@Suseonline "... the father asking for full custody or he would ensure their mother was jailed, is despicable." Yes maybe it has a touch of duress about it, but it is no more despicable than a mother lying or grossly exaggerating in her claims for full custody. If mothers were jailed for that (I can't think of a more serious offence) then our prisons would be overflowing with inmates.

Well no Roskop, what I put first and foremost is the kids and it would be foolish to deny basic biology. Those powerful maternal bonds exist for good reasons.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-paternal-instinct-not-as-strong-as-the-maternal-instinct

Fathers certainly matter, but there is a difference between a 2 year old and a 12 year old and toddlers need a mother. Even the Sharia courts of Lebanon agree that a 5 year old girl should still be with her mother!

In this case, we have the 5 year old giving her mother her barbie ring and saying "so you don't forget me". Sounds to me like an abandonment issue could already be happening.

Now like it or not, the maternal investment and maternal bond are hugely powerful and I think that childrens mental health should be considered in all this, not just mothers of fathers rights. Bad mothers do exist, but I think it would need to be shown and proven in each particular case, when it does apply. That is basically the courts see it, as far as I know.

paul walter, "Nine is in deep denial, too ignorant and arrogant to understand what it is they have done wrong"

Yes and the Media Watch reporting was restrained.

Media Watch should also have challenged the extreme feminist political correctness that favours women and 'justifies' such lawlessness. It is somehow OK to subject the children and other parties including the uninvolved public to the dangers inherent to conducting paramilitary operations to kidnap (and especially on foreign soil).

It is an astounding, horrific outcome of the extreme political correctness that is systemic in Australia that the enormity of the crimes deliberately planned and carried out are not recognised or even comprehended by the feckless media and by some posters here.

Had the roles been reversed and had the attack been carried out in Australia it is quite possible that a firefight with intervening police would have resulted. Those who support these criminal acts would now be baying for life sentences for kidnapping and for immediate deportation. They wouldn't know which to put first.

It is interesting that the media are staying away from examining the claim by the CEO that he was kept in the dark, to find out later along with the public. Were the CFO/Operations Executive and significant others also kept in the dark, Mr CEO? What about members of the Board?

Media Watch is right to say that the internal review decided by the CEO will lack credibility with the public (AND shareholders). Media Watch should have gone further to explain why, through detailing the roles and responsibilities of the CEO and others. Some discussion of recent changes in executive management, examples being the CEO and CFO/Operations Executive would also have been useful.

The control environment flows down from the top. It is deeply flawed.

To be blunt, shareholders and the public need to be assured that this horrendous incident and offences that could easily have resulted in serious diplomatic flow-ons (and may still do!) was an aberration in decisionmaking at the highest levels and is not representative of a cowboy outfit of an executive and Board.

@Yabby, the STUDENT, who's hypothesis you referred me to, I would give a big FAIL. Just because mothers are more likely to wear their hearts on their sleeves as we saw in spades on the last episode of 60 Minges, does not diminish the bond that exists between a father and his children.

You say "Bad mothers do exist, but I think it would need to be shown and proven in each particular case, when it does apply." I think that should read "Bad dads do exist but ...it would need to be proven in each particular case to the extent that the father has committed an offence." We don't need laws that rely on subjective judgement...that is not justice.

For those who missed the Media Watch episode that Onthebeach talks about, here is the link:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4449933.htm

Fair enough Roskop, endocrinology is clearly not your strong point, so perhaps this article, written for mothers to understand, may help you.

http://babyreference.com/bonding-matters-the-chemistry-of-attachment/

That article is referenced, so you can read up the scientific papers involved if you wish. Now you might just fob all this off, but society does not, because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Now like it or not, the maternal investment in a baby is far larger than the paternal investment, for good evolutionary reasons. The bond thus created is extremely important to a toddler, less important to older children, which was my point. Issues like separation anxiety disorder can arise, when it is broken. Fobbing it off shows your lack of empathy and lack of understanding of the science.

Unconditional motherly love is well known. With males it is less common, as we know. Some males are simply not interested in their offspring, deny paternity and run a mile when asked to assist in providing for their offspring. Now I am a male, but I am not so foolish as to deny the reality