Family Law Double Speak - discussion

To Geoff Holland,
Equal Parenting Movement

Dear Geoff,

This smacks dangerously of double speak and a covert agenda,

9 times out of 10 high conflict is simply the consequence of one parent being denied contact with their children by the other parent - the one empowered by the court to exclude the other.

Obviously the solution is to remove the exclusion.

Contact centres are part of this abuse and stem from allegations of abuse.
We all know how this game works (or do we?). My daughter was subjected to change over at a Contact Centre when the school was the idea venue and had been working fine.
Its all part of the process of marginalizing the father.
The places mainly deal in supervised access (which the father pays for) where fathers get a couple of hours a fortnight under the watchful eye of young feminazi trained to treat men as being dangerous to women and children.
The fathers walk around like zombies, the smarty ones at least. The ones that object soon get excluded altogether.
These places are torture chambers for children and their fathers.

Again the solution is to make the exclusion of one parent by the other illegal.

As for "Parenting Orders Programs" can you explain or point me to an explanation of what exactly this means. Without clear definition it sounds dangerous and an opportunity for the opponents of equal parenting to deny fathers contact. Double speak and Orwellian language are the hallmarks of the anti father child abuse industry.

As for "fines and community orders" doesn't this only affect mothers who have primary care giver status. ie: where the father gets a weekend or less a fortnight and is therefore at risk of having his contact denied by the custodial parent. Again the solution here is equal parenting.
Non compliance wasn't a problem if equal parenting is ordered by the Family Court.
If a mother decided to deny Equal Parenting the solution would be reduced contact or even supervised contact on the basis that she was harming the children. However this scenario is extremely unlikely, because as I keep on pointing out, the problem is caused by empowering one parent to exclude the other.

The solution is making exclusion of one parent by the other illegal.

Kind regards
Simon

PRESS RELEASE

24 February 2007

The Equal Parenting Movement applauds the actions of the Federal Government to put in place services, announced by the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today, which help facilitate meaningful contact of children with both parents after family separation, in contrast with the previous Family Court policy of marginalising one of the parents, usually the father, if there was chronic conflict between the parents.

Convenor of the Equal Parenting Movement, Geoff Holland, said that the new Parenting Orders Programs would hopefully allow more couples to avoid the Family Court system and thereby avoid possible escalation of conflict.

However, Mr Holland argues there is a strong need for more programs to be made available by the new Family Relationship Centres such as Conflict Resolution programs, Parental Alienation Awareness programs, and Anger Management programs. He also stressed the importance of imposing fines and Communiy Service for parents who continually behave in inappropriate ways with damaging consequences for the children.

The Family Court system has so far generally been reluctant to impose such fines. Mr Holland says that the practice of reducing access to the offending parent is not a desirable policy of the Family Court system, (except in extreme cases), as this penalises the children.

Equal Parenting Movement

Street Campaign now underway ! More info contact:

Equal Parenting Movement

tel (07)4055 9995

0404 376 991

PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870

EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au

_____________________________________________________________________

From: "Media Releases" <mediarel@lstsvr1.ag.gov.au>
To: "Media Releases" <mediarel@lstsvr1.ag.gov.au>
Subject: NEW SERVICES KEEP FOCUS ON CHILDREN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:48:01

NEW SERVICES KEEP FOCUS ON CHILDREN

The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the organisations that
have been invited to operate eight new Parenting Orders Programs and nine
new Children's Contact Services.

These new services, to be established later this year, are part of major
changes to the family law system being implemented by the Australian
Government to improve outcomes for families. The successful organisations
will now negotiate funding agreements.

"Where conflict between separating parents prevents children having a
relationship with both parents, it is the children who suffer," Mr Ruddock
said.

"These new services help ensure children can continue to have a
relationship with both parents," he said.

Parenting Orders Programs help separated parents experiencing high conflict
to put aside their own interests and to focus on the best outcome for their
children. As a result many parents are able to reduce the level of
conflict and put in place arrangements that enable both parents to have a
relationship with their children.

Children's Contact Services also help families in high conflict or where
there are safety concerns. They provide safe transfer of children from one
parent to another and supervised visits where this is needed.

The Attorney-General and the Minister for Families, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough called for organisations to apply for funding
to provide a range of services in early September 2006.

More information about the changes to the family law system and the new
services available to support the changes can be found at
http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au or by calling the Family Relationship
Advice Line on 1800 050 321.

A list of the successful organisations is attached.

Michael Pelly
Media Adviser
Office of the Attorney-General
Parliament House, Canberra

MOBILE: 0419 278 715
PH: 02 62 77 73 00
FAX: 02 62 73 41 02
michael.pelly@ag.gov.au

Dirty Tricks in Family Law

Dirty Tricks in Family Law
By: Bettina Arndt

Herald Sun - Monday 12 February 2007

Family courts have always been known for dirty tricks but recent stories to emerge from Britain show gutter tactics have reached new lows. A father recently appeared in a UK Family Court, representing himself in a custody dispute. He made his argument, quoting a judgment sent to him by a well-known fathers’ support group. The opposing barrister pulled him up – claiming the case he’d mentioned had never appeared in the law reports. The father was made to look a fool and a con-man, with the angry judge warning he could face up to $20,000 in court costs. But when the source of the offending email quoting the forged case was finally traced, it turned out to have been sent by the wife’s barrister – who is now scheduled for a court appearance for perverting the course of justice.

Then there was the misleading 2004 document produced by a UK feminist support group for victims of violence – Women’s Aid federation of England - which suggested that in the previous ten years 29 children had been killed by their fathers as a result of court-ordered contact arrangements. The so-called research made a huge media splash leading to the paper being used as ammunition by lawyers arguing against child contact with men with any history of violence. Well, now appeal judge Nicholas Wall has released a report investigating the real circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides. In eighteen of the cases, the families had nothing to do with the family court while in another eight cases court proceedings gave no forewarning of the violence. He found only three cases where which gave rise to concern but Wall concluded that even here the judges had good reason to allow contact from the evidence presented.
Yes, we should be very concerned about the risks of violence to children of separated parents. However, it is disgraceful the way the violence card is played to try to frighten politicians and the public from making proper decisions about the care of children after divorce. Last year in Australia, amendments were made to family law to support children’s rights to contact with both parents after divorce, changes which included extra protection for children from violence.
Yet these welcome changes are under attack from women’s groups afraid the new laws will undermine the license given to mothers to shut fathers out of children’s lives. The cries of alarm began long before the changes made it into law. Look at the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which makes clear its position on the irrelevance of fathers with its insulting slogan – “Half the couple, twice the parent”. NCSMC executive officer Elspeth McInnes’ reaction to the legal changes was to express horror that this will mean “more children will be required to live in two households and families fleeing violence will face new risks and penalties,” adding that 100 mothers and children are “killed every year by partners and fathers around family breakdown.” Sound familiar? The Brit homicide tactic rides again.

Many of the women’s groups are very nervous about new Family Relationship Centers (FRCs) set up particularly to deal with children’s matters. The government has rightly concluded that caring for children after divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one and that the previous adversarial system was disastrous for children. But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very well since it failed so dismally to enforce contact orders and allowed allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their children. Remember the 1999 magistrate’s survey which found 90% of magistrates believed false AVO’s were used as a tactic in family law cases “to deprive partners access to children”?

Be prepared for more dirty tricks as lobby groups do their best to discredit the FRCs – aided by nervous lawyers who rightly fear that if the centers are successful, fewer divorcing families will use lawyers to fight over children. In a local paper from Merimbula on NSW’s South Coast, local lawyer Andrew Warren recently issued a dire warning that without legal advice parents could be persuaded by FRC workers to enter “unacceptable parenting plans” with “dramatic legal consequences.” That’s one lawyer already feeling the pinch. (ends)