On Aug 28, 6:56*am, "PeterL." >
wrote:

>
> > But most "kidnappings" are done by a parent. *They didn't get what they
> > wanted in court, so they take their own kid(s) without the permission of
> > the custodial parent. *That's what happened here. *It's the kid's own
> > mother. *
>
> She got an adverse psych report (from a completely independant psych, who
> was appointed by the Family Court of Australia), and unfortunately, she
> got to see the report before the next court appearance came up. She knew
> she was going to lose, so she abducted her son.

What was the mother's diagnosis? If she were incompetent to handle her
own affairs, why did the court not appoint a guardian to represent her
interests? If she were a danger to herself or others, why was she not
picked up right away, before she got to see a copy of the report?

By the way, what did the court-ordered psychologist say about Ken
Thompson's sanity? Surely Thompson's cycling quest makes him seem a
bit quixotic. And who waits till they're 60 years old to start a
family? I wouldn't have given him custody of a toddler -- someone
unable to tell a third party that, for example, daddy is practicing
"bad touch" -- without a thorough examination. Perhaps the child would
be better off in foster care, or in the care of another family member.

Further, Thompson's a lot more likely to die in the next ten years
than a woman in her 40s. Is it better to be an orphan than to be in
the care of a slightly cracked mother?


> There's a court order/custody order in place, and until the 'aggrieved'
> parent does something about it to get it changed, it's a binding
> 'agreement'.
>

You can't expect a crazy person to understand about binding
agreements. Curious though, that a businesswoman and nurse would
suddenly crack up like that.