- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
SAN BERNARDINO, California (AP) — A Southern California mother whose two children were reported missing 15 years ago has tracked them down in Florida using Facebook.
The children's father, Faustino Utrera, took off with them in 1995 when they were ages 2 and 3, said Deputy District Attorney Kurt Rowley. The mother had found her daughter's Facebook profile after searching for her name on the social networking site in March, Rowley said.
An official said Saturday that the now 17-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy have been placed in the custody of the state of Florida.
Mom finds missing children using Facebook - USATODAY.com
Two months ago, my daughter found me on Facebook after not seeing her for fourteen years. She's 16 now. Later today I actually get to see her and my wife and I are getting back together because we're still in love with each other. I, actually, got to talk to my daughter for the first time last night for several hours on the phone, but we had been corresponding over the past two months via Facebook and Yahoo Instant Messenger. At the end of the phone conversation my daughter told me that she loved me. It's taken a lot of patience, love, and understanding for both my daughter and I to get to this point.
By rushing or forcing things, there's a good chance that the child will not want a relationship with the parent. It sucks, but it does happen and is entirely the choice of the child. Over time, though, the child will naturally wonder what happened for there to be such a long separation and will ask the parent questions. Be honest, but don't bash the other parent and definitely don't get the child into the position of being in the middle if the two parents cannot see eye to eye. A parent that is honest, without bashing, will earn their child's trust and the parent-child relationship will be able to blossom naturally. If a third party mediator is needed then so be it. The goal is reintegration of the parent with the child. A child that trusts the newly found parent will express interest in visiting then eventually staying with the parent that has custody. That's been my personal experience so take it for what it's worth.
16 and 17? Those kids are plenty old enough to decide for themselves whether to go or stay, and who they want to live with.
Tough call. It's a tough situation all around.
I think you've got the right of it. The mother should have visitation and the children should live with a legal guardian while their father serves his sentence. There should probably be some leniency for the father, but custodial interference is still a crime and he still needs to serve his sentence.
Two months ago, my daughter found me on Facebook after not seeing her for fourteen years. She's 16 now. Later today I actually get to see her and my wife and I are getting back together because we're still in love with each other. I, actually, got to talk to my daughter for the first time last night for several hours on the phone, but we had been corresponding over the past two months via Facebook and Yahoo Instant Messenger. At the end of the phone conversation my daughter told me that she loved me. It's taken a lot of patience, love, and understanding for both my daughter and I to get to this point.
By rushing or forcing things, there's a good chance that the child will not want a relationship with the parent. It sucks, but it does happen and is entirely the choice of the child. Over time, though, the child will naturally wonder what happened for there to be such a long separation and will ask the parent questions. Be honest, but don't bash the other parent and definitely don't get the child into the position of being in the middle if the two parents cannot see eye to eye. A parent that is honest, without bashing, will earn their child's trust and the parent-child relationship will be able to blossom naturally. If a third party mediator is needed then so be it. The goal is reintegration of the parent with the child. A child that trusts the newly found parent will express interest in visiting then eventually staying with the parent that has custody. That's been my personal experience so take it for what it's worth.
Many fictional books have been written on this subject.
Recent bestsellers like Cavedweller by Dorothy Allison, and Deep End of the Ocean by Jacquelyn Mitchard, come to mind.
In those stories, the kidnapped children are significantly younger than these children when returned to their mothers.
Even so, massive adjustment problems ensue.
One can only assume this scenario was common in the days before women had any real custodial rights, and in countries where they still don't.
Personally, I don't think the State is going to be able to force 16 and 17-year-old individuals to do anything they don't want to do. A stranger does not become "family" because the law says so.
Teenagers tend to lack the ability to empathize emotionally, especially with adults.
When they're older, perhaps they'll understand that their mother was wronged and feel sorry for her, and seek out some kind of relationship with her.
I think attempting to force a relationship, at this point, could only be detrimental.
The teenagers no doubt feel that they are the victims here.
She- this stranger- is the one who has created this massive upheaval in their lives; she's come into their lives uninvited, and turned them upside down. Their father is going to prison because of her, and they're probably going into foster care or some institution.
I wouldn't be surprised if they hate her and wish she were dead.
I cannot help but feel that if their roles were reversed, the court (and society in general) would be sympathetic to the mother, even if she'd broken the law.
Every year, many women kidnap their children and get away with it, claiming the fathers were 'abusive" and the court wouldn't do anything about it and "Oh God, I have to protect my babies!"
I'm not saying they don't have a legitimate point in some cases; just that even if they didn't, they could easily say that, and nearly everyone would automatically believe them/ sympathize.
Since it's a father who withheld his children from their mother, he's automatically assumed to be evil and everyone's calling for his head on a platter.
Maybe, like all these moms who kidnap their children, go underground, and change their names, he was only trying to protect his children from what he perceived to be an abusive situation.
We don't know the details, is what I'm saying.
But I feel like if he'd been a woman, and done the exact same thing, we'd be making certain assumptions here, ie that he was probably justified in what he did, and should not be punished.
The parent should have proven the other one unfit in a court of law.
That can be a very expensive and time-consuming process. Sometimes one parent has better financial resources and the other is at a terrible disadvantage.
I don't know about other states, but my state has a program for people who can't afford legal services to still obtain legal services for stuff like this.
It just seems like a double standard to me.
We seem to give mothers the benefit of the doubt in this society, and be quick to vilify fathers for the same actions.
We seem to feel it's a mother's right (and duty) to protect her children at all costs, even if it means breaking and/or disregarding the law in order to do so.
We do not seem to feel the same way about fathers.
As the child of a male single parent, it bothers me.
Why are mothers assumed to be above the law when it comes to assuring the well-being of their children, and fathers aren't?
All parents should get the benefit of the doubt in these cases- that they acted in good faith, for the best interest of their children, and therefore should not be punished- or else none should.
Every state does, but oh my god, legal aid sucks so bad.
They have a years-long waiting list, sometimes, to get in to speak to someone.
When I went to get my divorce, my dad initially told me to go to legal aid for representation.
When we realized how bad it sucked, he hired me an attorney.
I understand your point about the double standard. But people do things that are in the best interest of their kids in their minds but the law disagrees. Both parents have equal rights until the court restricts or strips them of those rights. We can't allow the first one to kidnap them to be the one to make that call.
If the other parent is a danger to the kids, it doesn't take Perry Mason to prove it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?