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".