Seening the spin again..Uh Uh Uh.Think about this $100 million in sales. Any business minds here.What is the net profit or margin in that industry in todays economic times? I said before Heiress was a misused spin just like unlimited funds. When you see the Libretts are they up there with the Gates,Trumps or Segram's,Bloomburgs or the like. Nah. I love how people count other peoples pocket's. I think we are on to round two for better or worse depending of the side you choose. I think we will see a change of venue and I predict this ain't over. I do want to say that 3 weeks after 3 and 1/2 years is not much time to adjust as far as re-uniting the child. Any experts, I mean real experts in the field have an opinion. If the DA charges the mother everything comes out again in PA and if he doesn't he closes the case. He is dammed if does and dammed if he doesn't. What's a DA to do I wonder. Don't you just love the double edge sword of justice? I wonder how many people would love to be on that jury? Chapter 2 beginning shortly IMHO.

Neverearly,

I was just pointing out that both parties had a capable defence, contrary to an earlier opinion. If you're a member of a private company that brings in $100 million / dollars of revenue and it's been around since 1953, money will not be a factor in your life. When you mount four appeals and manage to live without working for 3+ years, money is not a factor. Both sides had enough money to mount a defence.

The DA's going to prosecute. I think that the dad knows what to expect. Everything will be re-examined and he will be exonerated, again. The dad's got excellent reunification experts from the Rachel Foundation to help him. He allowed the child to go into foster care in Montgomery County, and altered the custody order, knowing that he would have to go before the courts to apply for custody again, knowing that the presiding judge would reexamine the facts. He wants the mother to continue to have involvement in the child's life. The abuse was examined, ad nauseum. What more do you expect? What more do you want the father to go through?

Well no dis-respect Mr_canuck. I think the spin on the mothers funds on the posts,blogs and in the media was a bit un-fair and one sided. I did take the time to define main line money which no one disagreed on in the past. No where except now did anyone talk about the fathers money. As far as I know it is not illegal to have money in the US yet. Did his money equal her's who really know but you and I both know it costs a bundle to have kept this thing alive. I think we can both agree it is not about money rather what steps parents will do in the name of love for a child (right or wrong). We both have our opinions of what we believe is the right way to show love and the wrong way to show love is.
As far the DA is concerned he may win the battle and lose the war. IMHO no jury is going to convict a mother of what she percieved as a threat to her child. The JURY will be half men and half women I think.The proof to me is my random sampling of women when asked the same question including my wife of 28 years and my daughter.They all said they would RUN. So again I ask why like a broken record? I urge you to do a random sample because I would be interested in the results up there. If he does get a conviction recent cases have shown very litttle jail time for the crime (Hawaii 1800 day abduction got 44 days) and we both know that keeping a mother in jail is NOT in the best interest of the child. Another case is going surface very soon in the media and law journals and the mother got NADA and was aquitted. The laws and guidelines must change to adapt to the changing views and roles society play in these cases if we are ever going to decrease abductions for the sake of the children in (I hope) in our future. Your view is always welcomed sir.

I think we can be confident that both parties had enough money to fight the original custody battle. But the fact that the mother was able to live in Canada for 3 1/2 years and not work and put her child through private school indicates some degree of wealth.

The DA has to prosecute. I suppose the mother's defence will be the well-being of the child. Whether the jury buys this or not is up to the jury and the evidence (none of which we have privy of). What we do know is that the mother, from all accounts, seemed to raise the kid well while in Niagara. We also know there is a plethora of allegations that the mother made against the father, all of which were unproven (whether the judge rejected them improperly is really unknown).

No matter what happens, the mother will likely receive a very light sentence as that is the way that abduction cases go. You say that keeping the mother in jail is not in the best interests of the child. Why? Why does a society ignore emotional abuse?

You asked people what would you do, but you made the assumption that the allegations were true and that a gross injustice was done. Ask two other questions: What would you do if you thought they were true but had no proof? What would you do if you really hated your partner and wanted to have custody of your child because you really believed you were the better parent and never wanted to deal with your ex-partner again?

I don't remember me stating anywhere I believed anyone. I might be wrong but please show me the quote. I simply ask women IF they believed that thier child was in this type of danger and they felt exhausted in the system what would they do. The only unfair thing I didn't do was ask men if they were accused what they would do and how far they would go. It is not a mystery to me that all the women I spoke to said the same thing. Did you ask women yet and if not why not? What are you waiting for?

Do I really have to answer your question on jail time? Best interest of child is to have both parents at all times except for extrordinary cases.The courts and social services did not believe this case qualified. Ce la Vie.
I beleive this mother is spending time now in maxium security up in Canada. Does abduction in Canada warrent maxium security? I also wonder if this time in jail will count towards her sentence down here if convicted.

An importent point in your rebuttle regarding "You asked people what would you do, but you made the assumption that the allegations were true and that a gross injustice was done". I didn't ask PEOPLE. I ASKED WOMEN. Since this is a gender issue I went to the major gender source in these cases. I think that makes sense to do this (in my world). Where did I say or imply "a gross injustice was done" in my last statement? Honestly I don't know what I would have down. Men and Women do extreme things in life and I know it is hard to walk in someone else's shoes so I try not to do that either.

No offence, neverearly. But when you ask the question to women: "assuming that you knew your child was in danger and you had exhausted all court options, what would you do?" is assuming that is what is going on here. My personal answer is that I would be an idiot not to run. Protect my kids, prove it in court, and spend a minimal amount of time in jail? Sure! You always can put your wanted poster as part of your treasured memories. "Hey, kids, remember when I took you away from mom for a while. Here's the poster! Wasn't that fun? Remember staying in that foster home? Remember when you visited me in jail? What do you mean that was stressful?"

I'm questioning the question itself. Clearly, the DA believes that the allegations were used to gain an upper hand in the custody debate, and in fact, in bitter custody disputes, this happens frequently, to some degree of success. Maybe the question should be, "if you really wanted custody of your children, would you make up allegations, then take off with your children if you didn't succeed?" How many of those people you asked would say YES?

I've tried to take a moderate view here, and from everything I know about this case, I personality hope that the truth is somewhere between the extreme, and I am giving the mother the benefit of the doubt, only because the kid turned out to be very well taken care of, and I believe in forgiveness.

Hi Mr_Canuck,

After spending some time pondering your question of "Why does a society ignore emotional abuse? " I have come to the opinion that emotional abuse is a very complex issue. Emotional abuse comes in so many ways and shapes and forms that there is just no one clear cut answer. I am going to assume that you are married or at least in a relationship like myself. How many times in our relationship have we played mind games with our lifemates in the hope of gaining an upper hand in conflicts we have encountered? Most people are either type A or B personalitiy and depending which one you are leads us to the game that will be played. Lucky couples can work through it while unlucky relationships see the end game come to ugly conclusions. Here in the US (don't quote me) I think that around 55% of all new marriages will end up in divorce with'in
3 years (what does that say about our society). The courts hate it and laywers love it(money,money,money) which is also part of the problem.
Regards

We've all played games with our significant others to get our way. In all relationships, there are rules and dynamics that are created. Some can be construed as emotionally abusive. Some are appropriate. Some are borderline.

Marriage statistics are much better than you think, but still dismal. The following results are for 2002.

• Median duration of first marriage that ends in divorce: 7.8 years for men, 7.9 years for women.
• Percentage of married people who reach anniversary milestones:
  • 5 years - 82%
  • 10 years - 65%
  • 15 years - 52%
• Percentages of first marriages that end in divorce as of 1997: 50%.

Hi All,

I heard on the radio that the Claudia Librett sentencing hearing is taking place today, Sept. 21, 2007. Does anyone have an update?

Brian
Blog: http://underwatch.blogspot.com/