Family Court fights back over bias claims

To activists and supporters of children's rights,

What an amazing admission! ... in a Family Court's Christmas PR initiative. ...that the FC doesn't know how many parents is has excluded from children's lives!. That they will now respond by looking into what they have been doing for the last 31 years! Just when excluded parents from all over the world are enduing heightened grief for their children.

The fact that chistmass is so important to Children and family causes us all to focus on the horror foistered on our children by the Family Court.

And they trot out the PR lie they've been using for years ...

"Justice Bryant said the court figures could not be taken as the basis for generalisations about the fate of Australian children after their parents' divorce because the cases that went to trial in the Family Court comprised only 7 per cent of the court's case load and represented the most intractable, complex and difficult disputes "

This, in essence make the outrageous suggestion that Consent orders are consensual, that the court process, that expense and outcomes have nothing to do with the advise offered by lawyers to parents that would otherwise fight for the right to be more involved with their children.

And this ! .... " Comparisons would also be made between orders made by judges and those made "by consent" of the parents" What? ...as if the decisions people are forced into should be a rule of thumb.

Chief Justice Diana Bryant admits that fathers get excluded when there are "allegations of sexual abuse or substance issues," she said. "Mental illness is also a big issue in many cases, as is entrenched conflict" So if one parents lawyers accuses the other purest mental illness of substance abuse the kids cope it!

She even claims the number of people who avoid the Family Court altogether as proof of its success!! This is breathtakingly absurd and further admission of their failure to deliver justice to children and their otherwise excluded parents.

If there's a positive in this article its that at last we have convinced the Family Court that it has to at least pay lip service to the notion of accountability.

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au

Family Court fights back over bias claims

Liz Porter December 24, 2006

STUNG by criticism that it is biased, the Family Court is hitting back by keeping detailed records of its decisions on parenting.

For the first time in its 31-year history, the court is collecting statistics — including the percentage of arrangements involving or excluding fathers.

"One of the things that frustrates me most is people saying that the court is biased — or that there is a systemic bias against fathers," the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, told The Sunday Age.

She said the court had started documenting the number of shared parental responsibility arrangements and the number of orders where a mother or father was given sole responsibility for children.

Reasons for the exclusion of one parent are also being recorded, with the categories including "family violence", "mental illness", "substance abuse", "distance" and "entrenched conflict".

"With the parliamentary inquiry recently there was a lot of discussion about what the court was and wasn't doing," Justice Bryant said.

"There were a lot of people saying the court was biased. But nobody pulled out a judgement and said 'the result was wrong'. It was all about impressions and rhetoric and the court itself wasn't really able to respond well to that because we don't have the data."

Is this unprecedented fact-gathering exercise an effort to combat allegations by the Blackshirts and other men's groups that the court discriminates against men?

The Chief Justice said she would not describe the project in such terms. But she said that, in the past, the court had been unable to refute criticism with statistical proof.

The parenting order data will be posted on the court website, along with links to the 850 judgements handed down each year.

"So (it would say) here is the data, and if you want to read about the cases where there was no contact (with one parent), read them," Justice Bryant said.

Data would also be collected on the amount of time children of separated parents spent with each parent. In cases of little or no contact with one parent, reasons would also be noted. Comparisons would also be made between orders made by judges and those made "by consent" of the parents.

The first results should be ready by June 30.

Justice Bryant said the court figures could not be taken as the basis for generalisations about the fate of Australian children after their parents' divorce because the cases that went to trial in the Family Court comprised only 7 per cent of the court's case load and represented the most intractable, complex and difficult disputes.

Many separated parents also resolved joint sharing of their children amicably and with no court involvement. "These are parenting cases which involve allegations of sexual abuse or substance issues," she said. "Mental illness is also a big issue in many cases, as is entrenched conflict."

She said the court was often a scapegoat for people's unwillingness to compromise.

"People always want to blame someone for it. We get the hardest cases — and some of them are awful," she said.

The Family Court is also planning a February-March blitz on a backlog of 1490 Melbourne cases awaiting a final trial. All nine Melbourne judges will be sitting, with three extra judges being brought from interstate to help clear the list.

Delays in the court increased in the 2005-06 financial year, with 90 per cent of defended cases now taking up to 26.9 months before a final judgement — more than two months longer than in 2004-05.

But the Chief Justice said that the number of "pending" cases had dropped over the past two years, from 2100 in January last year, to 1550 last October and 1490 now.

She said the backlog of older cases was being cleared so judges would be free to start working on the new, "less adversarial trials" — a system that applies to all cases that began after July 1 this year.

Under this system, one judge would run each case from the beginning, helping the parties narrow down the issues in dispute and making hearings shorter.

Justice Bryant said having different judges at different interim hearings was identified as one of the many factors that bothered clients of the court.

Working at the bench

The long wait

In 2005-2006

■The average time between application and first hearing was 6.5 weeks

■ 91 per cent of cases completed within 27 months.

■50 per cent of cases took between 3.7 and 22.4 months.

On the books

Cases pending

January 2005: 2100

December 2005: 1725

October 2006: 1550

December 2006: 1490

http://familycourt.gov.au


Copyright: This article has been copied from the Melbourne Age's website to inform only. There is not commercial gain associated with sharing this article with others some of whom may not have read the Age on 24/12/2006. The article will gladly be removed if requested by the Age or the author of the article.

Desperate measures in face of mutually exclusive courts

Desperate measures in face of mutually exclusive


Mother in hiding after grabbing back 'stolen' kids

*


Melissa Hawach, with her children Hannah (left) and Cedar in earlier times, used hired agents to find her daughters in Jounieh, Lebanon, after her estranged Lebanese-Australian husband, Joseph Hawach, failed to return them following a contact visit.

Melissa Hawach, with her children Hannah (left) and Cedar in earlier times, used hired agents to find her daughters in Jounieh, Lebanon, after her estranged Lebanese-Australian husband, Joseph Hawach, failed to return them following a contact visit.
Photo: Supplied
Other related coverage

* Australian arrested in Lebabon

Frank Walker and Danielle Teutch
December 24, 2006

A MOTHER was in hiding with her two children last night as details emerged of a daring raid to grab her "stolen" children from their runaway Australian father in Lebanon.

Canadian Melissa Hawach was in Lebanon with a team of hired security workers in a bid to recover Hannah, 5, and Cedar, 3, after her husband, Joseph Hawach, fled to Lebanon rather than return them after an access visit.

Mrs Hawach approached the children in the car park of a hotel where Mr Hawach had been staying, according to the head of a Canadian advocacy group familiar with the case.

"She couldn't leave (Lebanon) without taking the kids," Missing Children Society of Canada executive director Rhonda Morgan said. "They came running to her. She said: 'We're going to Mummy's hotel. We'll call Daddy later.' And they left."

As a result of the raid, Brian Corrigan, 38, a former Australian soldier belonging to Mrs Hawach's security team, and a former New Zealand soldier have been arrested.

Mr Corrigan was one of five security workers hired by Mrs Hawach to find the children.

Mr Hawach took the children to Lebanon without permission in July after they visited him in Sydney from Calgary, Canada, where they were living with their mother.

He had returned to Sydney from Canada after he and his wife separated in 2004.

The Missing Children Society's Ms Morgan said: "There was no raid by these so-called mercenaries. It never happened. They did not go in with guns a-blazing."

Mrs Hawach was accompanied to Lebanon by her father, Jim Engdahl, and an investigator from the society. Ms Morgan said the hotel in the town of Jounieh, where Mr Hawach had been staying with the girls, had been watched by Mrs Hawach's team since the beginning of this month.

Last Wednesday, after exhausting legal avenues through the Lebanese courts, Mrs Hawach went to the hotel. She watched the girls playing near the car park, called out to them, then whisked them away in a car.

"It was never her intention to go to Lebanon to re-abduct them," Ms Morgan said. "She walked up to them in the car park stairway and called out. They came running to her."

Ms Morgan said she had had no contact with Mrs Hawach, 32, since. It is not known whether she has left Lebanon with the children.

It is not clear if Mr Corrigan, 38, believed to be from Wollongong, has been charged. He faces 15 years' jail if convicted of kidnapping. Mr Corrigan and New Zealand former special forces soldier David Pemberton were hauled from a plane at Beirut's international airport on Friday. Fellow team members, Australian James Arak and New Zealanders Simon Dunn and Michael Douglas, fled by other means.

Mr Corrigan, who has a wife and child, is said to have worked in security in Iraq and other places since he left the army a year ago. Australian consular officials have visited him in his police cell.

Mrs Hawach's best friend, Rayanne Witt, speaking from Canada, said Mrs Hawach had exhausted all other options to get her children back.

She visited Sydney in August to plead with the Hawach family for help, then launched court action to try to force them to disclose the children's location.

Although Canadian police have issued an extradition order for Mr Hawach, Lebanon does not recognise parental abduction as a crime and will not honour extradition treaties.

Ms Witt said Mrs Hawach was scared about her trip to Lebanon but was not willing to wait any longer. "She tried to follow the proper protocols. This was her last resort," she said. "Any mother would do this."

posted by OutCry @ 2:24 PM 0 comments
Family Court fights back over bias claims


Copyright: This article has been copied from the Melbourne Age's website to inform only. There is not commercial gain associated with sharing this article with others some of whom may not have read the Age on 24/12/2006. The article will gladly be removed if requested by the Age or the author of the article.

Desperate measures in face of mutually exclusive courts

Desperate measures in face of mutually exclusive













Mother in hiding after grabbing back 'stolen' kids



Melissa Hawach, with her children Hannah (left) and Cedar in earlier times, used hired agents to find her daughters in Jounieh, Lebanon, after her estranged Lebanese-Australian husband, Joseph Hawach, failed to return them following a contact visit.

Melissa Hawach, with her children Hannah (left) and Cedar in earlier times, used hired agents to find her daughters in Jounieh, Lebanon, after her estranged Lebanese-Australian husband, Joseph Hawach, failed to return them following a contact visit.
Photo: Supplied
Other related coverage

* Australian arrested in Lebabon

Frank Walker and Danielle Teutch
December 24, 2006

A MOTHER was in hiding with her two children last night as details emerged of a daring raid to grab her "stolen" children from their runaway Australian father in Lebanon.

Canadian Melissa Hawach was in Lebanon with a team of hired security workers in a bid to recover Hannah, 5, and Cedar, 3, after her husband, Joseph Hawach, fled to Lebanon rather than return them after an access visit.

Mrs Hawach approached the children in the car park of a hotel where Mr Hawach had been staying, according to the head of a Canadian advocacy group familiar with the case.

"She couldn't leave (Lebanon) without taking the kids," Missing Children Society of Canada executive director Rhonda Morgan said. "They came running to her. She said: 'We're going to Mummy's hotel. We'll call Daddy later.' And they left."

As a result of the raid, Brian Corrigan, 38, a former Australian soldier belonging to Mrs Hawach's security team, and a former New Zealand soldier have been arrested.

Mr Corrigan was one of five security workers hired by Mrs Hawach to find the children.

Mr Hawach took the children to Lebanon without permission in July after they visited him in Sydney from Calgary, Canada, where they were living with their mother.

He had returned to Sydney from Canada after he and his wife separated in 2004.

The Missing Children Society's Ms Morgan said: "There was no raid by these so-called mercenaries. It never happened. They did not go in with guns a-blazing."

Mrs Hawach was accompanied to Lebanon by her father, Jim Engdahl, and an investigator from the society. Ms Morgan said the hotel in the town of Jounieh, where Mr Hawach had been staying with the girls, had been watched by Mrs Hawach's team since the beginning of this month.

Last Wednesday, after exhausting legal avenues through the Lebanese courts, Mrs Hawach went to the hotel. She watched the girls playing near the car park, called out to them, then whisked them away in a car.

"It was never her intention to go to Lebanon to re-abduct them," Ms Morgan said. "She walked up to them in the car park stairway and called out. They came running to her."

Ms Morgan said she had had no contact with Mrs Hawach, 32, since. It is not known whether she has left Lebanon with the children.

It is not clear if Mr Corrigan, 38, believed to be from Wollongong, has been charged. He faces 15 years' jail if convicted of kidnapping. Mr Corrigan and New Zealand former special forces soldier David Pemberton were hauled from a plane at Beirut's international airport on Friday. Fellow team members, Australian James Arak and New Zealanders Simon Dunn and Michael Douglas, fled by other means.

Mr Corrigan, who has a wife and child, is said to have worked in security in Iraq and other places since he left the army a year ago. Australian consular officials have visited him in his police cell.

Mrs Hawach's best friend, Rayanne Witt, speaking from Canada, said Mrs Hawach had exhausted all other options to get her children back.

She visited Sydney in August to plead with the Hawach family for help, then launched court action to try to force them to disclose the children's location.

Although Canadian police have issued an extradition order for Mr Hawach, Lebanon does not recognise parental abduction as a crime and will not honour extradition treaties.

Ms Witt said Mrs Hawach was scared about her trip to Lebanon but was not willing to wait any longer. "She tried to follow the proper protocols. This was her last resort," she said. "Any mother would do this."

posted by OutCry @ 2:24 PM 0 comments
Family Court fights back over bias claims


Copyright: This article has been copied from the Melbourne Age's website to inform only. There is not commercial gain associated with sharing this article with others some of whom may not have read the Age on 24/12/2006. The article will gladly be removed if requested by the Age or the author of the article.

"ALMOST one in three dismissed denying a partner money as a form of abuse".

And they want our schools to "educte" males that men abuse women.

God help us, and the children who loose their fathers becuase of this.

Insult to women's injuries

Karen Collier

October 27, 2006 12:00am

A DISTURBING number of Victorians make excuses for rapists and wife beaters, a study has found.

Almost two in five people believe the myth that men attack women because they can't suppress sexual urges, a VicHealth report reveals.

Almost one in four are willing to forgive domestic violence if men lose control or express regret.

The results have sparked calls for secondary school lessons on preventing sexual assault.

The survey coincides with disgust over a group of young thugs who filmed themselves degrading and abusing a teenage girl.

It also follows outrage at comments from Australia's top Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, comparing women without hijabs with dumped meat inviting prey.

VicHealth chief Rob Moodie said although attitudes had improved in the past decade, and almost all surveyed viewed domestic violence and forced sex as a crime, damaging opinions remained.

"The vast majority don't condone violence against women but there is still a distressingly high number who excuse it and believe some of the myths around it," Dr Moodie said.

Men and those born overseas were more likely to blame victims and trivialise, deny or justify violence, he said, but culture could not be used to excuse such behaviour.

The Two steps forward, one step back report, to be released today, found:

ALMOST half thought women made up violence claims to gain an upper hand in custody disputes.

ALMOST one in four felt that women falsified rape claims.

ALMOST one in six believed women often say no to sex when they mean yes.

ONE in five thought men and women were equally guilty of domestic violence, despite the overwhelming number of victims being women.

ALMOST one in three dismissed denying a partner money as a form of abuse.

ALMOST one in four did not believe yelling abuse at a partner was serious.

CASA (Centre Against Sexual Assault) House manager Helen Makregiorgos said all secondary students should be taught about respectful relationships and consent to help combat violence.

Ms Makregiorgos also called for tighter curbs on advertising portraying women as sex objects.

The findings, based on a phone survey of 2800 Victorians, come before White Ribbon Day on November 25, a campaign urging men to condemn violence against women.

Dr Moodie said tackling discrimination would help challenge attitudes.

Family violence is the leading preventable cause of death, disability and illness in women aged 15-44.

It costs the nation $8 billion a year in health and other expenses.

Net link: www.vichealth.vic.gov.au

--
Kind regards
Simon

Friday, October 13, 2006

Giving children a voice takes conflict out of divorce

Amazing how dumb these "experts' are.
But why expose the kids to manipulation and fear.

Can you imaging how much pressure your little girl for instance is put under to support her mother.
Can you imaging the pressure that's brought to bear by phycologists brought in to treat the child's behaviour with the mother after daddy been removed from her life.
Sure most kids are going to want fairness ... and both their parents in their lives.
Wouldn't it be easier to make the exclusion of one parent by the other illegal?
and not to bring the kids in to demonstrate this simple truth.

Regards,Simon
vascopajama@dodo.com.au



On 12/10/06, gcpg wrote:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20563011-2702,00.html

Giving children a voice takes conflict out of divorce
Caroline Overington
October 11, 2006

DIVORCING parents often try to keep the children out of the conflict. New research shows it may be the worst thing they can do.

A report by child psychologist Jenn McIntosh shows that when children are included in the debate about a collapsing marriage, the outcome is better for both parents, especially fathers, and for the children.

Divorcing parents who were presented with evidence of the effect of their squabbling on their children - in the form of their child's writing or drawings - were less likely to end up in the Family Court, and their post-separation parenting plans became more durable.

"We suspected that children would benefit if they were being heard," Dr McIntosh said. "But the fact that fathers gained so much from the experience - we didn't expect that."

More than 140 families with 364 children participated in the study, funded by the Attorney-General's Department for the Australian Institute of Family Studies' October seminar.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was behind this year's changes to family law, which require separating parents to at least attempt to negotiate at a Family Relationship Centre before approaching the Family Court, unless violence is an issue.

Dr McIntosh divided warring parents into two groups: the "child-focused" group, which received generic information about how conflict can damage children; and a "child inclusive" group, in which parents were given drawings and writing by their own children on how the collapsing marriage was affecting them.

The process had to be handled delicately, and by experts. "It's not just a case of sitting down with children and saying, so, how do you feel about Mum and Dad getting a divorce?" Dr McIntosh said. "That would be a terrible over-simplification."

But the result was clear: parents who were told exactly how their squabbling was affecting the children "quickly modified their behaviour".

"If you say to parents, 'Your conflict hurts children', that's one thing. But if you say to them, 'This is what your child is actually saying', that's a different thing," Dr McIntosh said.

"The level of conflict dropped dramatically. Parents seemed to get a wake-up call. They were moved by the things they heard from their children."

Fathers were more likely to see a parenting arrangement as "fair" after seeing the impact of conflict on their children.

It is not yet clear whether the "child inclusive" model will be adopted by the Family Relationship Centres. While it seems effective, it is also expensive.

But Dr McIntosh said the process "certainly encourages parents to think like adults," which is one of the things Mr Ruddock has been trying to achieve.

"It can help them push the domino over in the right direction, and while there is pain, grief, upset, they need to keep their eye on the ball, which is the children."

She said the "executive functioning" kicks in, "where they say, 'That's right, I have children who are dependent upon me' ".

"It seems to allow both parents to swallow the bitter pill."

© The Australian

Australian Family Court stops father contact again !

The idea that Ruddock (Australian Attorney General responsible for 'reforming the Family Law Act' to allow children time with their fathers) has any interest in or desire to protect the best interests of children is a furphy.

I believe his interest is in maintaining the status quo for his wealthy and powerful legal friends.

After all if parents of too stupid to work out their own affairs, they're fair game aren't they?

Below is a post from a father who's been denied the right to see his kids and my response.

Regards

Simon

Dear Neville, parents and supporters of children,

In a letter I received form Mr. Ruddock yesterday he told me that " It needs to be remembered that a shared parenting order will generally only work in a practical sense if both parents have a reasonably amicable relationship and are prepared to make it work effectively".

He doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that denial of "Contact" is what stops things being amicable.

He then went on to say "I am aware of the empirical research that exists around these issues"

He also states that "the Court must consider the best interests of the child"

This of course begs the question that if Mr. Rudduck is "aware of the imperial research that exists around these issues" why aren't the Courts? And why isn't Mr. Ruddock making sure that the "best interests of the child" is the "paramount consideration".

I have been ordered to have "no face to face or telephone contact" with my now 9 y.o. daughter because of expert witness evidence that the mother would "shut down emotionally" if contact was to occur".

Neville, our fight is for shared parenting. This means we must reject terms like "Non-custodial parent" and "Contact" as being contrary to our children's best interests. We also need to avoid gender polarisation at every opportunity.

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com

The new laws which are there to make this family law system fairer are a failure

I have just had 6 days in court and there were to be another 3 to be told that I was to have no contact with my children

The reason
My X would not abide by any ruling the court might impose

A child expert (drip under pressure) Witch Dr. Whan said that children have no problems if they don't see the father. That the statistics on fatherless children were not to be believed.

So after the judge said that I have no case to answer I could not see the children

Well if this is the new law in operation then men have a problem, it is still up to the custodial parent to decide what or if any contact the non custodial will have. The courts are still unwilling to place pressure on the custodial parent generally the woman to conform to the rules imposed.

If non custodial parents want justice well they are going to have to fight and fight the system politically

It is time to pull the sleeves up and show some intestinal fortitude and say we are not taking any more

Have a good time remember if we sit back and do nothing that is what we will get