Friday, November 30, 2007

In regards to Carmel McCallam - MP Greens Party Australia

In regards to Carmel McCallam.

I am a second wife. My husband had literally nothing when I met him,
he did not even own his own bed. He told me of his life before his
divorce. For my husband and many like him, there is a before and
after, before divorce then after. Before his divorce, he had a home,
he was working, he had furniture and money in the bank. He got to
see his children every day, hug them, kiss them, talk to them, parent
them. After the divorce, he had his son for 2 1/2 years, to cut it
short, the Judge that heard his case, talked a lot about Status Quo,
which was hypocritical, as the status quo would have been to allow my
husband to retain his son in his custody, his daughter's to stay with
their mother and to share alternative weekends, with the children
being together on weekends, one at their mother's, the other at their
father's.

Mother's who are seen to be having difficulty parenting are offered
parenting courses, yet retain custody. Father's simply lose custody
and are restricted as to how much time they can spend with their
children.

My husband has not seen his children in 7 years. He will get no help
from the legal community in trying to regain contact, to be brief, my
husband's ex took their children out of state while my husband's
access was suspended, yes due to his own actions, he refused one day
to return his son to her, as his son said he did not want to return
to his mother's. My understanding of the law is even if access is
suspended, it is still a court order, and was to be respected. By
taking the children out of state, this breeched the order, BUT
instead of enforcing the law, the courts simply ignored it, and now
refuse to assist in any way, because of the length of time. They
disregard that we have approached them several times over the course
of 5 years, and got no assistance, which has lengthened the time, and
now that is used against my husband.

I live with his divorce everyday.

I live with the ghosts of his first marriage.

My husband and I will not have a child together, because he is
fearful of losing another child he loves.

My husband is wary of buying a house, of establishing anything,
because he does not want to put everything into anything, then see it
disappear again. He does not want to start all over like he had to
before.

If he makes any money at all, despite the fact he would use it to
support his family, CSA ensures his ex wife has her cut. This angers
me, that we would go without, while money hard earned by our efforts,
our sacrifices, will be handed to her to support her in her chosen
lifestyle.

I do not resent him paying child support, I think it is only fair,
YET, this money does not go to the child, it is given to the mother.
Fair enough when the child is under the age of 15, but once they are
16, it should go to them. I do feel child support should be put in
TRUST for the child, and only accessed to purchase clothes, pay
school fee's and any other essential needs for the child, rather than
paid directly over to the mother. Most mother's recieve a parenting
payment, which is paid to support the child, to be honest, this money
is to provide a roof over the child's head, food, clothing, a bed,
for their schooling and other daily needs. Yet some mother's use
this money paid to them by CSA as a lifestyle, for their own needs
and wants, NOT the child's.

I also feel Child support should be paid in proportion to how much
time the paying parent spends with the child. Quite simply, some
mothers, like my husband's ex, take the children away, prevent the
other parent from seeing the children, yet still get paid by the
parent who no longer see's their children. In cases like this, CSA
should suspend all child support payments and also establish a debt
for the length of time the custodial parent keeps the children away
from the paying parent, to discourage interstate abduction and abuse
of the current CSA system.

I am aware there are the paying parents out there that have no
interest in seeing their child, exceptions can be made in those
cases. It must be proven that the paying parent has made no effort,
to discourage those who would take advantage by saying they want to
see their child, just to use a loophole. They must prove a
relationship, and one that is productive and benificial to the child.

Only in the cases where there is PROVEN domestic abuse, the child is
the product of rape or incest, should there be more leniency.

Children deserve BOTH parents. they are NOT trophies, spoils of war,
they are not a meal ticket. Children are currently being used by
many warring parents to hurt the other, some parents are so blinded
by their personal feelings towards the other parent, they forget
their children's feelings and needs. BOTH parents need to
acknowledge the value the other parent has. Children need BOTH
parents, they deserve to be secure in the knowledge that BOTH parents
love them, and not feel that they have to chose, feel the guilt that
is shoved upon them by forcing them to take sides.

Children do not suffer from being loved, a child cannot have enough
love.

It is time the Law fixed those cases like my husband's, not continue
to aid and abet the parent that callously removed the children by
refusing to help.

My husband has the custody papers, LEGAL papers giving him RIGHTS.
Yet the very system that is supposed to UPHOLD these papers,
refuses.

My husband's ex gets to hug those children, kiss them, talk to them,
see them daily. My husband gets the odd message from the children
through his parents, often feeling they just say what they do as
comfort to him. He gets the crumbs.

The irony, if this had only happened 6 months ago, he could have a
recovery order, location order and his children would restored to
him. But because of a non sympathetic system, one that failed
numerous father's, becasue the orders are 7 yrs old, and because he
was NOT informed, he had nowhere to turn and no support, he has
effectively lost his children for the forseeable future.

It is too long says legal Aid. Yet 5 years ago when we first
approached them, it was not, YET we were turned away. We have been
trying to get access restored to my husband for 5 YEARS, and were
TURNED away everytime.

Just to be able to talk to them on the phone, send them Xmas cards
and presents, say Happy birthday to them, send them a card and
presents, would mean so much to him, and to me, as i would see the
sadness in his eyes vanish. Yet, because the LAW refuses to uphold
LEGAL papers, this will be denied to him.

So, when you hug your children, kiss them, talk to them, spare a
thought for men like my husband that would give anything just to be
able to do this just once.

Father's deserve equal rights, they deserve to be able to parent and
to have it enforced.

from "Ms Bevaving

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Philip Ruddock - RCO's to protect children....and mothers ...and fathers !





To all,

RCO's to protect

To All
RCO's to protect children....and mothers ...and fathers !

(Now that'll silence the anti shared parenting brigade!)

Also please see Anne Blessington MP interview on children of divorse http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=22625518

Just got the above interesting letter from Ruddock (pity he's no longer involved) ...attached.

If only he would recognise that it will only stop once children are protected from having one parent "disqualified in the first place - ie: with a Recovery of Contact Order, effective immediately and answerable in Court within days (like an AVO). The immediate enforcement of an RCO could be prevented by laying criminal charges with the Police of abuse of neglect of the children. Family Violence allegations would not be allowed to deprive the children of a parent when change overs can be arranged at day care, school or through 3rd paries.

This would mean the parent seeking to exclude the other, would first have to convince a Court that its was in the children's interests. Not as now, when the excluded parent has to convince a judge that they should be included, when the status quo of living arrangements have already been established - unilaterally, often with the help of AVOs -
a process that takes expert reports and sometimes years of graduated increases in contact to a weekend a fortnight, half holidays regime). An RCO mechanism would move the onus to the parent who wanted to exclude the other, to prove that their children would be better off without their other parent substantially in their lives.
The ongoing suffering caused by the alienation of a child's parent with smears and allegations of abuse, comes home to roost, with these children growing up to be ;
5 times more likely to commit suicide;
14 times more likely to commit rape;
9 times more likely to drop out of high school;
10 times more likely to abuse chemicals;
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution; and
20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Once RCOs can protect children from losing one of their parents, in most cases there's nothing to fight about. Most applications are brought about by fathers who have been denied equal or sufficient time with there kids, so the cases that do get fought over would be the ones where there were real problems with one of the parents. It protects both parents from being excluded - man and woman alike - not just one of them. This takes away most of the fear of losing the custody battles - fear of loosing the children. Fear that is typically exploited by Family Court lawyers and practitioners.

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

"Protecting children from having one of their parents removed by the other upon separation".

NB: To be removed from the PARENTS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE email list please email me at vascopajama@dodo.com.au.



----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:14 AM
Subject: RE: [fathers4equality] Re: [MichDads] Mandatory joint custody | A Family Court judge's view
Yes but we are up until now mostly pommie, Irish or Welsh descendant. Aussie men have been pushed to the wall and I am really pleased to see the fight back growing now. It's a 'new breed' of 'DAD' - I am pleased to say for the most an improved version on the 1920/30's version. The change to 'Rebuttable presumption of Equal Parenting Time' will happen, shoulder to wheel - now in the trenches (where we are) there's no match for us! The divorce statistics show the numbers of 'disqualified Fathers' which is growing. It's just now reaching a significant number to 'worry' the politicians and they are beginning to take note. A real eye opener will be if there is a swing against both major parties 24/11. That's when we push harder and say - You weren't in touch with us Fathers and Gov't is swinging away from you and will continue to do so. A Gov't that can't pass it's own Bills will be a great result for 24/11.

CHEERS !Ron Email macroes6@hotmail.com


Monday, November 12, 2007

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.

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