Patricia O'Byrne kept in jail

[gerryh]

From all reports I've heard a fairly productive member of society and I heard nothing of her harming her child. We simply don't know what the father is really like, probably a decent person too, but we just don't know for sure.

She didn't have custody. She kidnapped the child.

 

[JLM]

When it is against the law. If it wasn't against the law, then you would see this happen a lot more often. And how does that help the child?

I was not aware that the child was harmed.

 

[gerryh]

Why gerry?

Really didn't think you were that stupid that you would need to ask this when it comes to a child. If you're just playing devils advocate..... play it with someone else.

I was not aware that the child was harmed.

Huh? Oh, I know. No big deal that she didn't know her Dad while growing up. After all, it was JUST her Dad. Someone that REALLY doesn't count in the big scheme of things.:roll:

 

[shadowshiv]

From all reports I've heard a fairly productive member of society and I heard nothing of her harming her child. We simply don't know what the father is really like, probably a decent person too, but we just don't know for sure.

A fairly productive member of society does not kidnap a child, regardless if one is the parent or not. And while she may not have harmed the child, she sure as hell harmed the father by denying him a relationship with his daughter for 18 years.

I was not aware that the child was harmed.

Maybe not physically, but the relationship with her father was harmed.

 

[petros]

Really didn't think you were that stupid that you would need to ask this when it comes to a child. If you're just playing devils advocate..... play it with someone else.

I thought we had laws over human ownership of humans? How do I not own my kid any less than I own my car stereo?

 

[JLM]

Sorry, that doesn't wash. You may not agree with the courts, but that doesn't give you the right to abduct your child if custody was given to the other parent. It may be totally bogus, but you certainly don't help matters by abducting the child.

Many of us have seen what goes on in the courts so of course we don't agree with courts. Thirty years a speeding motorist hit me from behind. He showed up in court with his gorgeous wife and dressed in a suit & tie, I showed up on my way home from fishing with fish guts and scales stuck to my shirt. I was judged 70% at fault. No, I have very little use for courts or judges! :smile:

 

[shadowshiv]

Many of us have seen what goes on in the courts so of course we don't agree with courts. Thirty years a speeding motorist hit me from behind. He showed up in court with his gorgeous wife and dressed in a suit & tie, I showed up on my way home from fishing with fish guts and scales stuck to my shirt. I was judged 70% at fault. No, I have very little use for courts or judges! :smile:

I would hope that this would never happen to you, but I have to ask. If your daughter had been taken from you by your wife(or ex-wife) for 18 years, would you be content with it being handled in a civil case rather than as a criminal case? I know I certainly wouldn't and I would want the woman prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[petros]

My wife would never never be that selfish if we ever split.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Adducting something that is yours? How does Govt justify taking away something you created and own unless you don't really own your children and other physical or spiritual creations?

Custody was NOT hers.

 

[petros]

It's up to somebody else (law) to decide who holds what you own and have created?

 

[JLM]

I would hope that this would never happen to you, but I have to ask. If your daughter had been taken from you by your wife(or ex-wife) for 18 years, would you be content with it being handled in a civil case rather than as a criminal case? I know I certainly wouldn't and I would want the woman prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What I would want would likely hinge more on emotion than facts.

 

[shadowshiv]

What I would want would likely hinge more on emotion than facts.

Exactly. And I imagine that the father is pretty darned emotional.

 

[JLM]

Exactly. And I imagine that the father is pretty darned emotional.

Yep, but we can't be having court decisions based on emotions!

 

[gerryh]

Yep, but we can't be having court decisions based on emotions!

Ok, she broke the law, therefore she bears the burden of that.

 

[talloola]

It is also important 'what' she told her daughter about her dad through all these years.

I'm sure the daughter asked about her dad, and i'm also sure the mom did not tell the truth.

The daughter now is in a terrible emotional tight rope, as she was probably very happy all these
years, (i'm assuming), but now when she hears what actually happened 18 years ago, she will see her
mom in a different light, and her dad in a new light, this is very sad for her, tears up her life as
it has been, and puts her right in the middle 'emotionally', as I'm sure she loves her mom, and now she
must figure out how to know her dad, and what to feel about her mom, because her mom would have lied to
her about her dad, and that will be very dissapointing to her.

Her mom is the cause of all of this, what goes round comes round, and it is her
turn to feel that misery, as i'm sure the dad suffered over the years wondering
about his daughter.

 

[karrie]

Couldn't have said it as good myself, D.G. The mother's worst crime was disobedience/contempt. Half the country feels that way about our sad justice system, that Mr. Harper seems Hell bent on making worse.

Which would highlight the court's decision to deny bail

She perhaps should be in prison however the daughters views should be heard.
We don't know the circumstances of the case either, from her point of view and
from the father's point of view as well. I suppose that will come out in a trial.

In reading your few posts in here, you keep talking about the trial, but not the issue at hand. What's your view of the bail?

Adducting something that is yours? How does Govt justify taking away something you created and own unless you don't really own your children and other physical or spiritual creations?

They didn't take the child from her, they granted custody to its other creator.

That is a civil matter not a criminal matter!

You really want to set the precedent that overriding custody arrangements and secreting your child away is merely a civil matter?

Who has ownership? Parents or "the law"?

BOTH parents.

From all reports I've heard a fairly productive member of society and I heard nothing of her harming her child. We simply don't know what the father is really like, probably a decent person too, but we just don't know for sure.

You're moving on to trial points when all that has been decided is bail issues.

 

[JLM]

Ok, she broke the law, therefore she bears the burden of that.

No doubt but we have to get away from this mentality of throwing every lawbreaker in jail, except for very extreme cases and where the person is a hazard to the safety of society, jail does more harm than good to all concerned. :smile:

It is also important 'what' she told her daughter about her dad through all these years.

I'm sure the daughter asked about her dad, and i'm also sure the mom did not tell the truth.

The daughter now is in a terrible emotional tight rope, as she was probably very happy all these
years, (i'm assuming), but now when she hears what actually happened 18 years ago, she will see her
mom in a different light, and her dad in a new light, this is very sad for her, tears up her life as
it has been, and puts her right in the middle 'emotionally', as I'm sure she loves her mom, and now she
must figure out how to know her dad, and what to feel about her mom, because her mom would have lied to
her about her dad, and that will be very dissapointing to her.

Her mom is the cause of all of this, what goes round comes round, and it is her
turn to feel that misery, as i'm sure the dad suffered over the years wondering
about his daughter.

Yep, all that is very possible unless when she was very small, things happened and she wasn't believed as young kids are sometimes thought to be confused, when in fact this is seldom the case. We simply don't know what kind of person the father is. Maybe now that she is an adult people will listen to her if she in fact has some other side to relate. Regardless of all this and if the mother is guilty I believe some other punishment than jail is in order. That is ALL I'm arguing about. :smile:

 

[Nuggler]

Grant her bail and let her skip. Then don't catch her. Save a bundle of money if that's all we're concerned about. She forfeits the bail and the Crown gets to keep it. Win Win.

Personally, I have Christmas cards to buy today, and toenails to trim (mine) - and about this I really could give a sh it less.

"Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply." .....Of course it is. It's by me ain't it!...................Who TF thought that gem up?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

No doubt but we have to get away from this mentality of throwing every lawbreaker in jail, except for very extreme cases and where the person is a hazard to the safety of society, jail does more harm than good to all concerned. :smile:

Perhaps a sternly worded letter could be sent to their address on file. I am sure that will have the criminals quaking in their boots.

"Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply." .....Of course it is. It's by me ain't it!...................Who TF thought that gem up?

How do the members rate a post as helpful or best? How is that different than the +1/-1 that some people get their nickers in a knot about?

 

[JLM]

Grant her bail and let her skip. Then don't catch her. Save a bundle of money if that's all we're concerned about. She forfeits the bail and the Crown gets to keep it. Win Win.

Personally, I have Christmas cards to buy today, and toenails to trim (mine) - and about this I really could give a sh it less.

"Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply." .....Of course it is. It's by me ain't it!...................Who TF thought that gem up?

As long as it's Christmas cards and not those F*****g holiday cards!

Perhaps a sternly worded letter could be sent to their address on file. I am sure that will have the criminals quaking in their boots.

Wouldn't it be jumping to conclusions that we are in fact dealing with a "criminal" here? I wonder how long her record is.