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".
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://mumsdadsandkidsagainstso
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon
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
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
posted by TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon @ 3:05 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home