Peering through the madness

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 the Australian 60 minutes program examined the case of the Italian family that has been in the news in Australia for more than a year. Amazingly, the reporter Tara Brown did not jump on the present media bandwagon of regurgitating the mother’s claims of abuse while ignoring her shenanigans in and out of court (60 Minutes, 2012).

For the first time ever a major news team actually spent more than five minutes looking for the story instead of sycophantically following the feminist agenda. What they showed was not so much that the father should be believed, but more that the mother and the other members of her family definitely should not.

The real difficulty of this story is that there is so much madness in it that you sound mad yourself. Those who have had a psychopath in their life will understand. My ex was one such nutbag.

Let me explain. Before the program went to air, the mother’s mother took Channel Nine to court to stop the broadcast (Deery, 2012).  She claims that she was harassed into the interview. The quote that got my attention was this:

She [the grandmother] said after originally declining to take part in the segment the director had demanded a medical certificate from her doctor.

Now, for those of you who have not had a nutter in your life, your brain will do the same thing is does with optical illusions. It will read that sentence and try to somehow bend and twist it into the real world.

With the nutter in my life, this type of nonsensical statement was common. There was no truth in them. No such conversation actually took place. These were spur-of-the-moment digressions with two ulterior motives.

The first is camouflage. The answer to a simple question like, “Did you consent to the interview?” becomes a series of questions about medical doctors, certification, the legal powers of TV directors, and that’s only the beginning. Try to follow any one of those threads and soon you’ll be thrashing out what kind of medical conditions could actually prevent an otherwise willing adult from participating in a interview. And if that’s not working for her she’ll suddenly switch to Aunt Myrtle’s dispute with the telephone company or some unrelated event in 1990.

Rational dialogue becomes impossible, and the truth shrivels and dies in a miasma of lies and illogical conclusions.

The second is that the conversation becomes so absurd that you’ll stop asking questions. At that point you’ve just accepted that she was coerced into the interview.

Even if you shoot the logic down in a master display of perseverance, logic and memory there will always be others who lose track. At some point, usually much later and in response to the next set of camouflage, they’ll pipe up, “But wasn’t she forced to do the interview?” And around you go again.

The whole story is peppered with this madness. Consider this summary:

The mother, who could tell the Australian embassy of abuse, did not mention it in the Italian Family Courts. Instead she consented to shared custody.

But practically straight away she, and her mother in Australia, started telling the Australian Office of Foreign Affairs and the Australian embassy in Italy that the father was abusive and they had to get her out of Italy. This went on for three years.

For three years. No deaths, no hospitals, no doctors, no arrests, no charges, no witnesses. Nothing.

She claimed she went to the Italian police about the father. The Italian police say they have no record of any such complaints. The doctor, whom the mother claimed could testify that she had been abused, denied that she had any such information. The man whom she befriended, met in secret, kissed, but did not have an affair with, didn’t come forward with any information.

And, of course, if you’re not going to swallow any of that, she claims the father had known all along that they were going to live in Australia. He actually consented and then changed his mind.

It’s not limited to the mother and grandmother either. Consider this summary of the Australian embassy staff’s actions in Italy.

For three years, while this alleged abuse was continuing, the embassy staff saw no reason to involve the Italian authorities. They went twice to her home in Italy to check out her claims of poverty. Both times they found her claims to be false. Yet apparently that was no reason to doubt the claims of abuse.

They knew that she had duped the husband into signing for the children’s passports, but still accepted the application. They never warned her of the ramifications of the Hague Convention. They also never warned him, even though they understood the criminality of the act.

The mother might have been surprised by the two year ordeal of courts and the children being forced to return to Italy, but the embassy staff would have known better.

It seems that they were relying on the ruse that, if he was dumb enough to sign the papers, then it’s not the embassy’s fault that they assisted in what turned out to be a crime.

If they believed her, how could the embassy think that leaving the children with the abuser for three years, having them go through an ordeal in a foreign country’s courts, and then be dragged back to live with the abuser, was much better than reporting the matter to the Italian police.

If they didn’t believe her, why didn’t they report it to the police?

And if only the madness would stop there. As previously reported on AVfM, the reason for the nationwide hunt in Australia for the children was because the children’s grandmother had threatened to murder them (Blueface, Grandma threatens to murder children, 2012). Yes, the nice lady on the couch who kept interrupting but didn’t want to participate in the interview. Yes, she who was forced to participate because she lacked the necessary medical certificates.

Despite this being the most sensational part of the story, not one word of this threat was publicised in the Australian media.

Consider, also, the Family Court sending a clear message to Australian mothers for many years that this type of behaviour will get results. Two recent examples of this are Summerby & Cadogen (Family Court of Australia, 2011) and Gaylard & Cain (Family Court of Australia, 2012).

In both cases it was crystal clear that no abuse took place; the courts issued orders that the children should see their father; and the mothers unreasonably refused to comply with these orders.

In both cases the courts subsequently made the mother’s illegal behaviour legal by banning the father from their children’s lives.

In Summerby & Cadogen the magistrate offers this non-explanation:

It may be thought that the result arrived at demonstrates either an acceptance of the mother’s position, or a surrender to her unreasonable refusal to permit a relationship between the child and her father. Neither of those conclusions is correct.

He goes on to say:

The orders [which stopped the father from seeing his daughter] should not be seen as any vindication of the mother’s actions.

It’s a bit like listening to a more sophisticated version of the grandmother, isn’t it?

In his world, it is purely coincidental that mother’s plans to punish the father are completed by the court’s decision. In his world, the mother who lied about the abuse won’t see an un-vindicated verdict as a victory. In his world, the mother won’t teach the child to hate the father because of this lack of vindication.

And in his world the next crazy won’t use the same tactic because, although the father was punished, it lacked vindication.

How much this type of verdict influences the next crazy can be seen in Gaylard & Cain. The mother was warned by a psychic (and no, I did not misspell psychologist) that the father would abuse his daughter. With this logic she simply refused to let the father see his children, defying court orders time and time again. She got her way in the end.

In June this year I gave seven reasons why this case showed the Family Court is corrupt (Blueface, Altobelli’s Dilemma: The Failure of Australian Family Law, 2012).

Yes, this was the case where the psychiatrist reckoned that the mother had a special distorted lens. This lens was only distorted when she looked at the father. In all other aspects her lens worked just fine. He reckoned that somehow this lens would repair all by itself if the court gave her the children and backed off.

And of course getting your own way to repair your distorted lenses is not the same as a surrender to your unreasonable position.

In this Italian case, the Australian courts hands were tied by the Hague Convention. Unless there was clear evidence of abuse the children had to go back. Nonetheless, they insisted that the father gave an undertaking that he would not pursue charges back in Italy before allowing the children to return.

That’s right! The court that decided she behaved illegally didn’t want the matter to go to court in Italy just in case they thought she behaved illegally. Because that, obviously, would be wrong.

In most cases like these the fathers back off. Sometimes it’s the emotional pressure put on the kids. Sometimes it’s the emotional pressure put on themselves. Sometimes it’s the crippling legal costs. Mostly it’s some combination of these. They then do the “noble” thing and walk away, knowing that their ex will use this as evidence to the children that he never really loved them.

The Australian media  hoped this was the case when the Italian man returned to Italy in August this year before the final hearing.

The Italian father embroiled in an international custody battle has left Australia after giving up hope he will win his legal fight to get his daughters back to Italy. 

crowed the Sydney Morning Herald (Marriner, 2012). The report explains that the father faced, at that time, yet another hearing and yet another expert to examine the children. According to the paper:

It is understood that the father has spent €120,000 ($142,000) on the custody fight and has been on unpaid leave from his job for months.

Given that the father now has his children the obvious conclusion is that the Sydney Morning Herald was at least buying if not peddling this dishonesty.

There can be little doubt that had this case been played out in Australia without the international dimension, the man would banned from seeing his children. For example, if she moved them from Melbourne to Brisbane, and played the exact same games she would have won, albeit un-vindicated.

The same father who now has his children at his home in Italy would be sitting on the court steps with his head in his hands wondering how this could have happened to him. Meanwhile, his children would be taught to hate him even more.

And that is exactly how this mother, her family, the Australian embassy, the Australian courts and the Australia media wanted it to end.




60 Minutes. (2012, November   25). 60 Minutes interview: Australian government helps in abduction of   children from their father. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from You Tube:

Blueface. (2012, June 24). Altobelli’s Dilemma: The   Failure of Australian Family Law. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from A   Voice for Men:

Blueface. (2012, August 21). Grandma threatens to murder   children. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from A Voice for Men:

Deery, S. (2012, November 23). Custody girls’   grandmother tries to stop 60 Minutes interview going to air. Retrieved   November 30, 2012, from The Australian:

Family Court of Australia. (2012, May 30). Gaylard &   Cain. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from Australian Legal Information   Institute:

Family Court of Australia. (2011, October 25). Summerby   & Cadogen. Retrieved December 1, 2012, from Australian Legal Information   Institute:

Marriner, C. (2012, August 19). Father gives up custody   battle. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from The Sydney Morning Herald.



About Jim Muldoon

Jim Muldoon is an Australian men's human rights activist and Australian Editor for AVfM. He is an advocate for the equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Tawil

    Great overview Blueface, and thanks for keeping this story fresh in our minds. We have not seen the last of this psychopath, with the mother currently receiving huge donations from a misandric Australian public to not only fund her flight to Italy to see her kids, but to fund her challenge of the ruling in Italian courts. Sickening!

  • JJ

    The more intimate I become with the machinations of governments and their rapacious tax codes around the world; the more I see the destruction of children in their wake.

    I hate them all the more; and the duplicitous women in their hypergamy and greed who defend, vote for, and abuse the system just so they can buy useless shit.

    Beyond words.

  • harrywoodape

    Your story is my story and the story of countless fathers and children all over the world.
    In my book, the family courts around the world have completely lost legitimacy because of their biased agenda that hurts the children despite the equality and fairness that they claim.
    Each father should realize this system and rail against it at the highest level and often for it is clearly corrupt and is backed by government and your media.
    The lies and hiding if reality are apparent in how media report incidents where mothers abuse or kill children versus the anger and contempt for men as a whole.
    Do we need anymore evidence?

    • Mr. J

      “family court” is an oxymoron and cannot exist in logic.

      An oxymoron, by definition, cannot have legitimacy at any time.

  • Shrek6

    Thanks Blueface. Great article.

    I saw the show and although sickened by the audacity of the 3 criminal women in this case, I was actually taken by surprise at Tara Brown’s objectivity. Normally here in Aus, you don’t find any female journalists who will behave in a humane manner in cases such as these. They are pretty much all screaming harridans, just like our politicians.

    If this criminal mother gets back to Italy, a part of me would like to see her locked up for at least 5 years in prison. But then the children will not have their mother.
    She must be punished in some manner, because she is indeed a criminal.

    When she gets there, she will start up family court proceedings against the father and there is a likelihood that the father may be sent back to ‘good time daddy’ status with the mother receiving more time in a shared care arrangement. Hopefully this won’t happen in light of her recent behaviour.

    Either way, I would like to see the passports of the girls seized by authorities and an airport and border watch put on the mother and the girls, until the youngest girl is of age.

    Notice how there is no move toward an investigation of Aus embassy staff who played an active role in breaking international law!

  • AntZ

    I watched the full documentary last night. Very eye opening.

  • rper1959

    Thanks Blueface , I watched the interview on youtube, was also impressed that 60min’s did in some small way call into question the mother, her family and the embassy staff’s actions and motives. This is a case that really should be the subject of a thorough review, especially as Australia now sees itself as having a serious standing in international relations ( despite breeching UN conventions on refugees, and abstaining from the vote on Palestine’s observer status at the UN!) One might expect our government to enforce international treaties to which it is a signatory and punish citizen’s and public servants who openly contravene such treaties. But like other endemic corruption in this country it seems to be supported rather then questioned by those in power.

  • Codebuster

    I too was surprised and impressed with the balanced reporting on the part of 60 minutes on this story.

    FYI, I phoned them to obtain access to the transcript, promised on the original webpage, because it was not available online when I looked on the following monday. The answer I got was that they were blocked from providing the transcript “for legal reasons.”

  • gwallan

    “Mothers don’t lie about abuse in the Family Court”
    – Senator Kate Ellis in Parliamentary Committee early last year.

    I heard this first from the CEO of a rape crisis service. She raised it in a meeting not because it was relevant to that meeting but for the purpose of a little celebration. All members apart from myself duly clapped.

    The senator is clearly another of those psychics. In her hands no court hearings would actually be needed. I wonder if she would say the same thing about whites or Christians?

    Those things really only occurred to me later. I’m on these boards as a representative for victims and the “community”. At the time I sat there wondering how to explain the sentiment to all the victims of child abuse who are/were abused by their mothers. I actually left the meeting a little frightened.

    • gwallan

      I forgot to add. Senator Ellis gave about two thirds of a mil to the promotion of infant circumcision about four years ago.

  • Kimski

    “Mothers don’t lie about abuse in the Family Court”
    – Senator Kate Ellis in Parliamentary Committee early last year.”

    Yeah, right! And they also don’t lie about rape, despite the fact that both preposterous claims are consistently disproven in newspaper headlines all over the world, on an daily basis.

    A fact which women then disregards with statements like, ‘he must have done something..etc.etc.’, ’cause heaven forbid you actually took some responsibility for your own faulty perceptions of the world.

    And, hey, we all know that men are to blame for EVERYTHING, anyway..

    Must be really really nice to be able to place the responsibility for each and every wrong in the world on the actions of others, when you’re sitting on your fat ass yourself, sipping café latte, and mostly doing nothing but bitch about things.

  • RM1970

    “mothers don’t lie about abuse in the family court”
    No, never, sometimes they cook the son in the microwave oven, like Martin Van Creveld wrote about it in the book “The privileged sex” page 271, brazilian edition. We have to trust all the women all the time. You know what really appalled me, the mother in that case get five years in jail sentence, isn’t great, this world is so patriarchal.

  • napocapo69

    Thanks for the article.
    What is really stunning is the lack of coverage by Italian media, after all it was the “perfect plot” of a victim who has been deprived of children, a great story for gathering audience and readers…a news you cannot miss .. unfortunately the victim was a father, a man…it does not sell, it is business as usual

    • blueface

      Thanks for that. A very interesting footnote to the story.

      Why am I not surprised?

  • Booyah

    Every time my daughter asks to come home and I am powerless it breaks my heart. Great article blueface. I wish she could read and understand it.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Yo do not appeal to a tryrant to reform his tyranny. The Magna Carta was not the product of a NGO-run brainstorming “suggestions” session. Those of us who are not yet slaves may not care, but their sons will indeed grow up in bondage, with every penny of their earnings already on the rapacious gov’t/central bank balance sheets as DEBT. That is the real purpose being family court terrorism. Funny it is that so many men die overseas fighting “enemies” that are not their enemies and never figure out the identity of their real enemies: the vile enemies of freedom and honor.

  • Mr. J

    The phrase “family court” makes exactly as much sense as saying “the private public”………….Of course a “family court” will ultimately turn bad becasue the very term is an oxymoron.

    Just a thought……………….