Reversing the onus

Immediately enforceable Recovery of Contact Order (RCO)

After much discussion with the Richard Hillman Foundation, Adelaide
and others regarding concerns when one parent really is a danger to their
own children, (a situation I find hard to imagine but am assured is
sometimes a problem) I believe RCOs can include the following safeguards:

If the mother, for example, wanted to resist the RCO on the grounds of
genuine concerns for the child's safety with the other parent, two options
are available to her;

1. She lays charges with the police of child abuse (that could include
serious neglect), which would immediately prevent the enforcement of the RCO
until it can be adjudicated in court.

2. She breaches the order, in which case she's got some explaining to do
when it comes to court (all RCOs would be subject to a prompt hearing in the
Magistrates or District Court just like AVOs).

Child welfare / protection agencies,
I believe these are very dangerous because they almost always approach the
problem by taking sides. Its just the way they operate - unsophisticated as
it is. Mainly due to the anti-male culture of the industry, the feminist
teachings (all men are rapists/bastards) and the immaturity and lack of life
experience of the staff. They also subject children to invasive and
suggestive interrogation. I believe the above two safeguards
provide children with adequate protection from 'monster parents'.

It should be borne in mind that the RCOs will provide for *up to* 50% shared
parenting. Fathers or mothers could opt for less than 50% if they wanted.
Family Relationship centres would be able to operate effectively because one
parent would not be able to exclude the other, off their own bat.

*Presumption of Equal Parenting Time*
The RCO is the only way a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time can be
protected - otherwise one parent can exclude the other, and thereby forcing
them to mount a legal challenge to attempt to regain contact with their
children.

*PR*
RCOs are designed to protect children from the dangers associated with
losing the care and protection of having both parents. eg: abuse and neglect,
emotional and developmental problems, drug abuse, teen pregnancy

- and sexual abuse (sole parents need a
break, they can't look after their children 24/7).

RCOs are not about men's rights - they are about children's safety and best
interests. Opponents of Presumption of Equal Parenting Time and RCOs start
to be seen for what they are - vested interests who are disinterested in
protecting children from harm.

*Family Violence* be it real or contrived, must not be allowed to have any
bearing on equal parenting arrangements when change over can be made at
school or through third parties.

*Benefits*
Contrary to popular belief, the Family Court doesn't exclude fathers from
children's lives. Rather it prevents fathers from being reunited with their
children after they've been excluded by the other parent - unilaterally.
It's an important difference. Once the onus of proof is born by the
excluder, courts can be expected to be as obstructive as they are now - of
efforts to exclude one parent (eg: the father).

The Family Court is very reluctant to make decisions that change the
arrangements for children without lots of "expert" involvement - eg:
physiological and psychiatric reports, Family Welfare reports etc. When a
child's association with both parents is protected by law with RCOs the
situation is reversed. The excluder must substantiate their case - not the
excluded. Most Judges will be disinclined to upset living arrangements for
children on the basis of unproven allegations - more so since recent
governments directives to support the shared parenting.

Most women won't feel desperate enough (and therefore vulnerable to
solicitors and other "professionals") in the initial stages of custody
litigation to make outrageously false allegations. They won't have to fear
losing their children to the other parent for a start. Their contact with
their children will be protected as much as the father's. Plus their
children will not have been exposed to the conflict of custody litigation
for long enough to be traumatised.

For cases where mothers do make nasty false allegations "right out of the
box", they will need to be much more credible. Polygraph testing could be a
good way of dealing with these cases if and when they arise.

Its a known fact that most sexual abuse allegations get made as a last
resort, after protracted litigation. They seldom get made in the initial
instance. RCOs would avoid the problem in most cases.

RCOs would also avoid unfair CSA assessments because both parents can care
for their children - equally.

RCOs would not be immediately enforceable if opposed on the grounds that
children are under 1 years or that they are being breast fed but they would
still be subject to adjudication by a court.

Regards,
Simon Hunt
PARENTS AGAINST INSTITUTIONALISED CHILD ABUSE
Mornington
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/
www.dashlite.com.au

Equal time parenting after separation - the solution that removes the
problem.

POLICY

Abolition of unilateral summary exclusion one of the child's parents by the other.

That it be illegal for either parent to be able to unilaterally exclude the child from the life of the other parent.

Mechanism

That any parent denied equal parenting time of their child or children (or less as agreed) can apply for immediate relief by way of a Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) protecting the child's relationship with both its parents. The excluded parent would obtain the RCO from the police or the magistrate or district court clerks office. Like an AVO or Intervention Order the Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) would be effective immediately and immediately enforceable by the police.

Like an AVO or Intervention Order the application would go to court within days so that the respondent party, the parent withholding the child or children, has the opportunity to oppose the order.

If he RCO is not opposed it stays in force.

If the RCO is opposed, the arguments and evidence of the respondent parent will be assessed by the court and a decision made to either;

i) dismiss the respondent's case,

ii) refer the matter to the Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court whilst making an interim order for the contact requested by the Applicant Parent up to 50% (or less as agreed), or partial or complete exclusion of the applicant parent. The court may also order that allegations of child abuse or neglect are investigated by an appropriates child protection agency.

Prior to hearing the RCO would be effective immediately and immediately enforceable by the police unless the withholding parent lays criminal charges of abuse or serious neglect with the police, in which case the matter would be heard by the Magistrate or District Court before restoration of contact (50% or less by agreement) can be enforced.

Very young children

RCOs would not be effective immediately or immediately enforceable when the child i

s less that one years old or being breast fed but would none the less be promptly adjudicated by the Magistrates court.

Family Violence

Allegations of violence be the genuine or contrived will not be grounds to exclude one the child's parents when third party change over arrangements can be made.