers. Has
    anyone any information to either prove or disprove this?
    
    Bonnie

    She may have been thinking of another case.  In Rhode Island,
    over two years ago, a couple's baby disappeared, and was found
    dead a week later.  The theory was originally offered that the
    baby had been taken (changed to killed) because of her father's
    former drug dealing.  That is not the police finally decided on.
    
    							Ann B.

    re .61
    No I know it wasn't that case because we talked about it also.
    i.e. wondering if the guy was really not guilty as the jury had
    decided.

    My brother in Florida, is part of the highway patrol.  He was involved
    with the Adam Walsh search, and he has never mentioned drugs as
    being a motive.  He has told us, his family, some things that were
    not broadcast to the world, and a few of them the murderer O'Toole
    has told police about (leads them to believe he was the one).  Strange
    law in Florida, if there is no body found, there is no murder. 
    Consequently, because all they found was the head of Adam Walsh,
    and no body (it supposedly was burned in an old refigerator at the
    dump), they can not prosecute anyone in the murder. Even if they
    have someone admit to the killing, they can not prosecute.  Sick
    law!

    They have "the head" but because the don't have "the body", they
    can't prosecute? Damn literal interpretation that. I could understand
    if no body *at all* is found, i.e. not even *any* parts, but this
    is ridiculous. What exactly do they define as "the body"? If they
    had the head, both arms, both legs, but no trunk, then no murder?
    <scream...................................................>
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Has anyone followed up on the child/mother/father on this one? 
    The basenote presents an very difficult dilemma and is a very good
    example of how each of us views the "system".  System in this context,
    as I view it, is made up of a number of systems such as the courts,
    social service, woman, man, children, law enforcement agency, religion,
    federal agency [as state lines were cross undoubtedly the FBI were
    called in].
    
    So, with this definition of SYSTEM I'm wondering how much value
    and faith each of us puts in into each of the sub-systems and then
    how in turn that impacts our decisions.
    
    For instance, from one perspection which may be from what has been
    discussed in Womannotes, one conclusion could be drawn up in defense
    of the people who cry betrayl.  Betrayl in a sense that what if
    the woman did make the right decision based upon a moment in
    time when her man did act out on the children.
    
    Now, at a later moment in time, a stranger is introduced.  This
    stranger assists the woman and children.  Turns out that this
    assistance was fruitful for the woman.  Also, the woman's intentions
    were found honorable only after she was discovered.  I say found
    honorable because she was found in the state she told stranger.  But,
    the woman's intentions could not have been proven honorable until 
    she was found.
    
    Now, what I'm leading up to is that each of us makes a decision
    based upon our experiences.  From the basenoter I realize they were
    male because of their faith in the legal system and I also sensed
    a feeling of empathy of seeing the man "wandering the city streets."
    And, from that "gut feeling" made a decision.
    
    Base upon the current situation in Mass. [Lalonde case where mother
    took kids et cet.] I would have called a woman's support group first
    and asked them to intercede for me.  In this way the woman's needs
    could/may have been met and the legal system may/could have been
    used for a different purpose, other than the one it was introduced
    for, which was to prosecute the mother for kidnapping charges, and
    grant legal custody to the man.  
    
    Again, we still don't know if the man was the legal father or what.
    
    In short, I feel the basenoter made the right decision but the wrong
    move.

    RE: .65  "followup on .0?"
    
    I have not made any further attempts to find out how this case was
    resolved and for reasons stated in some of my replies, would just
    as soon let it lie.
    
    If I ever get out to Seattle I may try to look up the family and
    see what happened, but that may not be a good idea either.
    
    As for the parallels you draw between my experience and the LaLonde
    case, I think the same rule applies - it's up to the courts to decide.
    I would not be surprised if the original kidnapping case was dropped,
    as it was in the LaLonde case, once the children were returned.
     
    Virginia LaLonde may prefer to try her case in the media, but the
    child deserves a cool-headed hearing.  
    
                               

    Dennis, I'm not disagreeing that the courts ought to decide - I
    agree the courts should decide.  But, from the notes in this file
    and seeing that it's woman based, I was thinking that perhaps if
    women are turning to women for support before entering the courts,
    then perhaps maybe, with empathy and perhaps part sympathy, the
    men ought to use the same channels when they see a case such as
    the one you presented in the base note.
    
    I wonder if the women's center in Kentucky or any other state has
    as powerful a "system" as the courts.  And whether or not this woman
    could have received the support she needed from the women's network
    to have gained the confidence and courage to pursue legal action
    on her own.  Thus, perhaps the mother and two children could have
    confronted this man in the courts on their terms.
    
    The way I see it, this woman and two children faced this man, but
    on his and the court's terms.  Also, this woman now has a police
    record.  A mark which will be hard for her to erase and a mark which
    probably played a part in the court's decision when deciding as
    to who should have custody of the children.
    
    I know that by reading this Womannotes file I am becoming more aware
    of the kinds of women networks out there.  I'm suggesting that we
    need to tap all of the resources and not just depend on the old
    stand-by whenever we see a wrong doing.