Submission - Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 - Exposure Draft.

Public Consultation: Family Violence Bill
Family Law Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON  ACT  2600 
Email: familyviolencebill@ag.gov.auFacsimile: (02) 6141 3248

 

Dear Madam / Sir,

The damage done to children's lives when one of their parents is alienated by an interim sole custody order (by way of severely limited and/or frustrated "Contact")by the court and IVOs / Intervention Orders urged by the solicitors is incontrovertible. Given that IVOs and Intervention Orders are mostly fraudulent and or granted without their being risk of violence (a view confirmed by the legal fraternity) children need to be protected from the harm that false allegations cause.

 

The media mostly reflects the view promoted by the vested interests of the divorce and Family Court industry (est. BE$ up.a.) that Family Violence is mostly perpetrated by men against women. We ask that proper consideration is given to the majority research finding that women are equally if not more likely to initiate and perpetrate Family Violence against their spouse or partner, so that children are not unfairly denied their fathers.

 

This harm caused by denying children their fathers is demonstrated by the following:

 

"Protecting children from losing a parent after separation".

 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census

• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
• 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all Gods Children.)
• 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

 These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

• 5 times more likely to commit suicide
• 32 times more likely to run away
• 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
• 14 times more likely to commit rape
• 9 times more likely to drop out of high school
• 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
• 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
• 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Please protect our children and their relationship with both their parents.The conflict that is created when one it pitted against the other in a fight for sole custody by the adversarial and mostly mutually exclusive court processes, thereby creating unnecessary conflict, which is then, incredably, used by Courts as justification to excluded one parent.

 

The solutions that best avoid this conflict is the protection of children's shared parenting rights from the outset of any litigation (and consequent abuse allegations that play such a big part in most FL litigation).

 

The simplest way to deliver this solution (and avoid conflict) is to facilitate the immediate recovery of 50/50 "Contact" (or less by agreement) when such contact has been unlawfully denied by one of the parents in the interim while the Court considers a parent's application to exclude the other parent. Custody decisions can then be made by the court after it has considered the circumstances in the context of reduced conflict and happier children. The argument that the risk of abuse of children by an accused parent justifies their removal (predominantly or completely) needs to be considered in context that the child previously had unfettered contact with both parents and the reality that for most biological parents would find it impossible to harm their children. Obviously in the unusual instance of one parent representing an imminent threat to their Child's safety, the interim exclusion of one parent could be ordered by a court  - not by the parent that is trying to exclude the other from their child/ren.

.

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