We have facial recognition technology and thermal imaging cameras, which used in tandem; but, in a completely non invasive way, can positively confirm and validate truthful testimony!
So, it's not just courts that are out of step, but so called experts, used to pour derision on, or challenge this or that evidence.
In the barely veiled referred to case, the wishes of the children were routinely ignored?
Why?
Because we have an international agreement/covenant, that prevents one parent from kidnapping their own children!
I can't understand why the Mother did not pursue the matter through the Italian courts?
Where she and her girls may well have received a fairer more compassionate hearing, and full unchallengeable legal custody.
Reportedly, given she seems not to have chosen this option, her decision seems to have weighed very heavily against her in our court system, where the actual facts/truth; seemingly, became a secondary issue?
At the end of the day, true justice is only ever served by the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than clever lawyers and or evasive witnesses, who seem to go out of their way to subvert it.
We have space age lie detection, that not even polished psychotic compulsive liars can deceive!
Therefore, it strikes me as passing strange, that in 21st century, we don't use it to find and punish deliberate and knowing perjury or intended/attempted perversion of justice!
If only patently egoistic experts weren't so sure, that they can tell when a person is being untruthful, we would not have incarcerated Lyndy Chambalin or Dr Haneef, and indeed, many others.
Nor would there be as many guilty individuals be walking our streets! Particularly those guilty of the most heinous; or, multi-million dollar, white collar crimes?
Rhrosty.

"Unforgettably shameful scenes..." Yes, very much so on the part of the mother who created those scenes.

The court was satisfied that the mother had abducted the children from their home in Italy by not returning them to there, was it not?

Why should the Family Court accommodate so called "expert witnesses" who demonstrably are unable to present a balanced story according to the facts?

...Family Law Courts are an integral part of a “Capitalists dogs breakfast” and forever remain the “Toothless Tiger” by design.

"The judge said the children loved their father and he had not heard evidence to support allegations he was abusive."

Justice Forest noted the mother's public campaign was very disturbing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-04/father-relieved-four-sisters-returning-to-italy/4295398

What academic qualifications does the author possess?

It would be interesting to know for sure if Charles is ChazP, the presentation style matches. For those interested in the background to the reference Anti provided.
"Children and domestic and family violence- Why the proposed changes are urgently necessary.
Almost one in four children in Australia have witnessed violence against their mothers or stepmothers (Crime Research Centre and Donovan Research, 2001, from National Plan Background Paper pg 20). " ChazP http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212254

I then asked in the next post "Just to complete the picture - how many kid's have witnessed violence committed against their father's or stepfathers? How many are in homes where the mother lashes out physically or emotionally at her male partner even with kid's around?"

ChazP follows with "If there are such figures to support what you claim, Robert, then I'm quite sure you will be only too willing to provide them. Unless of course you are willing to pay me a substantial reward for doing your research for you but then, I would not be willing to go on a wild goose chase. It would be rather like searching for squid on Uluhru."

and a couple of posts later "Robert - if you had read and understood my posting you would have seen the highly credible source of the statistics. The reasons it does not include the figures you `suspect' is because they are at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent. You will find consistently that my postings begin with pointing out the harm caused to children who experience domestic violence and the long-lasting effects on those children. It is only when I am attacked as gender-biased by males who speculate and `suspect' the evidence, that I respond in a gender preferential way. It serves the purposes of male contributors to turn this debate into a high-conflict gender issue and to evade the issues regarding children's suffering."

TBC

R0bert