Posted on 06/08/2010 8:33:24 AM PDT by MissTed
A Southern California mother whose two children were reported missing 15 years ago has tracked them down in Florida using Facebook.
The children's father, Faustino Utrera, took off with them in 1995 when they were ages 2 and 3, said San Bernardino Deputy District Attorney Kurt Rowley. The mother had found her daughter's Facebook profile after searching for her name on the social networking site in March, Rowley said.
An official said Saturday that the now 17-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy have been placed in the custody of the state of Florida.
"You can imagine the feelings she's having, not seeing her children for so many years and knowing they've bonded with another family," Rowley said about the mother. "But at the same time they're almost within her grasp."
The two teenagers are being cared for by a non-relative in Florida with whom the pair have an existing relationship, said Florida Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Elizabeth Arenas, who did not identify the mother.
She referred further questions to the woman's lawyer, who did not return a phone call.
Osceolla County Sheriff's deputies detained Utrera on an arrest warrant last month obtained by San Bernardino County prosecutors who were contacted by the missing children's mother, Rowley told the San Bernardino Sun.
He was charged with kidnapping and violating child custody orders.
Rowley said that when the daughter's profile was found on Facebook, she initially told her mother that she did not want to re-establish their relationship, but the contact helped prosecutors file two felony counts each of kidnapping and child abduction against Utrera.
Rowley said he expected Utrera to fight extradition at a July 17 hearing in Florida.
Decide for yourself (A jury should have to). Kidnap: (tr) to carry off and hold (a person), usually for ransom
All of your reasoning and arguments are so much BS.
Long before gay people wanted to marry, straights were resisting marriage by just living together.
If anybody has demeaned marriage it's the heteros who didn't want the committment of a relationship but have kids outside of marriage. Those who marry get divorced at the drop of a hat with little regard to how their children are affected.
This is the fourth wedding for Rush! Luckily, there haven't been children.
Society is a mess...but it can't all be blamed on gay people!
I doubt that whoever sang at Rush's wedding will affect society one way or another...much less make it worse!
You’ve never hear the phrase “Step mother”?
________________________________________________
the term “stepmother” was not used....
“According to the Facebook conversations, they regarded another woman as their MOTHER,”
if the children had known that the stranger was NOT their real mother, ...
the Facebook would have said “called” or pretened” or accepted”
However “considered” means they “believed” or thought” or “were convinced” or “even “deceived” into thinking she was their own real mother...
after all the children were only 2 and 3 when their father stol,e them awayu from their real mother...
If their real mother was considered unfir by the courts the local law enforcement would not have cooperated with her to get them back to HER but would have just worked independently and arrested him and would not have included her...
As it is she is gouing to get her children back...
If the daughter at age 17 had not wanted to communicate with her real mother she would not have answered Mom in the first place...
However an on going conversation was started and photos were exchanged...
I think it was the “dad” who found out about the Facebook exchange, and fearing that he would be exposed and caught and jailed he cut off the connection...
However Mom had already contacted the local law enforcement..
Good for Mom...
Good for the children...
Dad will go to jail where he belongs...
Mom and children are out of the prison they have been in for the past 15 years...
The children have been lied to for 15 years by “dad”
That does not say much about his honesty level...
“Have you not noticed...
Long before gay people wanted to marry, straights were resisting marriage by just living together.”
I have noticed. In fact, it’s only going to get worse. I know of a man and woman (horrible people both, I only know them through someone else fortunately), who were married until recently and were going through the divorce process. During that time, the woman threatened the man by saying if she didn’t get sole custody, she’d accuse hiim of child abuse. He countered that if she tried, they’d have a drug test court ordered.
In my opinion the children were in a lose-lose situation (The man had previously served several years for nearly killing someone, and unsuprisingly, still was as violent as ever, just hadn’t been arrested again). The problem is, that unless he had been able to counter with a drug test, that woman would have gotten the children, and they would have been raised in a horrible, dangerous home (I’ll add she used cocaine).
It should not be such an easy or convenient for a woman to make up a story, and get shildren, anymor ethan one hundred years ago, a man being able to chase another woman, and take the children, leaving the woman homeless. The pendulum keeps swinging and will swing farther and farther. The government is not on a “side.” And the founder of these wicked traditions, Satan himself, takes no prisoners. He will oppress men and women alike.
People have got to stop this nonsense. Because our divorce rate is higher than ever, and people are waiting to be older and older. This is what the left, and Satan (the leftist of all) want.
Actually, thet’s five purposes, the way you have annunciated them.
I”m sure her ex filled their heads with all sorts of stories about her that she will have to over come to reaquaint therself with her children. Very sad situation she has to deal with but very happy she fianlly found them.
See post #22. I only stated 4, “Correction” is a conjunction, I was correcting my previous post. :)
Ah. I would have expected to see a colon separating it from the comma-separated list then.
BTW - I disagree with your viewpoint that it is in the best interest of the child to disallow the mother to reinsert herself in their lives. She was torn out of their lives illegally. Your solution means that the justice system needs to support that illegal act, on the basis that a child who was deprived of knowledge of her mother doesn’t know her mother.
Ah, finally, a civil discourse! Hooray.
I can concede that if the only option(s) available to the court are jail-time (and fees, but we’ll set this part aside for now), then you make an excellent point that the court would have to condone an illegal act in order to not send the father to jail and thereby, in effect, punish the children.
However, take under consideration. There are a number of classifications of crime. Crimes against nature, against humanity, and so forth. Consequently, (and I am VERY pro-judicial reform), I would challenge that 1) This article is so vague that no one can draw ANY type of the conclusions people are trying to about what was or was not said to the children, or what circumstances under which custody was ultimately awarded, and 2) What the man did (That we KNOW of, qualifier) was not a crime against the children, but against the Court. “Kidnapping” in this case, is only defined by the court taking away the man’s legal right to rear his children, and violating a court order is just the redundancy that prosecutors have built into the system to try people for multiple crimes for one incident.
Despite whatever wicked or horrible things people fanatasize that may have gone on, we only know that this man took his own children and raised them, and probably did not paint their mother in a good light (”said bad things about her”). If the shoe was on the other foot, and this was a man awarded custody, and NO other information was available, people would be clamoring about how the mother had a good reaosn to take her children, but should have gone about it the other way. Not to mention, the fact that it comes from AP—and subsequent lack of journalism, on virtually any other topic, would be questioned more harshly.
This is a simple, and highly demonstrated principle of persuasion that is seen in social psychology. If you give very few facts in a story, people will fill in motives, personality traits, and characters, based on NOTHING. And this is what is going on here. Maybe I’m guilty too (but only inasmuch as was—hypothetically—incorrectly reported), but the liars on this thread continue to put words in my mouth, because of a continued fundamental attribution error on all accounts.
“taken from you like the mother did”
...Or father would have. Now stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the Father should be let off the hook. I’ve said that about 5 times so far. Ignorant people keep repeating it because they want to keep snuggling with their biased opinions.
Here Here!
Switch the sexes and you’d never hear ‘womb donor’.
Absolutely not, and that’s the problem. It’s a tactic being used against us, and while Freepers are astute enough to go after overt political motives, they often miss out on the more subtle gnder, age and class warfares, being thrust upon us in media, legislation, and popular culture. (For example, try to name some smart dads/husbands on any recent sitcom, there may be a few, but I know of none, and they are certainly in the minority).
Thanks for the post.
You mistook my argument somewhat. My point is that these children had their mother ripped away from them - to their own detriment and to hers, according to the court judgment 15 years ago and according to scientific evidence provided she was not abusive - in an illegal act. You have posited that she should not be allowed custody because the daughter doesn’t wish it.
The crime against the mother and the children was severing their relationship involuntarily. This is NOT just a “crime against the court”.
I did not speak to punishment.
:)
Glad they were found
If we were talking about 5 and six year olds, I would be pressed to agree. But when we’re talking about teenagers within months of being (the boy about 2 years) full blown adults, I say that, given a different set of circumstances, the input of the children should be solely basis for decision on custody.
However, we no longer have that luxury of going back in time. And we don’t know what either father or mother was like. At one point in time, not long ago, women were virtually the sole recipients of custody, regardless of character.
In other words - the father won.
We disagree (and I am unlikely to change my opinion).
“In other words - the father won.”
I hope it doesn’t boil down to that, I know in the end it doesn’t. But as far as whatever else goes, we can agree to disagree. I just hope that somehow the children will get their justice in the end. And man can’t give that out, and certainly not at this point. Take care.
“Sperm donor’s don’t take care of their children.”
.
He didn’t ‘take care’ of his children, he destroyed their minds, and used them to avoid paying child support.
Sperm donor applies.
We picked up a load of foggy thinkers in ‘08.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.