Mum jailed in custody battle
The following comment (starting with mine :) show the depth of feeling in Australia about the the Family Court's treatment of children and their fathers. There is some nastiness from deranged women - not much though.
" The Family Court heard evidence and allowed the father to have unsupervised access to his children" What? Why should a father have to be provide evidence before he allowed to see his kids without a supervisor ? What an awful thing to do to his children who look up to him for guidance and protection. Why are our Courts treating children and fathers like this? The court should have protected those children's right to have both of their parents in their lives equally from the moment the parents separated. If they had done so none of this would have happened. The kids still would have had both their parents in their lives. Neither would have been seen as 'bad'. The main reason this woman stopped the kids from seeing their father was because the court normally assist women in doing this. Everybody she sought help from would have told her this. Most would be making money telling her this. The mother, the children and the father are all victims of a a legal system that treats childrens' parents as either winners and losers, which means children always lose ...one of their parents plus their confidence, self-esteem and success in life. Posted by: simon Hunt of Mornington 12:37pm today
Readers' Comments
Mum jailed in custody battle
March 29, 2007 12:00
Article from: 
A MOTHER-of-two is behind bars for defying court orders in a tug-of-love fight with her ex-partner.
It's time the law started getting realistic about these situations. Most ex-wives, ex-female partners are so bitter and twisted that it is a crime they are allowed to hang on to children at all - they need to move on and think of giving their children a better life - and a large part of that means being humane and decent and letting the father of those children spend quality relaxed time with them. WOMEN - WAKE UP - IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.
Posted by: Jeanne of Melbourne 6:36pm today
Comment 111 of 111
I thought the courts were supposed to be all about protecting the best interests of the children? is that not the basic premise of the family courts?? So how can turning a child's mother into an incarcerated criminal possibly benefit the children involved? All people's personal anecdotes do is highlight their own biases. "I knew this bloke..." etc does nothing to support an argument. Statistical evidence is a far more reliable source of data and those statistics indicate that far too frequently, mothers are ordered by the courts to force their children into dangerous situations. What a choice! Go to gaol or place your kids in danger....
Posted by: Shell of the Beach 5:50pm today
Comment 110 of 111
To Richard Ward - Just because your are a single mother does not mean you are supported by the government! I am a single mother working full time, and I pay the child support to the father who I share the care of my son with.
Posted by: Tania of Canberra 5:05pm today
Comment 109 of 111
Bring back corpral punishment and soon
Posted by: Brad of redfern 4:56pm today
Comment 108 of 111
Vicki Bradstone @ 2.44pm. You have a lifestyle...but one it seems you cannot afford without your ex paying for it. Improve your lifestyle by giving your ex more time with the kids. Simple really but will it happen. Probably not if you want your cake & to eat it too.
Posted by: Trevor of Hunter VAlley 4:41pm today
Comment 107 of 111
This punishment is about defying a court order. Full stop. The law is the law is the law, and there are repercussions for breaking the law.
Posted by: Leanne of North Queensland 4:40pm today
Comment 106 of 111
Many times i sit and just READ these articles and comments but this time.. shall i say.. there is a first time for everything... I am a step parent in my relationship.. I get along very well with my darling step son.. and i tell you.. not a day goes by where i dont think of him and wish he was living with us.. with his father.. WE HAVE A COURT ORDER!!! hurray.. we thought that was it.. the bee nees.. it will finally put some order for our son's life.. to have both parents involved in his life............. but not apparantly so.. to date:... we are applying for a breach of the court order.. yes.. BREACHES.. and she loves it.. she provokes us to "take her back to court"!!! knowing nothing will change.. she will most likely continue to stop our son from seeing his father .. so.. how many years do we fight for?? how many times must we watch her take away her son's right to have a happy life with BOTH OF HIS PARENTS.. we pay $750(that's almost rent)!!!! a month for child supp.. he is only 10.. and yet.. even though we pay.. she still can breach a COURT ORDER... I love my man, I love my son..(he is my son and no one can tell me just bc i did not give birth to him) and i would wish so many times that the law would just see that not all DADs are bad.. and not all MUMs are the better for the child/ren.. ours is a 7 years battle now.. and we wont give up.. as it is.. we are wondering if we will have our little man for the Easter school holidays....... There is only time.. and there is hope..
Posted by: Mik 4:27pm today
Comment 105 of 111
he family law court has a lot to answer for its failure to enforce its own access orders. Particularly the former head of this unjust court.
Posted by: bill of port macquarie 3:51pm today
Comment 104 of 111
me of gc - fantastic post. I'm in a similar situation except the two eldest children of my partner told their mother that they would prefer to live with us, at least until the two of them can sort something out. We're still waiting on something formal to happen though, so fingers crossed. I'm beyond amazed at how selfish and jealous women can be when it comes to their children.
Posted by: JM of WA 3:33pm today
Comment 103 of 111
This mother may have a bloody good reason for why she does not want the father to have access to these children. This father has criminal convictions, and this woman has been running from him since she was pregnant. Stop assuming that this is all the mothers fault, and look at the bigger picture!
Posted by: Tania of Canberra 3:16pm today
Comment 102 of 111
This debate has many levels, the first and most important to BOTH parents is take some responsibility for your actions. It's not the taxpayers job to pay for your kids (unmarried mothers take note). To both parties pay your child support. Yes it's true the females get a better deal in family court, but try not to get there in the first place, use a condom, the pill or the word NO. Too hard perhaps, stay at school and listen to the sex Ed class perhaps. I see that is still to hard. I ask the PM to review all the welfare payments instead of penalising real job holders.
Posted by: Richard Ward 3:11pm today
Comment 101 of 111
To Shane of Sydney- When was child support mentioned in this story? And who are you to judge women if they decide not to allow access to the father of their children?Maybe the father does not deserve the children!
Posted by: Tania of Canberra 3:03pm today
Comment 100 of 111
If my EX-defaco dosn't pay on time its a simple case of the children are sick on his weekend visit rights,I have a life style to live as well.no money,NO KIDS, simple as that
Posted by: Vicky Bradstone of NSW 2:44pm today
Comment 99 of 111
Listen up Mothers with custody. If you breach a court order this should happen to you. You have no moral right to demand child support payments and then deny the father his right to be a father. I applaud whole heartly Magistrate Jarretts decision, its is correct and proper. The only time a parent should be deny access to their children is when PROVEN abuse of any kind occurs. By proven I mean charges are laid and a conviction is made.
Posted by: Mike of NSW 2:34pm today
Comment 98 of 111
Finally some real action from the FCA. It is all to easy for mothers to make false, hurtful & vindicitive allegations against the father of their children in custody matters in order to "win" sole or major custody. (I know it happened to me). If they do & get away with it, the CSA then comes along & rewards them for it. Kids are not pawns in a battle between fueding ex's. Kids have the right to know, love & grow with both parents. If the mother in this case had legitimate concerns then she should have gone to appropriate body, possibly DOCS, not make a unilateral decision that is in her best interest.
Posted by: Trevor of Hunter Valley 2:10pm today
Comment 97 of 111
Don't let Robyn Jones fool you. I was in the family court for 14 years and the courts continue to bow to the tantrums thrown by the mothers and consistantly screw over the father. It's about time the courts took a dim view on the selfish and spiteful behaviour of either parent. If the mother has a concern about child safety then she should submit her evidence to the court, not take the law into her own hands. Plenty of people (male or female) with criminal records are excellent and loving parents and the behaviour during emotional custody battles is not always indicative of how a person normally behaves.
Posted by: B of Canberra 2:04pm today
Comment 96 of 111
Well as usual the court disregards the welfare of the children. It's amazing that they say it's a "RARE" occurrance, sadly it's not. The wife leaves the abusive husband only to have the court order the children to be with the abuser and continue to be abused and the only way to stop it is to have the mother defy the court order, risking jail. The mother can only try to protect her children from the abusive father and can only try to fight the court system that protects the abuser at the expense of the children. It's a complete outrage that in our day and age a court of law would allow this to happen and arrest the one person who is there protection her own children. The rest of you who say she got what she deserved, obviously have not been in the same situation where every weekend you are forced by a court of law to send your children to be abused or get arrested, this is the choice this woman faced and she chose to protect her children.
Posted by: Margaret Tucker of Sydney 1:42pm today
Comment 95 of 111
It is women like Sharon who are thankfully making a mokery of mothers with an extreme view. Can you believe (laughing loudly) Sharon's extreme views of mothers are higher than thou and Fathers are sperm donors. My god how many children (and it is going to get worse) have been mentally and emotionaly damaged by women like Sharon. It is this higher than thou, that is ruining it for our children. START at 50/50 access, then work out the evidence (pure evidence) to get to the actual residence time and supervision at the very least. I fear for your children Sharon. PLEASE get some help for your childrens sake.
Posted by: MacDaddy of Sydney 1:38pm today
Comment 94 of 111
There is now hope for all males finally being given fair treatment by a family court.
Posted by: Steve of Sydney North West 1:24pm today
Comment 93 of 111
There are so many good points of view here and so many sad stories. My message to Sharon is that not all dads are like your ex. My son had to take his 18 month old daughter to work for 2 years because her mother wouldn't get out of bed until lunch time. On the one occasion he left his daughter with her mother, he came home to find her playing in the street unsupervised while her drug affected mother slept. She was three. When it came time to grant custody, the court said the mother was the primary care giver and because the child was so young, gave 100% custody to the mother. Not all mothers are saints and not all dads are monsters. In my own case, I was indebted to the 'new woman' in my kids lives when they were growing up - she is a good, caring woman. My kids and grandkids continue to have a good relationship with my ex and his wife and both sets of families attend birthdays and Christmas together. If only other families were as lucky as we are.
Posted by: Annabel of Sydney 1:23pm today
Comment 92 of 111
I feel very sorry for Sharon who posted here, she appears to hate almost 50% of the population....men. I would not wish to be her son.
Posted by: tragic of Canberra 1:18pm today
Comment 91 of 111
Has anyone ever put a thought as to why the Mother did this. Sometimes the mother knows their ex-husband so well, and what they are capable of, that they are putting their children first when they take such action. To all those who think a mother would commit such act out of revenge is WRONG!! Have the judges ever thought of the children's safety when they are granting the father access these days. Can the father look after their children during these access visit. What food are they feeding their kids during these visits and what are they doing with them or are they just asking for access for the sake of it and to get revenge on their ex-partners. Have the judges ever thought of the consequence of allowing the father access who sometimes un-do all the good disciplines instilled by the mother? Of course not, all they think about is fair equity and equal rights but half of these men can't look after their children and don't do anything productive when they have access. Why don't we promote stability for the children instead of 2 days here and 5 days there. Our family laws need to be reviewed for our future children's sake. I know my nephew's father doesn't even know which class he is in this year and which room to pick him up from when he recently wanted to pick up his son from school. The boy's father didn't even take the initiative to ask the mother, who later had to remind him. Not surprising!
Posted by: Abear of Sydney 1:16pm today
Comment 90 of 111
How can courts pretend they act 'in the best interest of the child' when they can't even define 'unreasonable risk' and use terms like 'entrenched violence (like the level of violence you as an adult copped isn't bad enough!) What do you do when you feel you barely escaped with your life - just hand over the terrified children who saw it all, or who were used as punching bags? How much risk would you want if you really cared about the best interest of children, especially when you look at the constant research that tabulates the devastating outcomes for abused children. And Steve from Sydney, if a lawyer gave you bad advice, why is your remedy to lock up more mothers? Why isn't it lock up the lawyers? Besides, the laws changed last July so experiences from before will pale into insignificance as the determination to appease the angry men's movements allegations of bias against them gets going. Go sit in court and watch - see it live with your own eyes. You might get the same thrill of the kill like they did when Christians were thrown to the lions. There are no penalties for people who lie, there are no penalties for parents who do not turn up for access granted to them by the court. There are cases of children living overseas where there is supposed to have access for children in this country, but at the last minute the residential parent changes their minds. The system sucks internationally and the governments care little for the best interests of children. New Zealand has a policy that puts safety first. Why don't we? Working with the children of these relationships tells me the rise in violence amongst our children is their response to us (adults and systems) not caring enough to keep them safe from the violence they have spoken out about, but have not been heard. Our courts don't listen to our children, and too many parents righter's don't either. And people whining about paying for the costs of children you created? Stop procreating so readily until you have the emotional maturity to raise one and pay for it.
Posted by: Robyn Jones of Hunter 1:16pm today
Comment 89 of 111
my son 14yrs has not seen of heard from his father in 13 years, his father has court papers to allow access. does this mean after all these years he can walk in tomorrow & claim his rights... I DONT THINK SO.......
Posted by: tracey of st clair 1:12pm today
Comment 88 of 111
Going through it RIGHT NOW! 2 years ago my ex suddenly cut me off from seeing my kids...this is besides the fact that I only got to see them for an an hour and a half every sunday and never without her around. All of a sudden, she up and moves house without telling me where to and stops picking up the phone or returning calls. I tried calling her job - They acted like I was Hitler and wouldn't put me through. I tried calling her ex-best friend - nothing. I went to FLC - They sent papers to her last known address except that's not her address anymore is it!!?? The Police? HAH! The other weekend, my dad runs into her and my kids just by random luck. She gives him a bogus phone number that doesn't even work...all the while my kids are looking at him like they're in shock he's alive! My point here is: Dads deserve the same rights as moms. This one-sided prejudicial stance that moms are the holier - than - thou spirit of fertility is old. Fathers deserve the right to be the primary care-giver just as much as the mother. If the mom doesn't grant access, jail is a great answer. The more time the better...it keeps their poison out of the ears of the kids. Am I bitter?
Posted by: MJ of Syd 1:06pm today
Comment 87 of 111
To those mothers who think it's ok to deny access to fathers because they don't pay child support, go and jump off a cliff. While I support whole heartedly the concept of child support, as it is a moral and legal obligation for a father (non custodial parent) to do so, the whole concept of preventing a father seeing their kids because of money is wrong. I understand there are two side to every story, but child support and acces to one's children are totall separate issues, and should be treated as such by the parents. Failing to do either is wrong. More women should get it through their empty heads before thay make the ridiculous statement "I won't let him see the kids until he pays me" This is a vexing issue, but too many see money and access as a way to manipulate things to their own advantage. To all those mothers who deny access for any reason - you don't deserve to have your children To all those Fathers who won't pay a fair and equitable amount to their ex wives - you are pond scum
Posted by: Shane of Sydney 12:54pm today
Comment 86 of 111
About time the law set a precident and did something to stop these mothers taking the law into their own hands hope this is the start of something possitive for these poor dads who have access orders in pleace but have difficult ex's who think they are judge and jury when it comes to their children and override these orders. Congradulations Steven Tester for the win in this ludicrus judicial system.
Posted by: Bronwyn Hamilton of Albury 12:49pm today
Comment 85 of 111
It's about time a mother who flauts the decisions of the courts gets time in jail. In my opinion she deserves time in jail equal to the time that she denied access to the kid's father. I find it completely unfair that a man can be charged with kidnapping or abduction, and have the cops chasuing him if he fails to bring the kids back to their mother, but no-one does a damn thing if a mother refuses access, particularly when it's court ordered access. Serves her right, and if everything is fair she'll be denied custody of the kids when she is released, because (I love this bit), she is a convicted criminal!!!.
Posted by: Shane of Sydney 12:48pm today
Comment 84 of 111
It's about time a mother who flauts the decisions of the courts gets time in jail. In my opinion she deserves time in jail equal to the time that she denied access to the kid's father. I find it completely unfair that a man can be charged with kidnapping or abduction, and have the cops chasuing him if he fails to bring the kids back to their mother, but no-one does a damn thing if a mother refuses access, particularly when it's court ordered access. Serves her right, and if everything is fair she'll be denied custody of the kids when she is released, because (I love this bit), she is a convicted criminal!!!.
Posted by: Shane of Sydney 12:47pm today
Comment 83 of 111
We need some equality in our justice system. This woman got what she deserved. Using visitation rights as a weapon to beat down her ex. What a cow! What kind of mother comes between children and their father? It takes 2 people to make children and they are not the "possession" of 1 parent. My brother's ex-haggis (she's from Scotland) got a passport for their child by lying on the application paperwork that my brother was off the scene and unlocatable. She took off back to the UK with my nepwhew one day while my brother was at work earning the money that paid the rent and bills for their family home. She had to be extradited from the UK with my nephew and has been on every kind of Govt assistance available including Legal Aid ever since. My brother has had to fight tooth and nail for access and had to pay his own legal bills. Haggis has accused him of being a drug addict, which is a lie (legal drug test that he offered to do and submitted to the court immediately was negative for a list of about 6 different types of drugs) and of rape. She even fished around his ex-girlfriends trying to find someone that would back her story all of whom told her to jam it and "as if". My brother has shared custody and final court case is in 2 months. This has dragged on for 2 years and she has not been dished any form of punishment except her passport be held by authorities and my nephew's falsley obtain passport cancelled. Haggis has committed international child abduction and perjury. We'll see what happens in 2 months... Proabably just rule that the shared access continue and she will not be punished at all for all the trauma, anguish, drama and cost she has caused for everyone that knows them.
Posted by: V T of not at the beach right now 12:38pm today
Comment 82 of 111
" The Family Court heard evidence and allowed the father to have unsupervised access to his children" What? Why should a father have to be provide evidence before he allowed to see his kids without a supervisor ? What an awful thing to do to his children who look up to him for guidance and protection. Why are our Courts treating children and fathers like this? The court should have protected those children's right to have both of their parents in their lives equally from the moment the parents separated. If they had done so none of this would have happened. The kids still would have had both their parents in their lives. Neither would have been seen as 'bad'. The main reason this woman stopped the kids from seeing their father was because the court normally assist women in doing this. Everybody she sought help from would have told her this. Most would be making money telling her this. The mother, the children and the father are all victims of a a legal system that treats childrens' parents as either winners and losers, which means children always lose ...one of their parents plus their confidence, self-esteem and success in life. Simon Hunt Mornington
Posted by: simon Hunt of Mornington 12:37pm today
Comment 81 of 111
I am sure not all non custodial ex partners are deprived of seeing there children. There have been many instances where my ex doesnt even bother turning up or phoning to say he cant have the children, yet is quiet verbal about his rights to seeing them when it suits him! You dont hear about the cases where dads are taken to court breaching court orders for neglect ! Reason being, mothers get on with the job of raising their children. They dont have the time or money to go to court.
Posted by: miriam of Sydney 12:25pm today
Comment 80 of 111
So Sharon, In your words : "As for the "new" woman in the fathers life, leave children alone that are not yours and in most cases you seem to be fighting for the fathers "rights" not for the well-being of the kids. " Im one of "those women" your talking about, how can you even state that women arnt interested in the well-being of these kids? We spend over $16,000 in airfares and accomodation a year trying to get access to my partners kids, i absolutely love them to death and would do anything for them. I have tried to get along with their mother and she's just too much of a fruit cake, extremely jealous & still harrasses me after 4 years & is finding it hard to move on. i know im not the kids mum & would never try to be their mum but i wont be "leaving them alone" pretending they dont exist, what kind of person would i be if i did that? Its a big mistake to deny a kid of a loving supporting step parent just because of jealousy.
Posted by: me of gc 12:12pm today
Comment 79 of 111
Too often fathers cop the loss of children and lose out financially as well. Mothers find it very easy to make a mockery of the justice system by not allowing the children to see the father. All the time fathers are portrayed as dangerous, untrustworthy or hopeless to take care of the children. Fathers emotions do not seem to have any value in this society. People believe mothers concoctions about husbands being abusive and wife bashers when it has been the other way around. A small push and shove to a abusive mother is interpreted as a bigtime bashed up' and almost everyone believes this.
Posted by: VR 12:02pm today
Comment 78 of 111
About time the courts stood up for the father - if you reversed the scenario the father would have been sent to jail about 10 court cases ago due to the bias show towards the mothers. A step in the right direction by the courts but only a small step towards equality for both the father and the mother.
Posted by: Julian of Sydney 11:56am today
Comment 77 of 111
I wouldn't comment on this case because I don¿t know the full details. If the father is as bad as the mother alleges and something happens to the kids, I hope the court takes full responsibility if something goes wrong. If this is the case, I can understand why the mother would make such a drastic decision. In saying this however, I really hope my ex daughter in law in Queensland reads this article. Like some custodial parents, she thinks the other parent is disposable once a new boyfriend is on the scene. Twice my son has had to fight in court to see his daughter because his ex found a new boyfriend who didn¿t him in their lives. This time was worse because she moved to Qld against court orders to be with her latest boyfriend, taking my granddaughter with her. By the time the case was heard in court, it was too late to bring my granddaughter back, due to the 'status quo'. This mother has used every trick in the book to stop my granddaughter from seeing her father. She underestimated my son's love for his daughter and wrongly thought he would give up and fade into oblivion . Despite the judge warning her, this woman continues to try and stop access visits. My son is a good dad, we are good people and we all love this little girl. The rights and well being of children must take priority and every child has the right to know and love both parents.
Posted by: Alice's Nan of Sydney 11:37am today
Comment 76 of 111
It is extremly important for both parents to have a helthy relationship with both parents, and to have regular contact if it is in the best interest of the child. It is not in the best interest of the child to have their mother in jail, this lady is not a criminal, weekend detention or community service would have been more appropriate if any punishment was really nessessary. As it is important for both parents to realise that the child needs to have acess to both parents. This mother's motherly instincts were telling her her children would be in danger with their father, there was supervised visits in place previous and he was a convicted criminal, for the mother to go into hiding with the child, tells you there is more to this than the mother just being spiteful or trying to stop access, but a real concern for the child. Supervision can be by one of the fathers realatives/friends even and this may be a better alternative than a court appointed person to ensure the safety of the children and ensure access happened.
Posted by: Jen 11:37am today
Comment 75 of 111
This woman gets put in prison for four months for a family dispute but a P-plate driver who puts people's lives at risk caught doing 220km/hr is escapes a prison sentence. Well done. Fantastic justice system we have in place in this country. (sarcasm). .... These magistrates and judges need to a reality check.
Posted by: Jay Tee of Sydney 11:36am today
Comment 74 of 111
Sharon Get off the drugs please.
Posted by: DF 11:34am today
Comment 73 of 111
If the father has the children now anyway, why did the mother have to be jailed. Wouldnt losing the kids to this guy be punnishment enough or did the court want its drop of blood as well. The woman was obviously misguided and now distraught and its not a good message to send to the kids by disobeying the court but losing them should have been what it cost her, not her freedom.
Posted by: Ivan Schloeffel of Dubbo 11:32am today
Comment 72 of 111
Finally justice is being served on a person who deliberately and blatantly disobeys the law. I've had to deal with many contraventions by the mother of my children and each time the courts have said "naughty, naughty, don't do it again" and refused to take any action. This is happening to many other fathers and their children also. Women are getting away serious child abuse and it needs to be stopped.
Posted by: Tom Knoll of Melbourne 11:29am today
Comment 71 of 111
Why would the mother be so defiant and not allow the children to see their farther, even supervised, she is claiming the children would be in danger that in itself has to raise some sort of concern. While I experience a court case of my own, when my ex husband came across the Tasman outside of school holidays taking the children for a weekend I saw them 3wks later, with no contact, no idea of there wereabouts, needless to say I was beside myself, . Mine were later found (with their father) in a run down Motel in Sydney's South. Not that they were in any danger, he broke the rules and lost my trust and also disturbed the children, they still mention it sometimes and this was 3yrs ago. I hope this case does not turn into a fatality.
Posted by: concerned mum of Sydney 11:28am today
Comment 70 of 111
I agree with Sydney wholeheartedly. The mother and ONLY the mother knows what is happening to her child by the other parent. The courts do NOT care about abuse, they care only about beeing seen to be fair so that they do not get appeals on their cases. I would also go to jail to protect my kids, the unfortunate thing here is that because of the judge making this decision, the children will now be wit the father fulltime without any supervision and she cannot now do anything about it, he has been awarded custody and she will now look like the bad parent becasue of the criminal conviction and may have to fight to regain custody on her return from jail.I feel for her and her children.
Posted by: angellee of sydney 11:25am today
Comment 69 of 111
This isn't about other cases, its about the rule of law and this particular case. The court decision was made, clearly over and over again it was decided the father was no risk to the children. The mother refused to abide by the decision. The only way to enforce the court's decision was harsh, but the courts must prevail.
Posted by: Timmuh of - 11:17am today
Comment 68 of 111
As a non-custodial parent I can saying nothing but 'its about time.' dont know how many times I have been denied contact by my ex spouse who LIED in the family courts about abuse (both physical and sexual) and has treated the children as possession to be dealt to me when she feels fit. I for one will take this decision into the court so maybe I can finally have some justice when it comes to COURT ORDERS. The Family court is a joke. Its orders arent worth toilet paper. It is stacked with bias and lies aimed directly at fathers. This decision shows that the contempt that some women hold for orders will now be treated as they should be - as a criminal offence. Fathers should have exactly the same rights as mothers when they stand before the magistrate. We need a royal commision - an open and transparent one - into the actions and decisions of this court. Anyone who says there is no bias is a person who must have either no real knowledge of its actions or have a vested interest. Fathers just want to see their children. Is that so bad?
Posted by: Anton of Geelong 11:09am today
Comment 67 of 111
At the end of the day it is the children who suffer the most. Seperated parents need to let go of their crap and think about the impact their bitterness between eachother is having on their kids.
Posted by: JP of Sydney 11:02am today
Comment 66 of 111
Dear C.Back.Of Obviously you have never been in either a physical or abusive relationship, or seen/heard your child being physically/verbally abused. NOBODY male or female should be allowed to see their child if there is even a minute chance that the child is in any danger. You cannot tell me that it is in the childs best interest to have both a mother and a father if one of the parents is abusive? A bad case of rose coloured glasses I think!
Posted by: Marc Stu of Sydney 10:55am today
Comment 65 of 111
I think Emma is right, particuarly in the courts and the parents acting in "THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST". However, the case of father's not seeking full time care was in my case the advice of my solicitors telling you, you can't expect any better than the usual every second weekend and half the school holidays. I think that locking a few mothers up will in the long term lead to greater compliance with Court Orders, in much the same way as the power of the CSA have over non-custodial parents.
Posted by: Steve of Sydney 10:55am today
Comment 64 of 111
Louise, think about this. Why would a person choose jail over giving access to the father? I figure it's because she believes the kids are better off without him in their lives. Absolutely people need to grow up and stop fighting over their kids. And it's great that your children get to see your ex. But I'm guessing that your ex is a good dad. What would you do if he wasn't? Wouldn't you do everything you could to protect your children? Sometimes it's not about fighting over kids as possessions, but fighting for the right of the children to be safe and secure. How does sending their mother to jail achieve that?? If I believed my son wouldn't be safe with another person, no matter who they were, I wouldn't allow them anywhere near him. I empathise with fathers who are refused access to their kids, it's hideous, and I do believe the law needs to work with both parties to achieve the best outcome for the kids. But this particular situation is not about them. This is about a mother who believed she was doing the right thing for her children and felt so strongly about it that she was willing to take the consequences. The law be damned, I say.
Posted by: Sydney 10:46am today
Comment 63 of 111
You would hope that this is a wake up call for mothers who defy Family Court orders, but don't hold your breath... Along with false allegations of violence in custody disputes and the appalling behaviour of the Child Support Agency, we have a long way to go before fathers get a fair deal.
Posted by: Brett of Gosford 10:45am today
Comment 62 of 111
The ignorance of the majority of these posts shows me that not enough people go and sit in the public arenas of courts so they can see the tanty throwing, bullying tactics of judges, magistrates. If you've been there in your case, perhaps you're a tad one eyed? The Australia says no to violence campaign hasn't reached the courts, its own Family Violence strategy is ignored, and woe betide any parent stupid enough to to report the other parent has sexually abused a minor child. The courts do not give a damn about incestuous parents and punish the protective parent. They punish those whose children are too young to give evidence, and repeatedly award custody to the violent parent to punish the parent for speaking out. If a parent cannot in conscience hand over a child to a known perpetrator, no matter what the courts have found (or the state has not bothered to investigate, and tells a judge 'I cannot, if you want to take responsibility YOU do it, perhaps it points to I'd rather go to jail that particpate in the ongoing rape of my child.
Posted by: Robyn Jones of Hunter 10:38am today
Comment 61 of 111
What amazes me in many of the comments is the assumption (without foundation in the story) that the father is abusive. The cases of post natal depression and mothers taking their children's lives seem to be forgotten here. i too have experienced the family court and am lucky enough to have shared care of my children, talk to them daily and even bought a home two streets away from their other home so we could be close. They are both well adjusted and capable boys thanks to having two loving parents who are able to be adult enough to recognise that even if they no longer like each other, that the kids come first. That being said it has taken three years in order for my ex to come around to the fact that it is in the best interests of the children to share the parenting between us. Unfortunatley the media reports the "sensational" and it sells stories. Given the large and increasing number of seperated households perhaps it is important to look at what is the norm and not sensationalise the minority.
Posted by: Lucky Dad of sydney 10:33am today
Comment 60 of 111
What amazes me in many of the comments is the assumption (without foundation in the story) that the father is abusive. The cases of post natal depression and mothers taking their children's lives seem to be forgotten here. i too have experienced the family court and am lucky enough to have shared care of my children, talk to them daily and even bought a home two streets away from their other home so we could be close. They are both well adjusted and capable boys thanks to having two loving parents who are able to be adult enough to recognise that even if they no longer like each other, that the kids come first. That being said it has taken three years in order for my ex to come around to the fact that it is in the best interests of the children to share the parenting between us. Unfortunatley the media reports the "sensational" and it sells stories. Given the large and increasing number of seperated households perhaps it is important to look at what is the norm and not sensationalise the minority.
Posted by: Lucky Dad of sydney 10:31am today
Comment 59 of 111
It is a pity that it has come to this, however in this instance the mother has made her bed - now she must accept the consequences. There is an amount of pride that goes through separations and custody battles, and it takes a big person to give up that time with a child for the benefit of the child to have time with the other parent. There is still an old mindset lingering around about "mother's rights", which was what I had to fight. It is archaic, and the child has every right to equal access to both parents. There are circumstances where this does not happen due to whatever personal issues - however the status quo should remain equal. Fathers have had a rough deal for a long time, and personally, I would do anything to have more time with my daughter, however I accept the arrangement that is in place purely not to put my daughter through any further grief. My plea to all parents - give up you pride - and allow equal access for your child to both parents.
Posted by: Squizy 10:30am today
Comment 58 of 111
A Child has the right to know and see both parents. If the mother was concerned about the safety of the children whilst they were with their father then supervised visitation was the way to go. Unfortunately a lot of women think that they OWN their children and will do anything to stop their exes from seeing the children, even lying, to get back at them or even with them which is very sad, but, it does happen. I'm not saying that this is the case here. Surely when this woman was placed on a good behaviour bond that she would of understood the ramifications of breaking the bond. The Judge would have explained it to her. Also if she didn't understand Free legal advice can be obtained through the Family Law Court itself. My concern now is what will happen to the children while the mother is in jail.
Posted by: GLORIA of DULWICH HILL 10:18am today
Comment 57 of 111
WAKE UP AUSTRALIA !!!! I do not know of any mothers who do not make all decisions with the children as the main focus. My ex appears to be a fantastic father, he is certainly manipulating anyone who will listen, but if he was this fantastic I wouldn't have left him in the first place. No one knows what happens behind closed doors and of course most things are hard to prove in the courts. My main point is that NOT ALL CHILDEN NEED ACCESS TO THEIR BIOLOGICAL FATHER!!! If there is conflict, I child should not be stuck in the middle. There are never 2 prime ministers of a country. I doubt every man out there would know exactly how many children he has to 100% surety, but every single woman does!! So lets let mothers be mothers, because they are the best at it and instinctively know what is right for their children. "Wronged" fathers should go out and have more children with another. Men should not be allowed to control child raising, let us get on with it! Mothers need the lobbying that fathers are getting at the moment. As for the "new" woman in the fathers life, leave children alone that are not yours and in most cases you seem to be fighting for the fathers "rights" not for the well-being of the kids. GOOD LUCK TO ALL MOTHERS!
Posted by: Sharon 10:13am today
Comment 56 of 111
Lots of good points here. Yes six years is unequivocal proof that the system has failed. It is completely unacceptable to have a six year gap if he was trying all of his legal avenues. Another point is that yes, often one parent is BETTER for the kids than the other BUT that does not mean that it is in the best interests of the child to have no contact. No contact should only be an option when there is danger. Overall, it does seem too easy for a custodial parent to deny access. The law must be changed to ensure that failure to hand the children over at the right time and place at the beginning of a planned access visit is just as serious an offence as not returning them at the end of the visit.
Posted by: gav 10:12am today
Comment 55 of 111
As a former coordinator of a children's access centre, I have to say that it is (unfortunately) extremely rare for the Family Court to take action in cases where the custodial parent does not comply with orders. This woman was only sent to jail after six years of litigation involving 22 Family Court and Federal Magistrates' Court hearings. Some might see this as indicative of the mother's commitment to her beliefs and her desire to protect her children. Others might see it as indicative of the admirable perseverance of a loving father. Whatever the case may be, the myth that motherhood bestows some sort of sanctity is a quaint and bigoted notion that is well past its use by date.
Posted by: Grey of Coffs 10:11am today
Comment 54 of 111
I spent $40,000 trying to get access to my kids and lost everything I owned except for some furniture and some cloths and got that after I was advised to raid the house during the day by my lawyer . I see my kids every fortnight during school term only,despite court orders .My ex holds all the power and tells me when I can see them or not . If I take her back to court they will give her a slap on the wrrist and change nothing .The court orders are for the children ,but there is no "custody police " that can ensure orders are followed.
Posted by: M of Adealide 10:07am today
Comment 53 of 111
I agree it is about time that the courts punish mothers (and fathers) who deny the other parent contact with the child. In our situation, there is no history of violence, physical or otherwise, just a spiteful mother who when she didnt get her own way took away the child. She has broken numerous court orders and the only threatened punishment she has had is Legal Aid threatening to take away her funding. Good on you Magistrate Jarrett for sticking up for the rights of "the other parent."
Posted by: N of Brissy of Brisbane 10:04am today
Comment 52 of 111
To Louise of Sydney, what do you think the mother's financial input is compared to your husband's assessed $500/month? I'm going to assume it's more. Child support is high because bringing up children costs a lot of money. If you don't want to have a considerable financial burden for 20 years, the only real solution is not to have children or not to be involved with someone else who has them. It IS going to be expensive, and it IS going to impact your lifestyle financial.
Posted by: Emma Robson of Sydney 10:02am today
Comment 51 of 111
Patricia Merkin 8:13am today said " Why would she refuse"?? Spite, espeically if the bloke started going out with her sister or best friend.......
Posted by: Victim Syndrome of Lismore 9:58am today
Comment 50 of 111
"Fathers have rights just like a mother does. If this was the other way around the father would have been locked up for alot less and alot longer." That is absolutely not true - as pointed out in the article it almost never reaches the point of anyone going to jail, and this is a fairly exceptional case. The focus of the family court is NOT the best interests of the parents, it is actually the best interests of the child. It is also worth noting that in the vast majority of cases (and this is a FACT) the father does not actually request or want full time custody - this only happens in a relatively small minority of cases. And to Patricia Merkin, if the court believes there is a risk, they can organise supervised access. No system is infallible, as nice as that would be. No matter what standards you apply, there are always going to be individual cases and situations that fall through the cracks.
Posted by: Emma of Sydney 9:47am today
Comment 49 of 111
this is not about denying an abusive father the right to see his kids, this man had the right to see his children, the mother refused to comply with the court orders, so she is now punished and so she should be. good on the father, i supportive of both parents having a relationshp with their children, and that means access for both parents.
Posted by: c.back 9:47am today
Comment 48 of 111
yeah & they give a covicted peadofile 1 month jail it really doesnt surprise me
Posted by: shane fitzpatrick of sydney 9:45am today
Comment 47 of 111
I have been unfortunate enough to have had experience in a number of courts, including the Family Court, and I have found that if a person swears on the bible that what they are saying is true, the judge believes them regardless of the credibility of what they are saying and any evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: MW 9:24am today
Comment 46 of 111
God forbid we read in a few months how another father has killed himself and his kids to get back at his ex.
Posted by: Diane Magaric of Mt Kuring-gai 9:23am today
Comment 45 of 111
The mother even refused supervised visits?! The Courts had no other alternative but to jail her. It is well documented in the media every other day (and by research) that the new partners of mothers are the most likely to maim or kill their children, and sadly, mothers kill their children too! Children NEED a mother AND a father. "Parental Alienation Syndrome" is well and truly alive in this country. (Look it up on the net). How about mothers AND fathers who have custody put the NEEDS of their children beyond the hatred they feel for their ex-spouses? Of course, in some cases the parent should be denied access. After spending well over $100 000 in the Courts fighting to maintain a relationship with his children, my husband gave up. There was never any consequence, and the associated Court costs took all the money. The children have been denied (by the mother) access to a wonderful father. The mother may have believed she has "won," but there are really no winners when children are deprived of a father (or mother: whatever the case may be).
Posted by: Danee Wilson 9:21am today
Comment 44 of 111
To Sydney of are you kidding? This woman was holding her kids hostage. She was given a choice, she chose jail. Unless there is abuse, neglect etc a child has the right to grow up knowing their dad. I am sick of spiteful mothers keeping their children from their dads for trivial reasons like not paying child support. Why should a child be punished because dad can't afford to pay what CSA says? My ex certainly can't afford the $500+/month CSA assessed, but the children see their dad at least 3 full weekends a month, talk on the phone when they want & go away in the school holidays. This arrangement was worked out without solicitors or the courts. Some people need to grow up & stop fighting over their kids like they are a possession. Do what's best for the children.
Posted by: Louise of Sydney 9:16am today
Comment 43 of 111
To Sydney of are you kidding? This woman was holding her kids hostage. She was given a choice, she chose jail. Unless there is abuse, neglect etc a child has the right to grow up knowing their dad. I am sick of spiteful mothers keeping their children from their dads for trivial reasons like not paying child support. Why should a child be punished because dad can't afford to pay what CSA says? My ex certainly can't afford the $500+/month CSA assessed, but the children see their dad at least 3 full weekends a month, talk on the phone when they want & go away in the school holidays. This arrangement was worked out without solicitors or the courts. Some people need to grow up & stop fighting over their kids like they are a possession. Do what's best for the children.
Posted by: Louise of Sydney 9:14am today
Comment 42 of 111
A lot of good comments and certainly worth value on both sides. The most important thing is the children's welfare at the end of the day; sadly there are quite a few mothers out there that believe there actions of dividing the family is not harming the kids. I am not condoning bad fathers as there is naturally a percentage out there, but why is that everyone must feel sorry for mothers and kick the dads in the guts. Do they not have feelings for their children? I have been trying to sort issues out with my ex for the past 10 years, from consent orders through to agreed payments outside of CSA and what do I get back? Zip. Their mother has gotten inside their heads to turn them away from my side of the family, including their siblings (half brother and sister) from my current marriage. She has moved them from state to state while I have tried getting orders put in place, the kids attended 4 different schools in two years. The eldest is 15 and has lived in 15 different houses, with an obvious run down through to the youngest. Why has she done this, to deny me any rights the way she see's fit just to upset me and my new family. A few years ago it brought me to the brink of quitting life, thank god for my supportive and loving wife. It's about time mother's starting being made examples of as they are definitely not all innocent; there is such a thing as a "dead-beat Mum" and they too need to be exposed. Agree totally with akiiva and Stepmum of sydney, neville of sydney - some mum's don't deserve to be mum's either and the world is not flat.
Posted by: tired of fighting ex of sydney 9:14am today
Comment 41 of 111
Spite is such a powerful motivator. This woman would rather go to gaol than give one nansecond of consideration to her kids' father. Spite, pure and simple - "I've got the bag of lollies and I ain't gonna share". Then to justify it, pull out the old "he's violent" accusation. It's about time a few more of these spiteful and malicious women got locked up.
Posted by: Jack Richards of Snowy Mountains 9:14am today
Comment 40 of 111
Its comments like those of Patricia Merkin that should have us all worried, ¿bad parents end up with their children and good ones end up in jail¿¿.I can only assume you are a jaded individual, and as such; we should all have serious concerns for your children and ex-spouse.
Posted by: josie halloway of canberra 9:10am today
Comment 39 of 111
The mother would have been more use to her children outside of jail. Do you think she had this in mind when she decided to accept a prison sentence? IT's all about EGO. Stupid stupid stupid parents. Always remember "the best interest of the child"... IT's NOT ABOUT YOU!
Posted by: Michelle of NSW 9:01am today
Comment 38 of 111
Good to see the bias against fathers is now gone in the courts, if not the posters here. 'a woman protecting her children', from what? The article says no where that the father is in anyway a danger to the children, why shouldn't he see them as per the custody agreements? It is not the mother's decision to make on whether children get to see their father, the story doesn't say whether the children want to see their father or not. Just seems to describe a petty, selfish woman, could be wrong but the story doesn't give enough information to decide either way.
Posted by: tragic of Canberra 8:50am today
Comment 37 of 111
Thank God for this judgment, being the father of a child who's mother had taken off interstate, I know the inadequacy's of the system. Mothers need to be accountable for their behavior and fathers need more justice in the courts, I hope this is the first of many wrongs made right in the courts.As long as your female you have parental rights , the parental rights of the father are just about paying up to top up the womans pension,not about being able to spend quality time with the kids you love.This woman should be made to foot the bill for all the time that this man has been dragged through the courts. Best of luck Dad ,chock one up for the fathers of this country.
Posted by: The Chooksta of Newtown NSW 8:49am today
Comment 36 of 111
About time.
Posted by: stuart of sydney 8:35am today
Comment 35 of 111
I went through something similar though less extreme i had a costly & long battle to achieve a 60/40 agreement though it has become more flexible over time, Its unfortunate that the mother was jailed but women in general in Australia need to learn that times have changed & that children deserve equal time with each parent , i found a culture exists when a marriage fails that the mother thinks & in most ways was able to call all the shots in terms of child access, it was extremely unfair system & i am glda to see it come to an end, congratulations to the father, lets hope when the mother is released common sense will prevail & the kids can see both parents, after all its about the kids & what is best for them, its too easy when going through a seperation for parents to lose sight of that & become bitter & vindictive, its a sad fact but many custodial parents try to make the non custodial parent see their children as lilttle as possible for no other reason than to be vindictive
Posted by: David of wagga 8:35am today
Comment 34 of 111
Fathers have rights as well, its about time the law recognised this....if the mother is that much of bitter ex that she wants to deny her kids a father, then she deserves to loose the kids....if people acted like adults in the beginning this would never have happened.
Posted by: matthew 8:34am today
Comment 33 of 111
To Patricia Merkin. I read your comments and then re-read the article. Where does it talk about violence and abuse??? Don't turn this into a gender war. Stick to the facts. 1. The Family court heard evidence (after 6 years I'm guessing it was a lot of evidence including Family Reports, police records, counsellors etc). 2. The judge made a decision that it was in the best intersts of the children to see their father. 3. The mother decided that the law did not apply to her. $. She was warned. 5. She decided again that she did not have to follow the law. No surprises what happened. What is the point of having laws that are optional.
Posted by: KR of Byron Bay 8:33am today
Comment 32 of 111
I don't fully understand this case, but it seemed the mother was concerned for her children, no one listened and she (and they) ended up worse off. It is important to keep children safe, even if no one listens to you. If you believe they are in danger, protect them. For example, it is a criminal offence to make false child abuse reports. But in SA the local law means criminals can walk away scot free. Notifiers can tell lies about children and damage their liberty, safety and freedom (and telling lies is just the tip of the iceberg in many cases). Your only choice when criminals aren't dealt with by the system is to protect yourself and your children.
Posted by: goldilocks 8:32am today
Comment 31 of 111
I left my husband because of violence (in the end police took out an AVO on my behalf)- He wanted to hide his true nature from family and friends and keep seeing his children as they were a "possesion" We went to court many times - each time I had to allow access as he was their father. It came as no surprise to me when the children got old enough to have an opinion, that caring daddy started punching and beating them - thankfully they are old enough to say they don't want to see him now. The courts have a hard time, I'm sure, deciding each case on its merits, but I felt we were just sausages churning along a well worn path. No personal input necessary!
Posted by: mum from central coast 8:29am today
Comment 30 of 111
Another case of adults acting like children, if it wasn't for people like this we would'nt need courts.....if people acted thier age and came to a normal agreement after they split up this would not happen.....not all marriage's work out, but the children should NEVER be used as a tool of torment against each other, if you split up with your partner, then all you need to do is come to some sort of arrangment that allows both parents to see the kids and vice verser....
Posted by: matthew 8:29am today
Comment 29 of 111
Why would a woman refuse, in the face of jail, to comply with orders sending the children to their father? The Family Court are mandated by the Constitution to focus on parental rights. It's no wonder that bad parents end up with their children and good ones end up in jail. It is high time that cases that involve abuse and violence be removed out of the family court jurisdiction, because their focus is the parents, in an environment where they are not required to make further enquiries other than that what the parties present as evidence. This woman was self-represented. How much experience would she have had in evidential process? Does anybody remember the case in April 2004 where a family court judge sent two children with their father despite evidence that he was violent? Those children were killed on those orders and nothing has changed.
Posted by: Patricia Merkin 8:13am today
Comment 28 of 111
Its about time that the courts punish those parents who deny access to the other parent, in this case yes it was a mother who denied access to a father, yet there are plenty of fathers out there who deny access of the children to their mothers. This is a sad fact of child custody matters, some parents feel that they are above the law and put their needs first and decide on their own terms that the kids will better off without the other parent or in a lot of cases.... its just plain spite and its a horrible thing to do to the children and the other parent of these children. im glad that the courts have finally decided to act, im sorry for the mother, but i am especially sorry to those children and their father who have missed out on time together and 4 months in jail does very little to bring back that lost time.
Posted by: c.back 8:13am today
Comment 27 of 111
What about the fathers who dont want to see their children? Who doesnt acknowledge the children's birthdays. What about the grandparents and the aunties and uncles who also dont acknowledge the children's birhdays. Is this fare on the children, do they deserve to be treated like this, who has to explain to the children why there are no pressents from the father or his family, of course the mother. Some fathers dont deserve to be fathers.
Posted by: neville 8:12am today
Comment 26 of 111
I find the comments interesting considering the amount of information we have been given - and also the reputation some journalists have for biased reporting. I have been in a court room where a father swore up and down that he had never hit his wife (my current wife) even though physical violence had been occuring for 13 years; lets not even start on the mental abuse which he refuses to believe actually exists.
Posted by: James of Sydney 8:11am today
Comment 25 of 111
My daughter's father had wanted nothing to do with her for almost 7 years he even denied paternity until he thought that he would get something from it, I had never recieved child support never wanted it either until a magistrate decided that it was fine for her to go to his house every second weekend and half the holidays. A few weeks ago he told her and myself that she wasn not to return to his due to her not listening. The following fortnight my daughter told me she didn't want to go back so she let him know that she was not going and he carried on saying he ran the show and not to speak to him like that in front of your c!@# of a mother, is it no wonder she does not want to return to his house?? He know after only 7 months being in her life wants nothing to do with her ever again. I have broken the court orders am I going to jail because my child has made a decision?
Posted by: Sam 8:09am today
Comment 24 of 111
To Daniel of Ontairo, My sister in law experienced the same issues as you, her Australian husband would not support her reisidency status and tried everything to get her deported, although he brother and I were citizens, in the end we contact the local MP, and within weeks she was granted residency and family support payments, and after 6 months had a full time job, her idiot ex husband refused to support the child and decided never to see the child until she turned 13 when he was diagnosed with cancer and is dying. Never give up on that child of yours and seek legal advice, you as a father have rights as well.
Posted by: Harry's Mum of Brisbane 8:08am today
Comment 23 of 111
Where did this woman think the kids would go considering she obviously knew she risked a jail sentence?? I assume it was a conscience decision to be able to reason that she went to jail rather than agreeing that Dad have time with them and adhere to legal contact orders. Basically an unsafe environment and/or not in the childrens' best interest is what will stop the non custodial parent gaining more access. Suddenly decent people are being accused of vile behaviour. We were accused in court of disgusting things but a week later i looked after the kids for a few hours as mum had something on................. Seems you can say whatever you like in a legal document entered into court yet are not accountable for any of its content. Sadly I can now start to understand why people suicide over the constant emotional/legal battle of trying to maintain a relationship with their children post breakup with an angry ex spouse.
Posted by: Stepmum of Sydney 8:08am today
Comment 22 of 111
Obviously, the court does not have the best interests of the children in mind when making decisions like this. Why cannot the politicians make the law so that the major consideration is given towards the best interests of the child? How can anyone consider a tug of war between parents can do the child any benefit? A child needs stability and certainty to be able to develop fully, and these battles between parents does not serve well for the child to achieve full potential.
Posted by: Wayne of Cairns 8:08am today
Comment 21 of 111
Are you kidding me?? People murder, maim, assault each other and escape jail terms, and this woman gets sent to prison for protecting her children?? This is a frigging joke and yet another example of the stupid patriachal justice system.
Posted by: Sydney 8:06am today
Comment 20 of 111
About bloody time. I'm sick of seeing pretentious mommies get custody of their children no matter what the actual situation is. The reality is that these women will do anything, ANYTHING, in their power to inflict as much damage as they possibly can on the father, completely ignoring the damage that this is doing to her own children. By this alone, they're the ones that should have supervised access. And to all those that spout the "No mother is prepared to go to jail for no good reason she must genuinely feel they are threatened" argument - get a life. Start looking at peoples motivations with some realism. Thinking your way, I could say, that imagine what an absolute rot-bag she must be, that the judge, who has plenty experience in dealing with cases like this, decided to toss her in the slammer. T This treatment of the "mum" as a pure, sinless, benevolent goddess has seriously gotten out of hand.
Posted by: akiiva of sydney 8:05am today
Comment 19 of 111
It is about time that the courts put mothers who blantantly ignore access court orders for fathers to have access to their children. I have not seen my daughter for 7 years now as each time I go to pick her up for the court aplroved access my daughter is not home, or no ones home or its only the new husbands who tells me tp f### off. Start throwing more of these mother in jail. If a father has to attend court more than 3 times to get court approved access enforced, send the mother to jail and let the father have full custody.
Posted by: Sydney Dad of Sydney 7:57am today
Comment 18 of 111
Good on you dad, now you have six years to catch up with your children all the best and good luck. Daniel of Ontario, keep sending those parcels to your son and when they come back keep them and send them to him when he turns eighteen. To all the other dads going through the same or similar s***, keep your chin up and soldier on.
Posted by: Glen Mathie of Newport 7:45am today
Comment 17 of 111
It is one thing to deny access to hurt the father but why would she go to jail if it was just for spite? It makes no sense. People who say "Hah. she should suffer for the years that men suffered" are speaking out spite and therefore being ill informed. Many of the times women have a romantic view of a person and stay and stay until it is too late and children are involved. She fought in the worst possible way and now has ensured that the father has 100% access to those kids instead of supervised visits. I hope the kids are ok.
Posted by: Seth of Canberra 7:44am today
Comment 16 of 111
What a shame... a shame it took six years, and 22 court appearances. Why didnt the courts act sooner? That father has missed enjoying a part of those children growing up, and those children have missed his company and guidance. What a shame that more magistrates dont do the same in their courts.. the women know that they can get away with anything, again and again. And legal aid goads them on.....
Posted by: richard clark of sydney. 7:43am today
Comment 15 of 111
It took six years and 22 Family Court and Federal Magistrates' Court hearings to put the female away. Any bloke would have been a goner on day one.
Posted by: Cheney.D 7:43am today
Comment 14 of 111
I hope this sends a message to all those women who deny their chldren access to their fathers and the grandparents and other relatives on his side of the family. Sure, she may have had good reason to go to such extremes, but she could have accepted Supervised Access when it was offered - at least she would have had some control over the situation then. Children need their fathers and the extended family, no matter how bad the mother thinks that is - even limited access can stop lots of resentment in the future. How would the mother feel if she is denied access to her grandchildren after her children's relationships breakdown ??
Posted by: DIane 7:37am today
Comment 13 of 111
My full support to Michael Jarrett on this case. How many times do we see the Custodial Parent relocate just to make it impossible for the non custodial parent to have access rights,is it fare that a custodial parent can use a child as a weapon just to hurt there EX as much as possible,there are many fathers out there that are in great distress due to a spitful EX partner.its time for the courts to put there foot down and make it clear to all custodian parents that if you ignor the court ruling in regards to access then you loose the right to gardianship of that child.
Posted by: Mark Williams of Port Macquarie 7:37am today
Comment 12 of 111
I don't care about either parent in any of these situations - all I can think is those poor children. How mortifying it must be to grow up knowing you were made by a pair of complete f*wits, barely more than children themselves, with no intelligence or maturity or sense of committment or understanding that a child is an enormous responsibility, always and forever. By all means, marry idiots, screw around as much as you want, spend months in court fighting about the rental properties and a share of income that was never yours and you couldn't ever prove a moral entitlement to. For God's sake, just don't conceive.
Posted by: Bitten 7:34am today
Comment 11 of 111
I feel that sometimes women try to hurt the father because if whatever he did but at the same time they do not realize that the ones that they are hurting are the children. Keeping the children away from their parents (either or) is only going to hurt them in the future unless there is a fair reason for it. She was being selfish and for some reason I can't help but wonder if she did all of that intentionally thinking that she was going to win and it ended up backfiring on her
Posted by: Bridget of Jersey City, NJ 7:24am today
Comment 10 of 111
Lets be fair here............There would be a hell of alot more to this story than what we know so lets not all start doing the blame game as if we did. There are 2 very long and complicated sides to this subject - I am a mother who has been through court many times getting custody of my kids and doing everything possible to protect them from their mental case of a father. For that I had many documented reasons. Although this was necessary for the safety and wellbeing of my children at the same time it broke my heart that they couldnt have a proper dad. Some men DO NOT deserve to have kids. However,I know of alot of women who deliberately keep their kids away from their wonderful and deserving fathers and nothing makes me angrier when children have a father who just wants to love them and take the best care of them but the woman wants to keep them apart out of spite. No woman has that right and from a woman who always just wanted that kind of dad for my kids you don't have any idea what kind of pain you are inflicting. Some women DO NOT deserve to have kids. Each case is different and needs to be judged on there own merits.
Posted by: KJ of Gold Coast 7:23am today
Comment 9 of 111
David - you're not making your maintenance payments fair enough. CSA should do what they're doing too many dead beat dads out there. Genlte of QLD sounds like a sad case but I wonder how much of your story is just one side of the Story, the courts in this country have rigid rules of evidence and if the things you said couldn't be proven then... And omse kids from "good" families end up in jail. Jail for any parent is harsh but parents should understand despite their differences children are entitled to a relationship with both mum and dad, get on with it put your differences aside and put your kids needs first.
Posted by: Dino 7:22am today
Comment 8 of 111
Some cases are legit where the Father is being hard done by. Then there are others where either the mother OR the father should not have access to the kids for different reasons and if they do it should be supervised. You have to take every case differently. I think the mother wouldn't be going to such drastic lengths if she thought the kids were going to be same though.
Posted by: Sarah of sydney 6:51am today
Comment 7 of 111
It's about time something like this happened.To many times the mother will do anything to inflict as much pain as possible on to the father as payback. Maybe this will start to change things regarding how hurtful alot of controlling mothers can be but i doubt it. Fathers have rights just like a mother does. If this was the other way around the father would have been locked up for alot less and alot longer.
Posted by: Stephen best of ballina 6:33am today
Comment 6 of 111
This is what men have had to go through for yrs. About time some equality in the family courts.
Posted by: Daddy of sydeny 5:39am today
Comment 5 of 111
yes I've known a case where the mother fought tooth and nail not to let the father have access but the courts wouldn't listen - she told the courts the children were in danger - the father had been jailed for marijuana growing, had a molotov cocktail thrown in his front yard near one of the children, he slept with two women in his bed around the children and had pornograhy on the television in front of the children who were about 5 and 8 at the time and did other things I can't write about - the children showed clear signs of distress and abhorrent behaviour but no one would listen to the mother- the eldest of the children grew up and ended up in jail for violent behaviour and the younger one had huge social integration problems -- she used to cry every weekend when they were forced to go away with him - but the courts kept telling her the laws the law. No mother is prepared to go to jail for no good reason she must genuinely feel they are threatened - the law is not about justice any more and who was looking after the children in this woman's case - only the mother - with no help from the law ........ and the kids suffered in the long run because the father washed his hands of them when they grew too old for him to be bothered.
Posted by: gentle of queensland 3:08am today
Comment 4 of 111
I'm assuming he already had those criminal convictions BEFORE she had 2 children to him. Sorry honey - you can't SUDDENLY decide that those convictions mean he wont be a good father, and decide to keep his children from him. This is your own fault.
Posted by: cyn 2:18am today
Comment 3 of 111
I was married to a Australian lady for 2 years. She would not support my application for residency, thus I had to return to Canada. I was employed by the NSW Government for the full time I was in your country and introduced a number of harm minisation strategies to reduce alcohol related anti social behaviour. We have a beautiful son who will be 5 this year. I have had no contact with him since I left or with his mother. She will not return email messages, phone messages and to add insult to injusry she sends back anything I post to him, clearly written in her hand writing address unknown. Is it fair to me...
Posted by: Daniel Ramer of Midland, Ontario, Canada 2:10am today
Comment 2 of 111
I being a father who has been diened visiting my children for 7 years. Dispite the court granting me rights to see my children twice a year. The problem in my case is not my ex wife but CSA, who deem the i am not unemployed in Malaysia (no matter what info I supply to prove I hVE NOT WORKED SINCE 2003) any way that is another matter being guilty with CSA until proved inicent. I have asked to visit my children (note I am now married to a Malayisan citizen CSA say can visit but not return to my present wife. Hence in my option CSA is breaking a court order allowing me to visit. Ah life Australuia public service sucks they forget who they work for.
Posted by: David 12:29am today
Comment 1 of 111
posted by TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon @ 2:27 AM
0 comments
Have you experienced a similar situation? Tell us via the feedback form below. We may not be able to publish some comments for legal reasons but we will read them all.