Monday, January 25, 2010

What is Equal Shared Parenting? / What is a Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting all about?

Two articles from the FACT site FYI.

http://fact.on.ca/



Fathers Are Capable Too (Canada)

http://www.fact.on.ca/facthome/esp2.htm


What is Equal Shared Parenting?
By a Director of Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association

We get all kinds at a FACT support meeting (Fathers Are Capable Too:
Parenting Association). At a recent meeting, aside from our regular
custodial dad, non-custodial mom, and varying forms of unequal shared
parenting arrangements, we had a non-custodial father who had just got his
kids when Children's Aid took them from their abusive mom, a dad who was
still going to supervised access after 8 years, another dad who was in
financially meltdown, partially due to court ordered payments to cover
mom's drug addiction, a couple who were attempting to extract his children
from maternal neglect and associated PAS, and a "normal" case where the guy
was trying to wrap his mind around the fact that his ex had de facto
custody because he left to go to work.

I mention this to show how that despite the incredible variety of cases,
they are all fundamentally solved with the same medicine: equal parenting.
Equal parenting provides something that no other parenting arrangement
provides: quality assurance. If one parent is failing to provide adequately
in one part of the overall parenting domain, the other parent can easily,
and legally, step in and help. The child can get help in math at one home,
help in French at the other, and help in personal relationships at either.
And if one parent is stressed out to the extent of harming or neglecting
the child, the other parent can be the child's champion ... and yet not
sever that stressed parent completely because that leads to ... the next
paragraph.

Relationship breakdowns are acrimonious affairs. But far more acrimonious
are relationships that are forcibly broken down by someone outside the
relationship. It's a great way to generate outright hate. There is one
activist in Ontario who specialises in "shotgun divorce" cases (where the
State says "if you don't divorce, you'll never see your children again"),
but I'm talking about a "normal" divorce, where the child's relationship
with one of their parents is often permanently severed, with neither the
child nor the affected parent desiring it. This is a fundamental denial of
the Charter right of association; not merely denying the 'form' of the
relationship (as the gay-marriage advocates say), but a denial of the
relationship itself. In no other case, does the State jump in with police
powers and forcibly prevent people from associating with each other when
they wish to associate.

So when parents sense that they may lose their child forever (because the
child, being so young, will not have the capability of recovering the
relationship on its own), they react to this impending doom. Sometimes they
flip out and do outrageous, and illegal things ... like the mother who
kidnapped her triplets, or the murder-suicides (like the mother who shot
her ex-husband in Oakville last year). But these are caused by the lack of
personal security: if this precious relationship was secure then the parent
could consent to temporary measures to help both parents over the impasse.
Currently, there is no such thing as a temporary measure (who believes the
"interim" part of "interim custody").

So, here is the key element of Equal Parenting: have the system work to
reduce tension, rather than the current "winner take all" system that
encourages enflaming the situation and family and child dysfunction.

Children inherently have no real rights because they cannot enforce any
"rights" on their own. A child requires a champion to work the system. The
government cannot provide this champion because the government does not
know the child, and neither does the bureaucrat assigned the case. Only the
parents do, and only if they live with the child a substantial amount of
the time. A child has no control over the money, even if it is in the
child's name. Thus, a child has only two assets: Mom and Dad. Everything
else is an illusion.

Divorce has a huge, but unmeasured effect on the economy. All Western
developed countries have a similar divorce process, so we don't have any
effective data the measure divorce's impact. However, note that the surest
way to gain custody of your child is to quit work. The usual way of losing
custody is to go to work. By stepping out the door, you've stepped out of
the child's life, possibly forever. This is not a productive way to run an
economy. Using the court process to recover a relationship with your child
is often so exhausting, that it is a frequent occurrence that men lose
their jobs (due to poor performance), and then, unable to pay support, they
start a downward spiral that leaves them as largely unproductive members of
society.

Taxpayers support divorce, and taxpayers support the added cost to society
of single parent homes. Child support cannot possibly be high enough to pay
these added costs without destroying the life of the payor (and his
capacity to earn). Using the guideline amounts for child and spousal
support, a payor can see 70% of this income deducted at source, more if
there are add-ons or if the income is imputed at higher level. The Laffer
curve (tax-policy concept) indicates that this produces less revenue
overall. Downloading welfare onto an individual is poor policy. An average
earner payor is prevented from forming stable new relationships ("moving
on") owing to the huge financial stress they are under. An average
recipient is demotivated from seeking employment since for each dollar
earned, taxpayer support is reduced by 70 to 80 cents. The essence is: two
households cost more than one, so, for average earning households, the
taxpayer must pay to make up some of the difference.

Equal parenting tends to reduce the overall divorce rate; if you know you
will always have to deal with the other parent, there is a stronger desire
to have the marriage work. This is born out in several American states that
have a presumption of (legal) joint custody.

Equal shared parenting is now the law in Iowa (since last July).

This issue cannot be fought directly in the courts, because the primary
losers in the change from the adversarial system to a system based on
equality are the lawyers and judges themselves. Divorces represent a huge
amount of income to the legal profession, money that could have been used
to raise the children. FACT attempted to bring forward a constitutional
challenge, but the court would not hear it. Other groups can have their
challenges heard with far fewer members. The custody/access portion is not
really possible to bring forward in an individual case owing to the nature
of the cases; the initial court process is slow, the appeals process is
slow, the children are grown up and gone before the Supreme Court would
ever hear it.

The groups that will most adversely affected by ESP are lawyers, judges,
assessors, and other elements of the legal system. Most ESP activists can
relate to this: divorce lawyers will not be able to charge such massive
fees when the consequences for failure, and the probability of failure are
substantially reduced (failure in this case means losing a meaningful role
in your child's life). Although this is the obvious change, the system will
still play a role in dealing with mediating lower level things, and, more
importantly, teaching the parents to be reasonably co-operative (since
otherwise they will be racking up the mediator charges). However, there is
a secondary effect that impacts the legal system:

Children of divorce currently learn just how easy it is to ignore the
court. They live with the custodial parent, who is court ordered to
facilitate access. Yet that parental role model flouts the court order. And
the child certainly sees it. The child certainly senses the injustice of
one parent lording it over the other, preventing access on a whim. After
all, the child is directly affected by access denial; directly abused by
it. The child learns that courts, police, and other elements of the justice
system are powerless against the custodial parent. With that lesson well
learned, the child grows up, becomes independent, ignores authority and
flouts the law. Is it any wonder that children from single parent homes are
far more likely to be involved in crime?

One should note that neighbourhood crime statistics correlate more with
single parent homes than income levels. Poverty no longer generates as much
crime as single parenthood does. Criminal lawyers will lose business if
crime is reduced.

Equal shared parenting lays the foundation for effective access
enforcement, since it changes the norms of society. If everyone expects
equality between the parents, then the abnormal denial of one parent will
be readily seen as child abuse, and actions will be taken by neighbours,
the schools, and other members of the community to correct so obvious an abuse.

Some people suggest that equality between parents is somehow anti-woman. We
should note that back in the 1960s, when the American feminist organisation
NOW was founded, one of their principles stated that equality in employment
could never be achieved as long as their wasn't equality in child-care
within marriage (they dropped this line more than 20 years ago). Dr. Kruk's
study of the "Disengaged" non-custodial fathers suggests that parenting
roles have evolved since the 1960s, with fathers taking on a more hands-on
role. With mothers in the workforce and fathers changing diapers, both
parents are in both traditional roles, and yet the sole-custody presumption
in divorce reflects that old model of sex-specific roles. Kruk shows that
being shunted out into the NCP role immensely hurts fathers who were
actively involved in parenting during the marriage. They go into "chronic
grief" (the experience, I'm sure many have had it, of feeling that your
child has just died, every time you hand your child over to your ex). This
grief can destroy one's soul, and hence one's productivity.

ESP recognises that parental roles have changed. Oddly, that makes us more
feminist than the women's groups (who are not seeking equality, but only
things that are good for women ... forget children and don't even mention
men). With shared parenting within the marriage, we must have equal
parenting after a marriage; otherwise one parent will drop into "chronic
grief" and become a burden to society.

Lastly, this is a human rights issue. There is only one group that is
specifically targeted by special laws to have their assets seized, their
bank accounts frozen, and be placed in jail without ever committing a
crime.* Support payors with chronic grief. ESP works to remove the grief.

* Actually, they are victims of a crime, child abduction. However, the
court legalises the crime when it "awards" sole-custody.

---------------------------------------------------------

Here is a summary that was presented to the federal Department of Justice:

http://www.fact.on.ca/facthome/esp.htm


What is a Rebuttable Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting all about?

Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association

Every civil law has a default position. Don't pay if not through the court
system, innocent until proven guilty, if the car is full of drugs it is
seized, and so on. The Divorce Act does not have one, and it needs one
since the family courts in Canada have implemented one that is not "in the
best interests of the children".

Equal shared parenting assumes that parents should share in the
responsibilities and parenting time for their children on an equal basis.
This is, of course, the assumption inherent when a married couple have a
child, irrespective of any deemed conflict between the. Even in Quebec's
same-sex civil union law this basic tenant is recognised. It deems an
equivalent set of rights and responsibilities before a separation as after.
Of course, separation changes the nature of the contract of divorce. As
with the pre-divorce scenario, couple may agree to share these
responsibilities differently - who goes to Saturday soccer, who chauffeurs
children to a birthday party, who cooks on which night, who is responsible
for heating which house, which days parents work and so on. At separation
with two different households the nature of the splitting of tasks there
will be change, but the ability to be flexible must still be available to
accommodate both parents and children. More importantly, it is the first
6-18 months after the separation that has the largest impact on the
psychological well-being of the children of divorce - this is the time to
implement a balanced and low conflict environment.

A presumption of equal shared parenting at divorce makes a level playing
field between the parents with respect to parenting time and responsibility
at the moment of separation. From that point on, parents and children have
the ability to craft an agreement with which all agree. The courts and
lawyers should not, and need not, be involved. Once there is an agreement
between the parents covering the issues of parenting time, location and
financial issues (often called a "parenting plan") the parents can move
away from the default 50-50 sharing. If there is no agreement, the 50-50
sharing will be left in place. Parents gain from reasonable solutions. If
pettiness and aggression is instituted by one parent then the best such
fighting will obtain is a 50-50 split, and it may well limit time with the
fighting parent if it is damaging to the child. By eliminating the power
imbalance, the root cause of parental fights and the concept of "winning"
evaporate.

Of course, the presumption must be rebuttable. If father is in jail, if
mother is in an institution, if either has a history of killing children
when put under stress, or of neglecting or abusing their children, it is
time to look at things differently. Real and proven reasons should change
the situation. Speculation should not.

The accommodation should be for the parents and the children. It is not for
the lawyers, judges, psychologists, counsellors, and other bureaucrats who
may be trying to move in, take money and/or control the lives of parents
and children where there is no reason to do so.

Courts should not have the ability to impose special arrangements under
normal circumstances. Only in circumstances where it is proven not to be in
the best interests of the child (not the best interests of either parent)
may the courts intervene to move away from the equal parenting arrangement.
The courts would intervene at the time of separation if there existed a
proven reason in which they has already intervened. If there was not point
in intervention before the separation that is no point in intervening at
the separation.

Issues may develop afterwards. In cases of parental psychological
dysfunction, the abusive alienation of children (inducing Parental
Alienation Syndrome in the children), other child abuse or neglect, a
parent refusing to comply with agreement, and the kidnapping children (i.e.
refusal of the other parent's parenting time) are the types of problems
where the courts should be involved. However, this will hopefully be
successful.

A lowering of the conflict of divorce, a clean definition of a continuance
of the pre-separation rights and benefits, and a system where attempts to
fuel a battle are suppressed will benefit the children of divorce. The
savings in legal costs alone will provide increased standards of living to
many of these children.

Society will gain from both healthier children and a substantial ability to
reduce the expensive and unnecessary institutions that currently fuel
divorce conflicts. A policy should be seeking to reduce the number of
family courts and family judges, the bureaucracy in place to foster
conflict, and the massive attempts to patch up the collateral damage caused
already.

A rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting creates the environment
to produce the stated goals of the federal and provincial legislation
governing divorce and separation.


Protection from Family Court Abuses

To all,

re: recent calls for protection of disabled men from Family Court abuses.

Protection from Family Court Abuses should be the theme of all our protests. Especially protection for our children.

Whilst the focus is on men, disabled or not, we'll always get the media pitting this whole thing as a Man Vs Woman fight (and you knows who always will wins then ...Ladies before Gentlemen).

Its all about the media and who's press releases they are publishing.
They usually only get professional press releases from the industry - the "experts", so there's a constant stream.

We can change that.

Why do we expect politicians to change things when the media is running the Industry's press releases?

The media is the battle ground. When children are shown as the victims not women the real witch hunt will commence (for the real perpetrators).

I think they (the anti shared care brigade) are desperate to keep the debate on Family Violence against women; their livelihoods depend on it. That’s what big industries do when their cash flow is threatened. The divorce industry is one of the biggest around. Plus we've got the added problem of all the NGOs (govt funded "Non Government organisations) eg: Women’s refuges, women’s rights bodies, etc. They all seem to have a professional in-house PR capacity

Once we are presented (by the media) as protectors of children and not Men (against women), we've won :)

...protecting children who currently represent;
- 63% of youth suicides
- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions
- 71% of High School dropouts
- 75% of children in drug abuse centres
- 85% of children with behavioral problems
- 87% of juvenile offenders.
- 90% of homeless and runaway children

Please see our RCO campaign here in Australia? (below).


Regards,
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group (FLAG)
Mornington
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/video/index.php?page=galleries&wide=1&type=video&root=root&id=20
www.dashlite.com.au

"Protecting children from losing a parent after separation".





RCO's stop the conflict from beginning.

The greatest suffering caused by this diabolical "Family Law" industry comes from seeing children suffer and being helpless to save them - children you love, your own or just any children.

Neither gender can lay claim to be suffering this more than the other, When children are hurt we as their parents are devastated

Protecting children can solve all of the problems that are particularly acute for fathers. AVOs, false alligations, CSA, discrimination against men and boys, misandry, male suicide. All of them.

After years of working on this I firmly believe that RCOs can prevent the trauma before it can even start.

Some have questioned why RCOs would have to be handled by the Magistrates Court, when the FC already has the power to, and I believe the obligation, to insure fathers are not removed unilaterally (ie: only a Court should be able to make this decision upon hearing an application with evidence). My answer to this is, 'fine'. If the FC will protect children from the known harm caused when they are denied access to a loving parent, I'd be happy for them to administer the RCOs. However I do I think its best kept separate from the FC as AVOs are. AVOs (intervention orders) are mainly to protect women, so why shouldn't RCO's that protect children be kept separate from FC litigations (with all its acrimony, accusations, innuendo and focus on money).

If any body here has any doubts regarding the extent of harm done to children caused by the divorce industry, get an eye full of this

- 63% of youth suicides
- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions
- 71% of High School dropouts
- 75% of children in drug abuse centres
- 85% of children with behavioral problems
- 87% of juvenile offenders.
- 90% of homeless and runaway children

It is quite frightening when you realise that everybody in the Industry - the Vested Interests - who claim expertise on children, are well aware of this great body of research - proving that what they do is at best against the "best interests of children". In view of the harm done it should, in my view, be seen as what it is - child abuse for money.

The Domestic Violence weapon is a beauty. However I believe this can be neutralised once we insure AVOs can't be used to deny children access to a parent; ie: when 3rd party changeovers can be arranged (eg: at school, with relatives etc.).

Besides when its no longer an effective tool to deny children contact with a father, it won't be used.

Here's a (updated) summary of the RCO submission;


RCOs - immediately enforceable Recovery of Contact Order (RCO)

RCO's would provide for up to 50% shared parenting. Fathers or mothers could opt for less than 50% if they wanted.

Like AVOs be immediately obtainable and effective immediately and if opposed subject to a court hearing within days.

Safeguards and protection
After much discussion regarding concerns if 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 RCO's 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 would be available to her;

1. She lays charges of child abuse (including serious neglect) with the Police, which would immediately prevent the automatic 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 RCO's would be subject to a prompt hearing in the Local Magistrates or District Court just like AVOs).

Likewise this applies for fathers too.

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 anti equality "feminist" teachings ie: Gender Studies is a core component of "child protection" courses that teach old school feminist principles of hate, power, all men are rapists/bastards etc.. On top of this most social workers and child protection workers are relatively immature and lack of life experience. They also subject children to traumatising, invasive and suggestive interrogation to assist one parent in custody litigation. I believe the above two safeguards provide children with appropriate protection from 'monster parents' and the practitioners who profit from their distress.

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

PR
RCO's are designed to protect children from the dangers associated with losing the protection of having both parents. eg: abuse and neglect, emotional and developmental problems - and sexual abuse (one parent can't look after their children 24/7).

Fatherless children represent;
- 63% of youth suicides
- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions
- 71% of High School dropouts
- 75% of children in drug abuse centres
- 85% of children with behavioral problems
- 87% of juvenile offenders.
- 90% of homeless and runaway children
85% of child abuse victims are from single parents homes.

I believe its only a matter of time before the media cottons on to the lies they've been fed and come out in support of children.

RCO's are not about men's rights - they are about children's safety and best interests.
However I believe RCOs are the single most effective way of restoring men's rights in society.

Family Violence impacts
Be it real or contrived, Family Violence (against the woman) 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 I believe, 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 - just as they are to disrupt the sole parent regime thats has been established by excluding the father now.

Both parent's contact with their children will be protected as much as each other. Plus their children will not have been exposed to the conflict of custody litigation for long enough to become traumatised. Mothers (and/or fathers) are therefore far less likely to make serious false alligations of abuse of their own children. 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.

For cases where mothers do make nasty false allegations "right out of the box", they will need to be made with the police and therefore more credible

Family Relationship centres (Australia's social worker mediated negotiation process) would be able to operate effectively because one parent would not be able to exclude the other, unilaterally....off their own bat.

RCO's would avoid unfair CSA (child support) assessments because both parents can care for their children - equally.

If a father is happy to have minimal contact with his children, he should be willing to pay a fair and reasonable child support. Otherwise it should be shared equally or according to the parent's means by agreement.

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

Regards,
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group (FLAG)
Mornington
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/video/index.php?page=galleries&wide=1&type=video&root=root&id=20
www.dashlite.com.au

"Protecting children from losing a parent after separation".

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Dads deserve a fair go



To all,

Pity the headline wasn't "Children deserve a fair go" (Sunday Herlad Sun) Sometimes I wonder if they do it on purpose. Otherwise I'm sure they'd get a dressing down. Besides the authorities job is to protect children, right?
It wouldn't do if the harm they were causing our kids became the issue. Its all about Domestic Violence isn't it? which they deny is perpetrated equally by both sexes (and certainly not that its slightly more likely for women to be the perpetrators).

Its a crazy desperate strategy - thats driven mainly by money and in some quarters the belief that women's rights must be advanced at the expense of men's, and by implication, their children's.

ie: the right to avoid this current reality;

Children who loose regular contact with their father are;

- 63% of youth suicides

- 70% of juveniles in State Institutions

- 71% of High School dropouts

- 75% of children in drug abuse centres

- 85% of children with behavioral problems

- 87% of juvenile offenders.

- 90% of homeless and runaway children

- 85% of child abuse victims Crazy as it is its very effective. If the media saw the children as the victims instead of women the anti father brigade would have no where to go. They've got no evidence to support their loony assertion that its men that perpetrate Family Violence not women but they don't need it. While the media is presenting it as a man Vs women thing the terrible truth of whats going on gets side lined.

If we can get the media to address this issue instead of the crazy "Men abuse women and children" assertion the politicians and the courts (and their practitioners) will have to start having to put children's interests first, which essentially is what most people want (and their fathers demand). Based on my experience with the PR world I reckon this can be achieved relatively simply.

Regards
Simon


Labels:

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Parental Alienation -

From http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/
(This was supposed to also go on my MumsdadsAndKidsAgainstSoleParenting Blog but for some strange reason I can't post to it anymore :(

"My parents ended their marriage when I was seven years old. My siblings and I saw our father every other Sunday, from Noon until 6 PM. I was told that at the age of 12 that I could decide if I wanted to continue these visits. It was made very clear to me what my decision was to be.

As the time approached, I decided to be brave and say that I still wanted to see my father. I never had the chance. My mother told me that because we had recently moved 10 miles away from where my father lived, he found it inconvenient to pick us up.

I was devastated. In spite of all of the horror stories I had heard from my Mother, he was kind to me…I saw him once when I was seventeen, and I felt so guilty that I put off making another visit. He died less than a year later.

I believe that this parental alienation has caused me a tremendous amount of unhappiness and confusion, and cost me a small fortune in therapy. I am now watching my brother and a friend of mine try to maintain relationships with their children, while their ex-wives undermine them daily.

I found out the truth from my mother just a few months ago—that she had told the Courts I had decided not to see my father. No one asked me. The peace this information has provided is astonishing to me….and I am 51 years old."

Thursday, January 14, 2010

SA Police assit in baby snatching

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Police in maternity ward raid
BRYAN LITTLELY, INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR
January 15, 2010 12:20am
A FATHER cut his baby daughter's umbilical cord, kissed her and passed the infant to the mother - at gunpoint.
Seconds later, STAR Group officers burst through the bedside curtains and pointed a pistol over his loved ones and at his head.
The child was born five minutes before up to 10 heavily-armed STAR Group officers stormed the Women's and Children's Hospital delivery room at 7.05pm on December 10, the father, a violent convicted criminal, claims.
The baby was then taken by Families SA workers - which has prompted Independent MLC Ann Bressington to hit out at "rogue social workers on power trips".
The father was handcuffed, frog-marched to a car, driven home and ordered not to return to the hospital.
Families SA child welfare workers took the baby into care within an hour of its birth.
The father, who has a "very extensive criminal history", was not charged with anything but says he was told he would be arrested if he returned to the hospital.
His lawyer, Michael Figwer, who has relayed the man's account of the dramatic removal of the child from the family to The Advertiser, said there were no outstanding warrants for the man, who cannot be named.
"He cut the umbilical cord and kissed her before passing his daughter to the mother," Mr Figwer said.
"He was sitting between the mother and the wall.
"Two midwives and the man's mother were in the room when the curtain came flying back, as two STAR Group officers armed with tasers, flak jackets and helmets burst through.
"One was armed with a semi-automatic pistol, which was pointed at his head across the bed where the baby was lying on the mother's stomach."
He says there were probably another eight STAR Group officers outside the room in the corridor with machine-guns.
"Families SA staff were in the hospital, in the waiting areas."
Mr Figwer said the father claims he was taken to a stairwell, handcuffed and told he would receive an explanation outside the hospital.
When out of the building, he was given the option of being taken to the City Watch-House to "calm down" or be driven to his home.
At his house, police showed him Section 16 of the Children's Protection Act and told him he would be arrested if he returned to the hospital.
Families SA yesterday confirmed STAR Group officers assisted social workers to take a newborn child from its parents in a delivery room on December 10.
"During an investigation or before an emergency removal, a strategy meeting is held between Families SA, SAPOL and Child Protection Services, where SAPOL determines whether they need to be present or not," Families SA executive director David Waterford said.
"It is SAPOL that makes the risk assessment about a situation ..."
The man, who cannot be named due to a pending Youth Court hearing which will determine who cares for the child, has an extensive criminal record in South Australia and Victoria, with convictions including discharging a firearm in a public place and threatening to cause harm.
He has previously been detained under mental health orders and, in November, prosecutors dropped a charge of aggravated assault with a weapon and hindering police.
SA Police yesterday confirmed STAR Group officers had attended the hospital but refused to comment further.
The Women's and Children's Hospital also confirmed STAR Group officers were at the hospital that day.
Families SA workers were also assisted by police at the hospital on December 14, they revealed, but details are not known.
Ms Bressington, part of a select committee inquiry into Families SA practices, said Families Minister Jennifer Rankine had failed to "rein in the excesses of her department".
"It was my hope that the Minister for Families and Communities, after reading the report into Families SA, would take stock of the identified failings and begin to rein in the excesses of her department," Ms Bressington said yesterday.
"However, instead, it seems that the minister has thumbed her nose at the committee's recommendations and continues to allow her staff to operate with impunity," she said.
"The minister must accept that some of her staff are out of control and that rogue social workers on power trips account for most of the problems experienced by families coming to my office for assistance."
Matilda Bawden (BA, BSoc. Admin.)
Research Officer
The Hon Ann Bressington MLC
Independent
Parliament House
North Terrace
Adelaide STH AUS 5000
Ph: +61 08 8237 9541
Mob: +61 412 836 685
Fax: +61 08 8237 9534

Police gun aimed at father in delivery room

To all,

"at the direction of Families SA social workers." !!!

Amazing power they have. No wonder it all goes to their heads so often.

Imagine being able to send Australia Police's Special Tasks and Rescue (STAR) Group round to anybody who offends you (or disrespects your authority).

Has anybody looked into how these decisions are made and by who. What happens within the police force? Can a young female constable for example use the Special Tasks and Rescue (STAR) Group if some bloke makes an unappreciated sexual advance. You can bet this bloke who was arrested used some bad language when those social workers jack booted their way into his life.

Lets hope the police are more careful about who pushes the Swat Team button within their own organisation, I don't think there's much hope for Families SA

... and there's that paradigm again

The infant remains in care before a Youth Court hearing decides who will raise the girl.



Why one or the other? Why doesn't the kid get both her patents ? What did she do wrong? Why do we continue to be told kids are better off without one parent? when everybody else knows shared parenting is best for kids.

Its this nutty polarisation that is the root of the problem. There shouldn't be a winner and a looser when it comes to parents, or genders for that matter. The only reason there is, is because there's so much money extorted from parents who are desperate to stay in their kid's lives.

It looks like their mind is already made up, and what they say generally goes.

Simon


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/999948/police-gun-aimed-at-father-in-delivery-room


Police gun 'aimed at father in delivery room'

07:00 AEST Fri Jan 15 2010
9 hours 7 minutes ago

Heavily armed police officers burst into an Adelaide hospital room and pointed a gun at a father minutes after the delivery of his child, a report claims.

The firearm was aimed over the mother and newborn and at the man's head as members of South Australia Police's Special Tasks and Rescue (STAR) Group sprung into action, the man's lawyer says.

"He cut the umbilical cord and kissed her before passing his daughter to the mother," the Adelaide Advertiser reported lawyer Michael Figwer as saying.

"He was sitting between the mother and the wall.

"Two midwives and the man's mother were in the room when the curtain came flying back, as two STAR Group officers armed with tasers, flak jackets and helmets burst through.

"One was armed with a semi-automatic pistol, which was pointed at his head across the bed where the baby was lying on the mother's stomach."

The operation took place at the Women's and Children's Hospital delivery room about 7pm on December 10 at the direction of Families SA social workers.

The father, who has a history of violent crime, was taken away in handcuffs, taken home and ordered not to return to the hospital.

The infant remains in care before a Youth Court hearing decides who will raise the girl.

While the man was not charged and has no outstanding warrants, he has an extensive police record in South Australia and Victoria including threats to cause harm and discharging a firearm in public.

News alerts: Get breaking news first. Download free ninemsn news alerts now.
Recommend this article. 764 Flocks so far