And they still defend the abductor
The amount of times I have now read a comment on the news stories devoted to the recovery of Richard Chekevdia that says “she must have had a very good reason” baffles me. She kept her child inside for two years. In a tiny room. No one would be defending a male abductor. Is it really so ingrained in people that mothers always do best for their children that they will excuse anything they do? And are there more than a handful of kidnapping cases where mom doesn’t say she did it to protect her kid from their evil abusive father?
I suspect the answer is “no.”
Celeste said,
September 12, 2009 @ 12:46 am
Richard Chekevdia’s grandmother is defending what her daughter did saying that she “had no choice but to hide Richard from his father.”
I think that there’s walways a better “choice” than to isolate your child from their parent. Richard is one of the lucky ones who was found after being away from his father for 2 years. Most underground mothers who hide their children are never found until they’re older and they realize that they’re missing and the mother hid them out of spite.
Carlos said,
September 14, 2009 @ 12:21 am
The deference towards mothers in questions of child rearing enjoys a long history and broad based acceptance. Sadly, father’s of abducted children must always pass through this fire. Our intentions and character must first be demonstrated before anyone will help us and even then the “help” we get is often little more than sympathy because, although we are good fathers that love our children, it is still believed that the children are better off with their mother. As the father of a missing child it is something I have grown accustomed to. It is not the questioning of my character or my intentions that bothers me. I’m actually ok with that, though I think the characters of mothers in the same situation should also be questioned. Once a child abduction has occurred the motivations and characters of all key players in it should be suspect. In fact, even I initially question the character and motivations of the father’s of missing children more than I question those of the mother’s of missing children, though I do so knowing that a father that does not love their children does not fight for them. Such fathers are grateful that they don’t have to pay child support and only make a token effort to appease their family and friends and show that they tried before moving on with their lives. Real parents never give up on their children. A mother or father that has their children stolen has no life to go back to without their children. Unlike parents who, tragically, have to bury their children we have no closure. Every day we live is a day where we wonder what our children are doing. Are they safe, are they hungry, are they talking, walking or laughing, are we doing everything we can to find them and bring them home? We know no peace. What bothers me is that even when we have shown that we love our children there are those who would say that, in the best interest of the child, the child should stay with the mother that has so selfishly denied their own child the love of their father and very little time is spent thinking about the father whose life has been destroyed. By virtue of our deference to the child rearing rights of women we are guaranteeing that women will continue to use their children as weapons against their fathers and are, implicitly, encouraging women to abduct their children any time their sovereignty to make all child rearing decisions is infringed upon.