Below is a post that we are re-publishing from the Comments section of our website regarding the Dorothy Lee Barnett / Alexandra Geldenhuys Parental Kidnaping Case. It appears that many in this World are not familiar with this subject matter.
“Vitriol and impotent frustration aside Neha, the family court system bases its decisions on facts, evidence and in the best interests of the children of the marriage. As well, it also measures against a plethora of other criteria, one such criterion being especially in embittered and protracted custody battles: which parent, if awarded custody, would be more willing to share the children from the marriage with the other parent.
Family court judges have difficult decisions to make. Parties in dispute may not always agree with family court decisions, but there is a legal requirement to abide by the court’s decision until it is successfully appealed. Court decisions are legally challenged on a daily basis. When one legal door closes, people look for other legal doors to open, or avenues that eventually lead to those legal doors. Kidnapping and hiding the children of the marriage because one party does not agree with the court’s decisions is a serious criminal offence in most countries around the globe.
The US played an active role in the drafting of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and that legislation translated into US law in 1988. It is a serious criminal offence to internationally parental kidnap children from the US, as it is with all Hague signatory countries.
Entering other countries on false statements and on passports that cannot be evidenced back to a person’s birth name is also a serious criminal offence in, I would say, all countries around the globe.
I would also think that changing the name and citizenship of a minor without the appropriate permission is also a criminal offence.
Gaining citizenship of other another country on false statements isn’t always palatable to that country, or to those whose citizenship applications were denied.
Being able to country hop because of citizenship of another country gained from false statements is a criminal offence, and is unfair to all of those, whose desire it is to live in that country, are rejected for similar offences.
Neha, perhaps you can help me out here. Did this woman receive any money from the Australian Government in the way of family payments, schoolkids bonus, teenage financial support or any other form of child support/child assistance to help this woman raise her children in Australia? I ask, Neha, because it is an offence (even jailable) in Australia to acquire taxpayer-funded assistance falsely.
Would this woman have been granted entry into New Zealand or NZ citizenship, or entry into or permanent residence in Australia, had it be revealed on any piece of paperwork that she and her daughter travelled on false names and false passports, and she was wanted on parental child abduction in another country?
Why should this woman be given any preferential treatment for her choice of not looking for legal pathways to challenge court decisions?”