Stuff

Thanks Don,

I'd be very careful of the cookie cutter argument. Its being used to excuse
the Family Court for the damages it so routinely creates.
It a very cynical and effective use of words to pervert human rights.

Every case - every child, is the same insofar as the child has the right to
be safe from harm and should be allowed every opportunity to prosper in
life. This is what we - people of Australia want. We don't want parents
thrown out of children's lives by avaricious lawyers and the 'judgemental'
disciplinarians - the dinosaurs Judges of the Family Courts (who see family
law as a contest between parents for custody, who use 'Contact' with
children to punish parents when they are supposed to be protecting
children - who routinely declare in court that one parent "isn't going to
like the decisions they make").

The fact that sole parent kids do badly in life is well accepted and
documented. Protecting these children from the lawyers and the system that
profits from their demise is not "a cookie cutter" approach. Its compassion
and its justice.

Every child has the right to equal time with both its parents if each of
them is willing and able to provide such care.

individual cases of parents being dangerous to their children should not be
allowed to deny all other children equal time with their parents.

Have a look at the argument - its nothing short of a devious deception.
Should the detainees of our refugee camps be provided with a 'cookie cutter"
"one size fist all" solution of freedom?

Should the detainees of Guantanamo Bay be denied right to a trail on the
basis that it would be a one size fits all cookie cutter approach?

Come on Don, don't let devious use of language colour your views when it
comes to justice and the need to protect our most precious resource - our
children..

Perhaps this is the ultimate Orwellian argument - protecting the cookie
cutter approach of treating fathers as unsuitable parents unless they can
mount a legal cases proving themselves to be different.

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.

----- Original Message -----
From: <don.farrell@alp.org.au>
To: <email@dashlite.com.au>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: What about Men's Health

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the
Family Law Act, and shared parenting in particular.

Labor has recently received a number of emails on this
topic, and we thank you for continuing to keep us informed
of your views and experiences with the operation of the
Family Law system.

Labor believes that the best interests of the child should
be the paramount consideration for decisions on parenting
orders. The Family Law Act currently provides that the best
interests of the child are served by having a meaningful
relationship with both parents, and the protection of the
child from physical and psychological harm and abuse.

Currently, judges have the discretion to make parenting
orders appropriate to individual cases. This is because
every case is unique - no two set of facts and
circumstances are alike and, as such, it is not appropriate
to provide legislative 'one-size fits all' solutions such as
mandated shared custody. Such a solution would not properly
accommodate the wide variety of cases which come before the
Family Court.

In addition, as you may know, a range of changes to the
Family Law system were introduced early last year after
extensive inquiry and consultation by the House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community
Affairs, which culminated in the Every Picture Tells a Story
report.

The bulk of these changes came into operation midway through
last year, although some are still being implemented. At
this stage, Labor does not have any plans to make further
amendments to the latest changes to the Family Law system,
at least until the most recent round has been in place long
enough to enable a proper assessment of their workings.

Thank you again for your correspondence.

Don Farrell
Labor Candidate for Senate

----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Hunt <email@dashlite.com.au>
To: Don.Farrell@alp.org.au
Subject: What about Men's Health
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 23:07:40 +1100