TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon

MORE FALSE HOPE, FOR PARENTS KEPT FROM THEIR CHILDREN

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:14:00 +0000

Peter van de Voorde. June 2008

In Australia, the Family Law Council, which is the Federal Government’s advisory body on family law matters, has called for the establishment of a Child Orders Enforcement Agency, along similar lines to the Child Support Agency.

Aggrieved non custodial parents who have been denied court-ordered access to their children, since the inception of a Draconian Family Law Industry, some 35 years ago and who have been calling for such measures to be taken for more than three decades, do not hold their breath. They have long ago lost faith in a system in which the scales of justice are tilted firmly in favour of custodial parents. Any suggested changes to what has been shown to be such a gross travesty of justice for so long, is viewed with great skepticism.

Alarm bells ring immediately when it is noted the council’s report, “Improving Post Parenting Order Processes”, was prepared by a committee of eminent judges, magistrates and legal academics who wrote the report under Patrick Parkinson, professor of law at the University of Sydney, whose term as council chairman has expired.

Hundreds of thousands of the nation’s victims of the Family Law Industry, both parents and children, have witnessed at first hand how the odds are stacked against them from the moment a parent becomes a Non Custodial Parent.

Where have the above judges, magistrates and legal academics been for the past 35 years? Why has there been such a deafening silence all these years from the above committee members? Were they not aware of what was going on or were they too busy plundering the family wealth from separating families? Did the eminent members of the bench not hear the cries of anguish from the non custodial parents and their children all these years, while they turned a blind eye to the forcible removal of children from non custodial parents by vindictive, and in many cases disordered and dysfunctional Custodial parents. Why for the past 35 years, have members of the bench refused to use the punitive measures at their disposal, in order to ensure that non custodial parents and their children remain connected following parental separation. Their failure to do so is a crime against humanity and an abuse of the rights of our Nation’s children.

For the past 35 years we have witnessed the mockery of a Family Justice System pretending to uphold the principle of equality and impartiality in what can only be described as a mal- administration of Family Law matters. Millions of the nation’s parents and children, who have had the misfortune to become victims of this Industry, have for the past 35 years protested against the way the scales of justice in Family Law are tipped heavily one way, in order to help maintain the frenzy of the Law profession and their mercenaries, in the pursuit of plundering the family wealth from unsuspecting separating parents.

The Laws governing Family law matters were drafted by Lawyers, with the main beneficiaries being the law profession and associated mercenaries, who have now joined in a growing melee to capture a share of these ill-gotten spoils. The law profession’s success depends on how much conflict and animosity is present or can be created, for them to mount an economically successful case. The sole custodial parent model following separation has provided them with a guaranteed high level of ongoing conflict, and by definition it has provided them with a lucrative economic outcome.

Family Laws which were drafted in the early seventies were supposedly designed to help solve the problems associated with the highly emotive issues of parental separation, especially the issue of child custody and the right and need, to ensure ongoing contact of non custodial parents with their children, unless it was unsafe for them to do so.

However whether by accident or by intent THE RELEVANT SOLE PARENT CUSTODY MODEL WAS ADOPTED, SO AS TO GUARANTEE FAILURE, with the resulting horrendous ramifications for all those who incorrectly believed that justice would prevail, and that by using the family justice system, at least enduring contact with their children would be ensured.

This effectively means that any Court Orders you may have obtained, mostly at great expense, have a totally different meaning depending on whether you have been made a custodial parent or a non custodial or contact parent. So there are two totally different outcomes for one set of Court Orders.

1. From the moment you are made a custodial parent, you have effectively been given absolute power and control over every aspect of your children’s life, can ignore the Court Orders with impunity, and can eliminate the other parent and extended family members out of the children’s life with ease. The methods used have been well documented for decades.

2. From the moment you are made a non custodial or contact parent you no longer have any say in any aspects of what happens in your children’s life. You are no longer able to protect them, love, support and care for them and you can be totally eliminated from your children’s life with frightening speed and ease. To add insult to injury, you can then be accused of abandoning your children and subsequently labeled a deadbeat parent.

The adverse impact of such injustices are further highlighted by the fact that if a non-custodial parent contravenes articles of the Court Order, such as not returning the children on time from a contact visit, the CUSTODIAL PARENT simply picks up the phone, calls the police and the offending parent is immediately labeled a kidnapper, hostage taker or child abductor, and set upon by various federal and local police agencies. The only cost incurred to the Custodial Parent is the cost of the phone call.

By sharp contrast if the CUSTODIAL parent decides to ignore and contravene the same set of Court Orders, and refuse to let a child have anything further to do with their non custodial parent even if they live in the same street, the non custodial parent’s only recourse is to take the matter back to the very Court which failed them so miserably in the first place. No simple phone call for them, but rather further expensive legal proceedings which ultimately lead to nothing, if a recalcitrant Custodial parent decides to ignore the directions of the Court. In their twisted logic the Industry reasons that to upset the Custodial parent would be detrimental to the “Best Interest of the Child”.

This is what the Family Justice Industry sees as an equitable outcome.

Following 35 years of silence, these eminent members of the Family Law Council committee, have now recommended that a “small, independent (enforcement) agency with offices in each capital city” would be the best way to respond to serious breaches of contact orders. They have suddenly decided that serious and willful disregard of parenting orders was a matter of public interest and that a child’s best interest was at stake when a parent breached an order that a court had deemed beneficial to the child.. They also belatedly consider that such breaches brought the Family Court into disrepute.

With their collective tongues firmly planted in their cheeks, they suggest these enforcement agencies would encourage parents to resolve disputes without litigation. But then true to form and making sure to protect the lucrative status quo of their Industry and in order to maintain the standard of living of their fellow members of the Law fraternity, they recommend litigation should be instituted against the offending parent in the Family Court with the aggrieved parent able to instruct a Lawyer provided by the agency.

The committee acknowledges their recommendations would be an expensive exercise, and therefore propose that extra funding be made available to legal aid commissions in order to help parents fund enforcement matters before the Family Courts.

To all those who have been a victim of this badly flawed system, it would appear to be nothing more than an attempt to create a growth in public funded ineffectual pursuits of enforcement of contravention orders in the Family Court. Perhaps there is a downturn in the numbers of aggrieved parents seeking justice from this farcical institution.

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to recognize that a court which refuses to punish habitual offenders for contravention of their own orders, is going to do anything different just because the aggrieved parents are represented by legal aid Lawyers.

The eminent members of the Family Law Council Committee suggest that such legal actions in the Family Court as they recommend would ensure compliance. With all due respect eminent members, could you please explain how you see your recommendations ensuring compliance?????

This is all smoke and mirrors gobbledygook, designed to make it look as if they are a caring Court with “The Best Interest of the Children” at heart. However all the available evidence would suggest otherwise.

If this committee was even remotely serious at trying to resolve the ongoing flagrant contraventions of Court ordered Contact Orders, it would have been better to consider the proposal by Family Law campaigner Simon Hunt, of a “CONTACT RECOVERY ORDER” or (CRO)

Unfortunately all the available evidence shows that when practical commonsense suggestions are made to resolve this travesty of justice against non custodial parents and their children, it is either ignored or ridiculed by all those engaged in maintaining the status quo for their own self interests.

The following is an explanation of the CROs by Mr Hunt. I believe this would also be a practical and effective low cost mechanism to enforce Court Ordered Contact Orders

The Recovery of Contact Order (RCO) mechanism is a simple way of protecting children facing the separation of their parents and will prevent most custody cases from even starting (because there is no aggrieved party to initiate litigation).

Immediately enforceable Recovery of Contact Order (RCO)

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

THE MECHANISM
That any parent denied equal parenting time of their child or children 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. It would provide the applicant up to a maximum of seven days of contact with their child per fortnight (or less by agreement).

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% ie: 7 days a fortnight (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 is less that one years old or is being breast fed but would none the less be promptly adjudicated by the Magistrates court.

FAMILY VIOLENCE Allegations of violence, be they genuine or contrived, would not be grounds to exclude one the child's parents when third party change over arrangements can be made.

RCOs (Recovery of Contact Orders)

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 05:07:00 +0000

Recovery of Contact Orders - protecting children from one parent excluding the other .

The proposal is surprisingly simple. It focuses on protecting children on the harm caused by Family Court litigation by protecting them from having one of their parents excluded by the other without first obtaining Family Court approval.

The proposal is based on the use of Contact Restoration Order that would be obtained from a Magistrates or District court in the same way as an AVO (Apprehended Violence Order or Intervention Order) – so that the child’s relationship with both its parents is not compromised until a Judge has the opportunity to assess the application of the parent that wants to deny the other parent from a relationship with their child.

Like AVOs RCOs would be enforceable immediately so that the child is protected from harm form the initial instant.

RCOs would provide each parent with 50% custody of their children (or less by agreement) on a week about basis (or otherwise by agreement).

Like AVOs, RCOs would be subject to prompt adjudication in Court – normally in a matter of days if opposed by the other parent.

RCOs would not be effective immediately is charges of abuse of serious neglect are filed with the Police.

Essentially this reverse the current process where children have one of their parents ejected from their lives unilaterally on the say so of the excluding parent, leaving the excluded parent with the only option of mounting a legal case in the Family Court by way of an application for shared parenting. The RCO mechanism would turn the tables so the parent wishing to exclude the other parent must first obtain a court order to do so based on evidence that the other parent presents an unacceptable risk to the child.

Third party weekly change over arrangements would ensure children don’t suffer the loss of one parent from their lives when one parent makes accusations of abuse of Family Violence.

Please post your comments . Can you see any reason why this wouldn't get media support? ...why RCOs wouldn't fix the problem for all, save those who have a vested interest in the divorce industry.

Regards
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group (FLAG)

Why the vested interests have it over us.

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:30:00 +0000

The following dicussion (today) covers some interesting issues. Its seems many haaaven't yet realised that we are fighting people who make money from the suffering of our children and belive it or not women too.
Simon

Peter,

Yes our children's welfare is the issue that we need to focus on.

Calling for the protection of women is hard to stomach if you've been on the receiving end, as I have.

However It is a useful tactic, and quite valid in many cases. Its an effective weapon against the vested interest who claim to be fighting for women.

It disempowers them.

Anything we say against women empowers them, because they control the media goons - their press releases get published and they have the last word.

I'd like to see them try to defend their industry once we come our fighting for children ...and (for those who can) women.

Regards,
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group
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 losing a parent after separation".

Paul,

Please do not presume to speak for me.

Complaining about the cause of a problem as opposed to the symptoms is not manipulative. Its sensible and realistic, especially given our complaints get spun (manipulated) to suggest that we are more interested in ourselves than our children.

"Protecting children from losing a parent after separation".

Hi Ron,

RE "Simon I can't totally agree. CSA need to be kept in line and their Officers charged for abuse and/or misuse of the very powerful laws they have at their disposal."

I think Simon's proposals represent a realistic assessment of the methods that have worked against him in this twisted process. Are they worthless? Not really. He has assessed the system and is responding in kind.

I have to say that I do not agree with many of Simon's proposed tactics. They strike me as manipulative and playing into the hands of our opponents. The tactics validate the tactics of our opponents by imitating them.

PaulD

For more information and resources, go to <a href="http://injurysupport.blogspot.com">Life Changing Injury</a>

You see things and you say, Why?; but I dream things that never were and I say, Why not? -George Bernard Shaw

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct. - Benjamin Disraeli

Peter,

Yes our children's welfare is the issue that we need to focus on.

Calling for the protection of women is hard to stomach if you've been on the receiving end, as I have.

However It is a useful tactic, and quite valid in many cases. Its an effective weapon against the vested interest who claim to be fighting for women.

It disempowers them.

Anything we say against women empowers them, because they control the media goons - their press releases get published and they have the last word.

I'd like to see them try to defend their industry once we come our fighting for children ...and (for those who can) women.

Regards,
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group

Unfortunately the facts don't help us. They get ignored and denied.

A campaign to protect Children is different however. Everybody knows children suffer terribly when their fathers are removed. This is shown to be the case is countless media polls.Focus on the suffering of children instead of men and we'll make head way.

This is our opportunity to stop the abuse because right now they get their strength from claiming to be protecting children.

Our attempts to expose the facts of CSA abuse, suicides, and calls for fairness and equity are used against us every time by simply claiming to be protecting children and women.

This can't happen when we call for the protection of children (and women) from them !

Regards,
Simon Hunt
Family Law Action Group

Simon - I agree with what you say here - move solely on the premise and behave accordingly, that this is to protect the relationship with their Father and Mother in all circumstances of Our Current and Future Generations of Children. IMO we need to start bashing the Federal Gov't. Hammering home the untimely death of Fathers subsequent to FLC rulings and CSA decisions as well as demanding an explanation for the overwhelming imbalance of granting Primary Care to mothers. The Federal Gov't can't explain without crucifying themselves so pushed their best option is to actually enact legislation that 'effectively' introduces 'Equal Parenting Time'. One only need to make correlations between these deaths after CSA and FLC actions for eyes to start opening and see the writing on the wall for their 'own' demise. Obviously the media will publish if it's 'juicy' enough for them - but they need facts and figures. These facts and figures are those which are so covetedly hidden by the Federal Gov't through the 'Privacy Legislation' enacted and which both CSA and the FLC hide under.
I know what will sting the Federal Gov't and that is emails from all 'affected' parents demanding 'Equal Parenting Time' and the Explanation of the imbalance. The responses will be intelligence insulting rhetoric - so as quick as it arrives it can be publicly debunked - bad press for the Gov't. And then 750,000 Australians tell the Federal Gov't 'Not good enough matey and, ask the same questions again. The problem is that none of the Govt's have even got a first round of fire from the 750,000 Australians - and they believe they never will! Why??? It's times like these I wish the Good Fairy would send a 'John Laws' or 'Mike Willisee' into our midst!

Okay, we're on the same page now!

And yes I do agree that the devil in the garden, is the scum that makes it's 30 pieces of silver every time a marriage breaks down.
However, to make your plan work, we will need to leave the little poisonous ladies out of the equation altogether. Even though the professional leeches are helping them all the way; the fact is these women are not victims in any sense at all and deserve no help nor do they deserve any sympathy. The only consideration they do deserve is one of a common criminal, because that is precisely what they are.

By the way, I know of many marriage break ups, and I haven't yet come across a woman who has gone too far because of being led down the garden path by a silver tongued serpent. Most of the marriage break ups I have had knowledge of, ended up with the parties agreeing without the use of lawyers or the divorce court. However, the few that went to court were all the handy work of the vicious woman, who was intent on destroying the father. Believe me, the fathers were not all people I had anything in common with. In some cases I knew the women and was astounded at their behaviour and couldn't believe that under the shell of the woman I thought I knew, was a sleeping monster.

So, to get members on side with your cause Simon, you will need to delete all references to protecting these poor damsels and just concentrate 100% on protecting children from the system that is intent on destroying their lives and then put together a plan that will go head long into battle with the idiot heralds who will put any rubbish in their papers as long as it makes money. Then hopefully they might start publishing some of the stories that show how children are continually abused by these government departments.

If you mention anything about protecting these poor misled women, you will not only lose the support of almost 100% of injured fathers; you will also have the nasty fems smelling around you like you are a wolf in sheep's clothing and eventually they will simply put down your story as a conceited attempt at getting in through the back door.

So, 'wounded fathers', is out!
And protecting 'misled mothers', is out!

The only thing we can concentrate on here, is the damage done to children by the system/govt and how govt meddling has destroyed the lives of children, both indigenous and white, by interfering in the lives of families where there lies a taboo for govts. If the govt is not invited; it has no right or authority to interfere and act, without undeniable facts and proof of a crime.

If that crime does not exist, then the court has no jurisdiction!

As I stated in an earlier post, we need to start demanding that if there is no charge or conviction, then the court must disqualify itself and not get involved.

This is our right and we should be forcing this to happen!

Peter G

So Paul, are you suggesting we continue on as we have been complaining about the injustice and setting our selves up up criticism as being more interested in our selves than our children? Because that's what happens now.

You seem to forget that the vested interests can get any press release they write published. They can do this becuase they claim to be protecting women and children ...from us!

When we start lobbying for the protection of children, instead of complaining about the injustises, we'll get the press. Otherwise we'll continue to be side lined. And the abusers of our children will continue to be seen as their protectors.

And whats manipulative about trying to protect our children? Just becuase you don't have any and aren't interested in protecting children shouldn't make you blind to the fact that our children are being used to hurt us. This forum is fathers4equality not males4equality. I suggest you go somewhere else if you're not interested in protecting children.

Again I say protecting children - regaining our authority as fathers of our children is the key to solving the CSA, false allegation and suicide problems.

Simon.

Peter,

Your right of course but I can assure you women are encouraged all the way, to make these alligations. Its what the game's all about.

The AVO is normally the first thing a solicitor does - and we all know the grief they cause.

I've no doubt that most need little encouragement to make these alligations. The thing is they shouldn't be encouraged to do so.

They should be encouraged to do the right thing by their children, and them selves.

I know of plenty of cases where women who have every intention of doing the right thing by their kids, get goaded into making allegations of abuse. Its how Family Law solicitors make their money. As you say, most are inclined to do so anyway. ie its not hard for solicitors make sure it happens.

The main point however is that by standing up for women as opposed to blaming them (for not having the good sense to reject their solicitor's advise) is getting the media on side and focused on really protecting women and children, whilst exposing the vested interest for the abusers they are.

Its a strategy thing. We don't want the press banding us as misogynists, and that's what will happen every time, unless we're smart about it.

As the saying goes 'God have no fury like a woman scorned'. They certainly don't need encouragement and facilitation from slime ball Family Court solicitors and practicioners.

Regards,
Simon Hunt

Simon,

Mate, I agree with all you wrote here but there is one thing you keep putting in most of your emails that I most definitely disagree with and I hope you haven't honestly convinced yourself that what you say is true in most cases, because if you have you are deluding yourself.

You wrote:

"This and the abuse of women by the practitioners of the court is what we need to expose to divest the feminazi of their power in the media and in government."

I'm sorry mate, but if you think the majority of these cunning criminal women who are doing the utmost to kidnap children, lie, cheat, steal, and drive a father to his grave deliberately, are victims of lawyers and court workers; then you are a bloody fool!

How the hell did you come to this conclusion?

I will accept that there will be a small percentage who will do more than they intended because of pressure from all the professional scum in the industry. But I most certainly won't accept that the mean or majority are victims of the same professional manipulation.

The bulk of these women are full-on willing to go as far as they possibly can and they are delighted that there are many unscrupulous operators out there who are willing to show them a sure fire way of destroying their ex. The unfortunate thing for most of these women is that they actually have to show some restraint in the end, even if they have won every battle and virtually destroyed their target.

I agree with the cause you champion with regard fighting for the rights of children and not vilifying mothers/women, but if you want the support of people like me and others, you will need to stop spouting the utter garbage that women/mothers in general are actually victims of the system.
That is the greatest load of bullshit I have every heard!

These blood hungry women are over the moon with the prospects that they can do what ever they like. The only thing that does piss them off, is that they actually have to pay the slimey hitmen and hitwomen, who carry out the contract on their behalf.

And to the rest of the group, if I am wrong please tell me very loud and clear with lots of info to shove it down my throat any which way but loose.
And if you guys can all come up with good info to prove that I am just being a sour puss and let me have it here in the group, then I will eat humble pie and admit my fault and mistaken belief.

Somehow, I don't think any of you are going to be very convincing in trying to get me to believe that the general population or the majority of women/mothers who are instigating action in the divorce court are actually victims.

Just remember, we all know that the bulk of broken marriages don't go all the way to the end with the courts and a lot are settled well before that even without lawyers. It is a certain mongrel element of woman who is doing all this damage and deliberately heading for the family destruction system, and these are the people that Simon seems to be talking about by the context of his statements.
That is if my dyslexia hasn't gone and done another snow job on me yet again.

And if it has, Simon I do humbly apologise and withdraw all I have said and beg your forgiveness!

Peter G

In regards to Carmel McCallam - MP Greens Party Australia

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:24:00 +0000

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

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

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:52:00 +0000

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 -----

From: Ron de Mouilpied

To: fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com

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

Reversing the onus

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:40:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:36:00 +0000

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

The future - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:31:00 +0000

To all,

This is an interesting new eJournal that's starting to have a real impact.
Graham Young its creator was on ABC yesterday.

The journal provides an effective way for everyday people to voice their concerns and raise the issues that they (us) see as important.
Instead of the political agenda being imposed on us, typically by vested interests with big PR budgets, and by the political parties for their own ends.

At last the internet appears to be delivering on its promise ...to wrest control of the media from the vested interests.

You can bet its being closely watched by the politicians during what has become one of the most cynical and contrived election campaigns we've ever seen.

Check it out. ...and have your say.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/

Please register your view as to what the most important issues to be addressed in this election campaign are.
You've been invited to do so!

I know what mine is - children ..their right to be free of the suffering imposed on them by the Family Courts and their mercenary practitioners, their right to the love and care of both their parents regardless of if they separate, so they can be everything they were meant to be in life. Otherwise what's the point of making anything else better? If our children's lives are blighted forever because we didn't protect them ... from loosing one of their parents to the Family Court, their practitioners and their goons.

Given that children represent our future, this eJourna; represents our opportunity to make politicians realise children are most important to most people.

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.

Famiily Law fix

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:27:00 +0000

Lone Fathers Canberra conference speech
7 Aug 2007

Full version;
http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/video/index.php?page=galleries&wide=1&type=video&root=root&id=20

http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/video/index.php?page=galleries&wide=1&type=video&root=root&id=20

or

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:58:00 +0000

Simon Hunt's address at the Canberra Lone Fatehrs Conference 8th and 9th Ausgust 2007.

See speech at http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/video/index.php?page=galleries&type=misc&root=root&id=lfaa2007

My name is Simon Hunt. The reason I am addressing this gathering today is that I believe I have a solution to the appalling damage being wrought on our country's most precious and valuable asset – our innocent children.

There is three areas I’d like to cover
Firstly the current system and its affects on parents and children
Then what I see as the The Solution and how it would operate,
The benefits of the solution
I also want to touch briefly on the debate – and what I see as the distractions as opposed to the issues and who represents what.

The way things are now; one parent can walk out with the children, or get, or threaten to get an intervention order to remove the other parent. Contact between the excluded parent and the children is then decided by the parent that has the children – the "excluding parent". When an intervention order is used (an AVOs), if the defendant is the father they are typically advised to consent to the order, because these cases can be difficult to defend. When a woman presents as fearful and anxious judges often err on the side of granting the intervention orders. It is my understanding that the majority of Intervention Orders used in the context of Family Court litigations are used tactically to limit the father’s assess to his children.

When the issue of custody is brought to the Family Court, almost always by the aggrieved party, they are reluctant to disturb the status quo of existing custody arrangements, other than making Interim Orders for minimal contact for the excluded parent, while they seek expert opinion from practitioners in the form of Family Welfare Reports, psychological assessments, and advice from child protection services, social workers and counsellors. This involves long delays - often a year or more… and serious expense, and during this time the excluded parent can have as little as an hour or two of contact with their children, often supervised by a social worker watching for inappropriate conversation or behaviour. Once again the excluded parent is typically advised to settle on unfavourable terms rather than endure huge expense, delay and distress to all involved (and especially his children). Sadly many fathers forgo meaningful contact with their children to avoid the conflict and damage of litigation. Many children loose contact with their fathers altogether.

Unfortunately courts see things in terms of victims and culprits and so the Family Court is easily persuaded (by barristers) that one parent is the victim and the other the culprit who needs to be marginalised or excluded from his children (its mostly fathers because fathers don’t do victim as well as mothers).

This approach is entirely appropriate for all jurisdictions except the Family Court because a child’s well-being is dependent on maintaining a relationship with both its parents.

I think most of us here are under no illusions about the way barristers will deride a father in Court, and that mothers can also be subjected to derision although this happens less. It’s the way the adversarial process works. It's destructive. And it's against the interest of children to have one of their parents vilified in this way (because it seriously damages their self-esteem and self image)

It's interesting to note that the court still refers to the parents either as the "custodial parent: or "primary care giver" or the "contact parent", despite the resent Family Law reforms, hardly language that's conducive to a shared parenting solution.

The consequence of all this is the child or children loses the love, guidance and a meaningful relationship with one of their parents – usually the father. The long-term damage this causes children is well documented and accepted by all. Single parent children are seriously over represented on indicators of depression, drug addition teen pregnancy, serious crime, academic failure and suicide.

* 63% of youth suicides (Source: U.S. D.H.K.S., Bureau of the Census)

* 70% of juveniles in State Institutions (Source: U.S. Dept. of justice, special Report, Sept 1988)

* 71% of teen pregnancies (U.S .. Dept. of Health and Human Services)

* 71% of High School dropouts (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High schools)

* 75% of children in chemical abuse centres (Source: Rainbows For All God's Children.)

* 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger (Source: Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, p- 403-26, 1978)

* 80% of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals (Source: "Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children.' The Christian Century, July1993: 14-21.)

* 85% of youth sitting in prisons (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).

* 85% of children with behavioural problems (Source: Centre for Disease Control)

* 87% of the juvenile offenders in the Virginia juvenile justice system do not live with both natural parents and 73% are rearrested within three years of their release. (Source: Virginia Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission)

* 90% of homeless and runaway children (Source: U.S- D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

Increased risk of sexual abuse – its difficult for a single parent to look after their child 24/7. Strangers invariably end up as carers of the child.

Children's well-being and success in life is the most important thing to most people. For parents it is a biological imperative. Children ARE our future. We need to protect them from the conflict and distress of having one of the parents unilaterally removed by the other upon separation or marital breakdown.

The way to do this is to allow the excluded parent to apply for immediate relief by way of an order for restoration of their involvement with their children (a Restoration of Contact order). Such an order would be work in the same way as an intervention order (an AVO). It would allow up to 7 days of contact out of 14, it would be immediately enforceable and it would be subject to prompt adjudication by a court (eg: a District or Magistrates court). Only the court should have the power to make a determination to exclude a parent based on the evidence presented to it. It mustn't be left up to only one of two parents - the one that gets in first.

In instances where there is evidence that one parent is a danger to their own children, the court would be able to prevent, restrict or have contact supervised between that parent and their children. Only then would the matter go to the Family or Federal Magistrates court.

Accusations of partner violence should not be used to deny children time with their other parent when arrangements can be made to avoid interaction between the parents eg: change overs at school (preferably) or other third parties. This avoids conflict and arguments and more intervention orders.

This way the Family Courts (and/or FMC) can focus only on cases where children really are at risk. Where alligations aren't made just to protect a status quo that has been wrongfully established, as is most often the case now. This would lead to reduced risk of bad decisions being made (for example kids being forced to have contact with a father who really is a danger to them).

BENEFITS
The benefits of this solution are numerous and compelling;

Firstly it prevents conflict, distress and emotional trauma of the children and parents otherwise involved in litigation. Nothing causes conflict and distress as much as denying a parent involvement with their children.

In effect it would prevent most custody disputes from starting in the first place – because there is no aggrieved party (no excluded parent) to initiate proceedings.

Importantly it puts into effect Australia's stated obligations as signatories of the UN charter of children's rights to a relationship with both their parents.

The stability and status quo of shared parenting that is the child's experience in an intact marriage, is preserved.

By protecting children's right to association with both their parent we are acting in their best interests.

Crippling child support payments are avoided when fathers are allowed to share in the parenting of their children.

I want to comment briefly on issues that have polarised the debate about Family Reform. It needs to be remembered that there are representatives in this discussion who have vested interests in maintaining a portrayal of frightened mums and angry dads. Those who are ideologically disposed to helping women and hindering men (social workers for example do Gender Studies which denounce men as oppressors of women). These groups usually claim to represent women's interests despite the fact that most women love the men and children in their lives and don't want them hurt (a fact which is bourn out in numerous polls on the issue - 90% support shared parenting ie: women and men). There’s also those who derive their income form custody disputes (lawyers and psychologists incomes are very substantial).

Abuse of women and children is the main argument used to oppose shared parenting, despite the fact that excluding fathers generally causes increased distress and disadvantage for children and mothers.

We are constantly being told “Australian says no to violence against women” as if violence towards men doesn’t matter, despite the statistical evidence that females perpetrate slightly more partner violence than men. This strategy is nothing more than a power play. It has nothing to do with protecting children.

Unfortunately, the extreme exclusionist views of interest groups who oppose the shared parenting solution are often relied on for expert advice - both in the Family Court determinations and by governments in enquiries like this. It is my submission that their views are at odds with community and children and are given undue weight.

I commend the government of it efforts to change what is essentially a mutually exclusive court process into one that protects children from loosing a parent. Once it acts to protect children from the substantially loosing a parent in the first place, it will have succeeded in preventing most custody cases from even getting to court. The FRC will then be more effective because one parent won’t be able to remove the other off their own bat.

It's a mistake to look at Family Law as a gender issue. It a children’s issue. Men's and women's interests mostly are aligned on the issue of shared parenting; this is what the polls illustrate. If there is a dichotomy in this debate its between people on one hand and vested interests on the other.

Accommodating the demands of groups opposed to shared parenting is electorally unpopular and does not secure the female vote. I sincerely believe if this government pledged to protect children from loosing one of their parents it would be a sure fire way of winning the coming election. That’s how strongly people feel about this issue. Men and women of Australia have had enough.

I believe my submission represents a solution that has not been explored. We've all been looking at what the courts can or should do to restore contact after it has been denied, rather than how we can prevent it being denied in the first place. I’d ask every one of you to think about this approach - which is about removing the problem as opposed to fixing the symptoms.

In CLOSING
My question to you today….
Will the government condone one parent unilaterally removing the other parent from a child's life? Or will it ensure that only a court can make such life changing decisions based on evidence presented to it?

Will this government deliver what all of us so desperately want…happy successful children with two parents in their lives.

I call on everybody to write to your local paper and demand that children are protected from the summary removal of one of their parents with an immediately obtainable order – a Restoration of Contact order that works like an AVO (or Intervention Order) with immediate adjudication by a court – so that the status quo of shared parenting is preserved unless there are solid grounds to justify the removal of one parents from children’s lives. Remember whilst the majors city newspapers have shown reluctance to support shared parenting country papers are far more likely to report the concerns of their local communities and are equally monitored by the government,

THE END

Shake-up of family violence law

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:45:00 +0000

The family violence weapon gets sharpened

Shake-up of family violence law

Leonie Wood
August 13, 2007

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/shakeup-of-family-violence-law/2007/08/12/1186857347087.html

PROPOSED family violence laws would allow authorities to remove offenders from the home and make it easier for victims to stay.

The Family Violence Act, which the Brumby Government hopes to have in place in the first half of next year, would widen the definition of family violence to include psychological and economic abuse.

It would also bar alleged offenders on criminal charges but without a lawyer from directly cross-examining victims. In applications for intervention orders, victims could refuse to be cross-examined by the perpetrators.

The proposals come almost five years after the Government asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to review laws and procedures related to family violence and 17 months after the commission's final report was tabled in Parliament.

And they come a month after the Government revealed that from next year police ranked sergeant or higher would have powers to immediately remove offenders from the family home.

The Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, said the proposed changes would emphasise that family violence was a serious crime and offenders must be held accountable.

Such violence was the leading cause of death and disability for women aged under 45, but until a few years ago physical and emotional abuse at home was not treated seriously, he said.

Mr Hulls hoped the combination of new legislation and police protocols would encourage many more victims to report incidents.

"It is absolutely important that we do everything that we can to encourage women to speak out," he said.

Victoria has two magistrates courts — at Heidelberg and Ballarat — that for two years have conducted pilot programs to deal with the problem. In the past 12 months they ordered 350 men to undergo counselling.

Mr Hulls said the new laws would require extra training of magistrates, prosecutors and police. The Government would set aside $3.7 million over four years for legal aid for alleged offenders, a move designed to ensure they did not cross-examine victims themselves.

Normal rules of evidence would be relaxed to allow the use of hearsay in the court if appropriate, he said. And the chief magistrate could cut off efforts by offenders to harass victims through the court system by declaring the person a vexatious litigant.

Geldof: My grief at losing my girls

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:34:00 +0000

from another group...

Quote: [Geldof] says the discovery that the law was "skewed" in Yates's favour - just because she was a woman - plunged him into an "ocean of grief." "It freaked me out. I could not live without my kids. I missed the sound of them turning in their sleep. I just wanted to go to some dark, grey corner of the world and howl into the void."

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_articleid=454490&in_page_id=1773 >

Daily Mail

14th May 2007

Geldof: My grief at losing my girls

By Sharon Churcher

Bob Geldof has launched an emotional attack on custody laws that forced him to "jump through humiliating hoops" during his bitter divorce from his late wife Paula Yates.

The poverty campaigner and musician complains in a forthcoming TV interview that he was subjected to anti-male bias when he sought custody of his three daughters after Big Breakfast star Yates left him for her doomed romance with singer Michael Hutchence.

Watch a clip of the Bob Geldolf interview

Bob with American TV journalist Daphne Barak in the revealing interview

Bob Geldolf and former wife Paula Yates (left), Bob with daughters Peaches, Pixie and Fifi Trixibelle

In an interview with American TV host Daphne Barak, airing on the eve of next month's G8 summit, he says the discovery that the law was "skewed" in Yates's favour - just because she was a woman - plunged him into an "ocean of grief."

"It freaked me out," he told Barak. "I could not live without my kids. I missed the sound of them turning in their sleep. I just wanted to go to some dark, grey corner of the world and howl into the void.

The Geldof family dining at RYO in Soho earlier this year

"The key in my pocket still fit in the door, but I was no longer allowed (to put) this key in the door and go into my home.

"It's very hard to get your head around that. I went to the door, and I was too humiliated to knock on my own front door.

"That's my house, my home, my children. I could hear them laughing in there. I was too scared of (knocking) and one of my kids opening the door and saying 'Hi Dad' and not being allowed to let me in.

"I didn't want to impose that on them. I didn't want it to happen to me. I didn't want her to come to the door and say, 'What are you doing here? You're not allowed to come here.'"

"So, I went back out, and I sat in the car and I just cried. I just stayed and watched their bedroom lights go off, and I went home. That shouldn't happen to anyone.

"If you put impediments in the way of men seeing their children - making them jump through all sorts of humiliating hoops - the kids become a weapon, a sword and a shield simultaneously.

"You're suffering so much. Eventually, no person can take that and the kids lose a father. It is hurtful."

Geldof, 55, finally was awarded custody of Fifi, Pixie and their sister, the model, Peaches, following a 1996 drug raid on the house where Yates and Hutchence were living.

After his ex-wife died in 2000 from a heroin overdose and Hutchence was found hanged, he adopted the tragic couple's daughter, Tiger Lily.

"What's she got to do with any of the mess?" he told Barak.

"She should be with those she knows and loves. She's a hoot. She's gorgeous."

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

Comments

Anyone who has had to use the 'family courts' to try to retain or maintain contact and access to children, who they are bonded with, will be well aware of the extreme difficulties of doing so, or in being enabled to do so, within the existing adversarial process.

It is the children who are being made to suffer. Too often they are being isolated from the bona fide people who they are bonded with and who matter to them.

There are many things which could and should be put in place, before the use of 'the law' which could and would assist the children to retain their established attachments, at the time of family breakdown or crisis, which would help stop the children being 'isolated'.
The experience of Bob Geldof is common to many.

When will the 'Law Lords' recognise that there is something amiss, in aspects of the 'family justice system' which is failing so many children.

When will the will be shown by 'The Law Experts' to put things right?

For the sake of the children.

- Tessa Boo, London

Welcome to the real world, Bob. Why do you think "Fathers for Justice" was setup? Now Cherie Blair is saying that women are more important than men because she is calling for MOTHERS not to be thrown in Gaol! So much for equality!

- Danny, Pendine, Wales

My experiences mirror Bob Geldof's so enough said. The family courts are cynically biassed and Cafcass officers lie in order to influence Judges to award residence, in the main, to the mother, whatever the children say. My son went to see his own Solicitor (at 12 years) in order to get his wish to live with me. Cafcass also encouraged my ex to abduct my children for no reason. This was proved in court and the female Cafcass officer was mildly rebuked (!). Naked bias and cynical manipulation of children's lives is occurring which amounts to child abuse by the courts, and other agencies. The financial decision too was grossly skewed. My ex was given a guaranteed LUMP SUM; not a percentage. Leaving me to pay off the mortgage from my very minor share. The female Judge did not consider the needs of me and my resident son. I was by far the major wage earner and paid the mortgage; ex was mainly low paid part time. Do the words "sell out" resonate with other men re SOLICITORS? And other words?

- Jeff Baynham, High Wycombe, UK

Bob's experience, I am sorry, is one many a father has to endure. They complain about fathers abandoning their children has anyone asked the question why? From going to court for over 8 years to try and get good contact arrangements, and to stop the ex abusing our daughter to hate me we are no more forward than we were 8 years ago.

But a child psychologist has established my daughter is abused, and my ex has admitted that she does not want contact, what's happening? Nothing to the mother she can carry on abusing, Judge said nothing, sounds like it's accepted practise by a woman. I see my daughter 0.006% and she is still abused.

Perhaps not many would be as faithful to a daughter and would have given up, since no cares and no one does anything.

- John Thomas, Swindon UK

It's so easy to criticise others these days when looking closer to home might be more effective. I am a divorced father and have both 'our' children living with me as this was the only way they would see both parents. It was hard on them and me having to take on the antiquated legal system and show them that the common sense principle should be applied rather then the standard cookie cutter principle that seems to dominate these days.

Parental alienation still goes on post divorce but at least this way the children can talk about their concerns in a secure home environment. We try hard to normalise things as best we can and whilst others can sit back and pull people to bits children have problems, especially celebrity children, within marriage and sometimes we are too quick to blame this on single parents.

If this county is doing such a great job of bringing up children why did we score so poorly in the recently published Amnesty report?

- Dave, UK

Bob Geldof is right. In the space of two months, I have gone from being a father who did everything for his son and spent time with him every day to one who hasn't seen him for a month and won't see him until his Mum decides to let me.

- Andy, UK

I echo the experiences of Bob Geldof. I have been fighting for our daughter's rights to see her father for 2 years now. When I first split from my wife our daughter didn't see her father for 6 months 25% of her lifetime as she was 2 at the time. Yet my wife's new partner was able to bath her, change her, take her out whenever he wanted and act in every respect the father that I could not be. Unfortunatley, my experience of the Family Courts are that the Judges will not find whatsoever against the mother. Any suggestion that the Mother could possibly want to deliberatley limit contact with the child's father is not explored. I don't know why this is. In my case the court think it's appropriate for a father to have one night's staying contact every 2 weeks and 3 hours every Wednesday afernoon. This is the equivalent to only 10% of her time spent with her natural father. Our daughter like so many children in the UK will be limited to this until the Courts change their gender bias.

- Andy Cox, East Grinstead, West Sussex

Well done Bob - it is important to keep this matter in the public eye. I fought through the courts for 6 years in a bid to stay in contact with my son now aged 8. The courts and Cafcass failed us and as a result my son has not seen me for nearly three years. I am not alone - thousands of children have lost willing and loving fathers as a result of the failings and bias of the secret family court system. The courts need to be made publicly accountable for their weak and destructive decisions and their unrelenting bias against men.

- Paul Hillier, Oxford

Lockout in Star Chamber for stars' custody case

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Mon, 07 May 2007 00:06:00 +0000

Lockout in Star Chamber for stars' custody case

To all,

Can you imagine the mayhem if all courts were secret, all Judges unaccountable?

The Renate Lisa Mokbel is an example of their arrogance - putting her behind bars because a court order prevented her from selling up to pay the bond she posted for her brother in law.
If they're prepared to do this openly think what they get up to secretly.

We all know that power corrupts and that Judges can be brutal if no body's checking up on them.

The media is one key way to stop them from brutalising people, as they did regularly in the old days (public floggings of convicts, sometimes prior to execution etc.).

Unfortunately the culture of the Courts is based on respect and tradition. A man who objects to their child's treatment is usually regarded as being disrespectful.

Disrespect gets punished mercilessly if Courts are unaccountable - especially when the court has at its disposal the cruelest punishment of them all - hurting the man's children (which we see being done on a regular basis).

Having control of a parent's access to their children is the ultimate power. It should never be allowed to be used to crush a man who shows disrespect or to further ideological agendas that serve one gender at the expense of the other.

I am appalled by the judiciary's attitude to accountability and justice both here and overseas.

We must fight this scourge at every opportunity.

Regards,
Simon Hunt

PARENTS AGAINST 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/
email@dashlite.com.au

Equal time parenting after separation - the solution that removes the problem.

NB: To be removed from the PARENTS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE email list please email me immediately.

From: Simon

To: Simon

Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 7:22 AM

Subject: Evil veil of secrecy falls on Alec Balwin and his daughter - in the best interests of the child of course

The evil veil of secrecy falls on Alec Balwin and his daughter - in the best interests of the child of course.

They've already caused this problem. Now they want their decisions hidden. So much for public scrutiny of the courts.

Regards,
Simon Hunt
PARENTS AGAINST 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/
email@dashlite.com.au

Equal time parenting after separation - the solution that removes the problem.

NB: To be removed from the PARENTS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE email list please email me immediately.

Lockout in stars' custody case

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21678388-2902,00.html?from=public_rss

May 06, 2007 12:00am

THE custody feud between actors Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger is now being held behind closed doors.

A commissioner has ordered lawyers not to talk about the case and has banned members of the public from attending the hearing.

Superior Court Commissioner Maren Nelson said media coverage of the dispute between Baldwin and Basinger had been "emotionally traumatic" for their 11-year-old daughter, Ireland.

"This is only about the wellbeing of the child and nothing else," Ms Nelson said.

Baldwin's attorney, Vicki Greene, refused to discuss reports that the hearing had changed Baldwin's visitation rights after a phone voicemail of him lashing out at

his daughter was leaked.

A June 5 hearing will try to establish who leaked the tape to the media.
AP

Child-hiding dad wants court changes

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 06 May 2007 11:48:00 +0000

To all,

This man is a fire brand!!

He's planning his moves carefully

He has acheived more in a few days that all of us have over years and years!!

Regards,
Simon Hunt
Mornington
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/
email@dashlite.com.au

Equal time parenting after separation - the solution that removes the problem.

The Sydney Morning Herald
5 May 2007

Child-hiding dad wants court changes
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Childhiding-Dad-wants-court-changes/2007/05/05/1177788469291.html

AAP - The father who sparked a nationwide search for his children when he
failed to return them from an access visit plans to campaign for courts to
better honour the rights of children.

Murray Robertson, 59, created national headlines this week when he gave
himself up to police after being on the run with his three children for six
weeks.

The children, Bokkie, 10, Matilda, nine and seven-year-old Barney have
since been reunited with their mother, Philippa Yelland.

Mr Robertson handed himself in to police in Launceston last Thursday after
The Family Court took the unusual step of publicly naming his children and
releasing their photographs.

Speaking from Tasmania, Mr Robertson said he would go to the Family Court
in Melbourne on Monday to appeal to the chief justice to give greater
credence to the wishes of children.

He said he had been given a "rare opportunity" by the events of the last
week to speak for the hundreds of thousands of children at the centre of
custody disputes, and accused the courts of "over simplification" by asking
children to choose between parents.

"This is not about custody," Mr Robertson told AAP.

"The children put me second on their list. Number one on their list is
their home, their friends, their school, the waterfalls and camping spots
nearby. That is where they want to be."

Mr Robertson said courts failed to adhere to the International Convention
on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia was a signatory.

He said guidelines issued by the Family Court for child representatives
were also ignored by the legal fraternity.

"Either one parent or another is given custody, and the children then
become effectively a prisoner of that parent," he said.

"If that parent wishes to ... they are given an absolute right to enforce
everything that they want to and the child still has no right."

Admitting he had "no idea" when he would next see his children, Mr
Robertson said he had received widespread support over his actions of the
last week.

He denied being a member of the religious movement The Family, but
confirmed he had attended its church services and had friends in the group.

He said he planned to take his message to Canberra and Brisbane after
campaigning outside the Family Law Courts in Melbourne on Monday.

Roberston Cild Custody Case Videos

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sat, 05 May 2007 02:06:00 +0000

Roberston Cild Custody Case Videos

Fri May 4, 2007 6:31 am (PST)

I've posted two videos on YouTube of Channel Nine News Sydney and A
Current Affair's coverage of the Murray Robertson "child abduction"
Story that's been making news here in Australia over the past few
Days. It's great to see a father's side of the story for a change.
Greg Andresen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HudTNvXYZk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKEuaSuMW9k

Also see Dr Warren Farrell recent Interviews.

Greg A. has sent the web addresses of two interviews (video) from Dr Warren Farrell which provide compelling arguments as to - not only why equal residency should be considered in cases where there is conflict between the parents, but that it is especially important in these cases.

"There is also a compelling reason why the existence of conflict between the parents, as distinct from abuse of the children, should actually be a positive reason to grant equal residency. In separations that have developed into two highly antagonistic camps, if one parent gets a vast majority of the time that 'majority of time' by itself tends to pull the child into that parents camp."

https://secure2.convio.net/acfc/media/video/2006nflrc/ka/ka-farrell.wmv

https://secure2.convio.net/acfc/media/video/2006nflrc/iv3/iv3-farrell.wmv

Geoff Holalnd. Cairns.Australia

No-contest system a good result

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:06:00 +0000

At last they're starting to understand the cause of the conflict that causes so much damage - the adversarial legal system.

The stats are as usual wildly inaccurate - oh well.

Looks like kids are going to get a better deal - shame about all those who've had their lives destroyed, and those dads under orders not to see there children etc.

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/

"The Age" - Melbourne

No-contest system a good result

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nocontest-system-a-good-result/2007/04/25/1177459786218.html

Karen Kissane
April 26, 2007

A REVOLUTIONARY new Family Court system to deal with disputes has resulted in happier children and parents, according to a Melbourne researcher.

The new process, in which parents talk directly to the judge and are encouraged to focus on their children's future, has been adopted for all child cases filed after July 1 last year. It can also be used by partners in property cases if they wish.

Jennifer McIntosh, associate professor of child psychology at La Trobe University and director of a divorce mediation clinic, found that parents who had gone through the new system argued less over sharing the children, and the children emerged happier than those whose cases were processed in the traditional, adversarial way.

"There was far more acceptance of the importance of both parents in the child's life and far more respectful communication going on between the parents, and fewer out-of-control moments," she said.

Professor McIntosh studied 38 families where disputes over children were settled under the adversarial system the court has used for most of its existence, in which parties oppose each other and speak through lawyers.

She compared them with 50 families who went through a pilot program in Sydney for a "less adversarial trial" in which the parents talked directly to the judge without having to worry about the rules of evidence.

In Sydney tomorrow, Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant will launch a report called Finding a Better Way, documenting this "bold departure from the traditional common-law approach".

Professor McIntosh found that fathers who had gone through the pilot program reported significantly more contact with their children: only 18 per cent rarely or never had overnight care, compared with 30 per cent of fathers in the old system. Twenty-one per cent of mothers in the old system had little or no overnight care compared with only 2 per cent in the new system.

Neither group was lavish in its praise of the court system, but more parents in the old system (70 per cent compared to 28 per cent) felt the process had a negative effect on them as parents.

Reported one father who had gone through the new system: "In regards to mother, instead of impulsively reacting to me, she listens now. I think she was listened to in there, so she could listen to me too."

Professor McIntosh said she was surprised to discover the most important "mechanism for change" was the way in which the judge gave parents a role model for thinking about the children first.

"Their capacity for thinking like parents was restored, and for some there was even an increased positive regard for the other partner. That's got to be a good outcome for children."

Three months after divorcing, the parents said their children were significantly happier than the parents in the old system.

They also had less conflict with their ex-partner and more positive views about how often the partner saw the children.

The view of the judge was positive for 69 per cent of parents, who used words such as "fair, supportive, wise, eased the confusion, listened, amazing". Ninety-two per cent of the group who had gone through the old system reported negatively on the judge: "Biased, unduly critical/harsh, unfair, naive, ignoring, omnipotent, inconsistent".

The study concluded: "A loss in judicial impartiality amounted to a clear gain for many parents, who were more often reached, moved and inspired by a judge who entered their struggle."

http://www.familycourt.gov.au

Most child abusers are women: report

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:21:00 +0000

...if the so called child protection "experts" and the Courts were honest about this thouasand of kids would still have fathers.

Most child abusers are women: report
9 MSN Wendnesday 11th April 11, 2007.

14:34 AEST

Women are responsible for more than half of all child abuse cases in Queensland and are much more likely to neglect their children than men, a new report has found.

The Child Protection Queensland 2005-06 Performance Report, released on Wednesday, also shows a spike in the number of deaths of children known to child welfare authorities, including death by suicide.

The report shows there were 13,184 substantiated child abuse cases across Queensland in 2005-06.

Women were responsible for 7,319 - or 55.5 per cent - of cases, and males for 5,846, or 44.3 per cent.

advertisement

However, the patterns of abuse were found to differ substantially between the sexes.

In 2005-06, females were responsible for 80.2 per cent of all cases of neglect - 3,283 cases compared 799 cases for men.

Women accounted for 46.8 per cent of all cases of emotional abuse, a total of 2,615 cases compared to 2,972 involving men.

Women were also responsible for 48.9 per cent of all cases of physical abuse - 1,358 to compared to 1,412 for men.

However, men were by far the greatest perpetrators of sexual abuse, responsible for 663 cases compared to only 63 by women, or 8.7 per cent.

In only 19 of the 13,184 abuse cases it was not known whether the offender was male or female.

Child Safety Minister Desley Boyle said the findings shattered society's image of the caring and devoted mother and the belief that men were more likely to abuse children.

"We have an idealised image of mothers - that they feed their kids before themselves - but I'm sorry to say, it's not always true," Ms Boyle said.

"Some mothers choose to spend their, albeit meagre, money on cigarettes and alcohol and give healthy food for their children a lower priority."

Emotional harm was the most frequent type of substantiated harm in 2005-06, increasing from 39 per cent of all substantiated cases in 2004-05 to 42.4 per cent in 2005-06.

Children living in single-parent families represented the largest proportion of children subject to substantiated cases, accounting for 38.1 per cent.

Of the children subject to notifications in 2005-06, children aged under five comprised the largest proportion - more than one third.

The report also found deaths of children known to the Department of Child Safety had risen.

In 2005-06, 51 children or young people died - up from 37 the previous year.

Six of those children were subject to child protection orders.

Fourteen deaths were accidental, 18 were from natural causes and in three cases, the cause of death was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

The cause of death for five children was non-accidental and in four cases the cause of death was suicide.

It is still not known how seven other children died.

Ms Boyle also said the caseload figures per child safety officer had dropped from 32 cases to 21 cases at the end of 2006.

Unwanted pregnancies and abortions caused by domestic violence - The Melbourne Age today.

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:46:00 +0000

To all,

In case you were thinking its safe to go out.

A classic example of how induction (as opposed to deduction) is used to persecute.

No wonder so many think domestic violence is a problem only for women perpetrated by men !!

Could recognising that this is not true - that DV affects both genders equally (lets not worry about the slightly increased occurrence of female perpetrators) be a better way of tacking the problem?

Now I see why my letters get knocked back

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/

Abortion linked to domestic violence, study finds

Dewi Cooke
April 7, 2007

The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/abortion-linked-to-domestic-violence-study-finds/2007/04/06/1175366479425.html

THE long-lasting impact of violent relationships on women has been illustrated in research showing that young women abused by their partners are more than twice as likely to have an abortion as those who have not.

The data analysis, by La Trobe University researchers Angela Taft and Lyndsey Watson, found that partner violence is the most powerful factor in whether a young woman decides to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Published in this week's Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, the study also found women from poorer backgrounds were more likely to terminate their pregnancies.

"We didn't know what would come out but certainly it doesn't surprise us and people who are interested in the termination issue aren't aware of what a strong role (violence) plays," Dr Taft said.

The researchers found that women who reported recent violence of any kind were likely to have reported a termination, while women who had had a violent partner at some stage of their lives had significantly higher odds of having had an abortion.

Dr Taft said reducing violence against women was the key to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. "People providing pregnancy counselling and abortion providers should be asking about abuse, but I think that we see this as an issue of unwanted pregnancies and as I'm a public health researcher my argument would be there should be a sexual and reproductive health strategy at a national level with a focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies," she said.

"There's a whole raft of things that you'd want to consider there but certainly reducing violence against women should be a part of it."

Court's denial of shared parenting causes sparks

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:57:00 +0000

(click on image to enlarge)

The guy's fighting for equaly parenting.
Would he be in the court if it hadn't been denied?
The solution. Remove the problem.
Protect children from having one parent excluded by the other.
Q.E.D.
(and imagine if he'd kicked in the panels of his wife's car!!!)

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/

Mum jailed in custody battle

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:27:00 +0000

The following comment (starting with mine :) show the depth of feeling in Australia about the the Family Court's treatment of children and their fathers. There is some nastiness from deranged women - not much though.

" The Family Court heard evidence and allowed the father to have unsupervised access to his children" What? Why should a father have to be provide evidence before he allowed to see his kids without a supervisor ? What an awful thing to do to his children who look up to him for guidance and protection. Why are our Courts treating children and fathers like this? The court should have protected those children's right to have both of their parents in their lives equally from the moment the parents separated. If they had done so none of this would have happened. The kids still would have had both their parents in their lives. Neither would have been seen as 'bad'. The main reason this woman stopped the kids from seeing their father was because the court normally assist women in doing this. Everybody she sought help from would have told her this. Most would be making money telling her this. The mother, the children and the father are all victims of a a legal system that treats childrens' parents as either winners and losers, which means children always lose ...one of their parents plus their confidence, self-esteem and success in life. Posted by: simon Hunt of Mornington 12:37pm today

Readers' Comments

Mum jailed in custody battle

Exclusive by Janet Fife-Yeomans

March 29, 2007 12:00

Article from:

A MOTHER-of-two is behind bars for defying court orders in a tug-of-love fight with her ex-partner.

In what family law experts said was a rare case, the woman, 31, was given a heartbreaking choice by the Federal Magistrates' Court – let the father to see his children or go to jail.

Have you experienced a similar situation? Tell us via the feedback form below. We may not be able to publish some comments for legal reasons but we will read them all.

Read Full Story
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21463034-5001021,00.html?from=public_rss

It's time the law started getting realistic about these situations. Most ex-wives, ex-female partners are so bitter and twisted that it is a crime they are allowed to hang on to children at all - they need to move on and think of giving their children a better life - and a large part of that means being humane and decent and letting the father of those children spend quality relaxed time with them. WOMEN - WAKE UP - IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

Posted by: Jeanne of Melbourne 6:36pm today
Comment 111 of 111

I thought the courts were supposed to be all about protecting the best interests of the children? is that not the basic premise of the family courts?? So how can turning a child's mother into an incarcerated criminal possibly benefit the children involved? All people's personal anecdotes do is highlight their own biases. "I knew this bloke..." etc does nothing to support an argument. Statistical evidence is a far more reliable source of data and those statistics indicate that far too frequently, mothers are ordered by the courts to force their children into dangerous situations. What a choice! Go to gaol or place your kids in danger....

Posted by: Shell of the Beach 5:50pm today
Comment 110 of 111

To Richard Ward - Just because your are a single mother does not mean you are supported by the government! I am a single mother working full time, and I pay the child support to the father who I share the care of my son with.

Posted by: Tania of Canberra 5:05pm today
Comment 109 of 111

Bring back corpral punishment and soon

Posted by: Brad of redfern 4:56pm today
Comment 108 of 111

Vicki Bradstone @ 2.44pm. You have a lifestyle...but one it seems you cannot afford without your ex paying for it. Improve your lifestyle by giving your ex more time with the kids. Simple really but will it happen. Probably not if you want your cake & to eat it too.

Posted by: Trevor of Hunter VAlley 4:41pm today
Comment 107 of 111

This punishment is about defying a court order. Full stop. The law is the law is the law, and there are repercussions for breaking the law.

Posted by: Leanne of North Queensland 4:40pm today
Comment 106 of 111

Many times i sit and just READ these articles and comments but this time.. shall i say.. there is a first time for everything... I am a step parent in my relationship.. I get along very well with my darling step son.. and i tell you.. not a day goes by where i dont think of him and wish he was living with us.. with his father.. WE HAVE A COURT ORDER!!! hurray.. we thought that was it.. the bee nees.. it will finally put some order for our son's life.. to have both parents involved in his life............. but not apparantly so.. to date:... we are applying for a breach of the court order.. yes.. BREACHES.. and she loves it.. she provokes us to "take her back to court"!!! knowing nothing will change.. she will most likely continue to stop our son from seeing his father .. so.. how many years do we fight for?? how many times must we watch her take away her son's right to have a happy life with BOTH OF HIS PARENTS.. we pay $750(that's almost rent)!!!! a month for child supp.. he is only 10.. and yet.. even though we pay.. she still can breach a COURT ORDER... I love my man, I love my son..(he is my son and no one can tell me just bc i did not give birth to him) and i would wish so many times that the law would just see that not all DADs are bad.. and not all MUMs are the better for the child/ren.. ours is a 7 years battle now.. and we wont give up.. as it is.. we are wondering if we will have our little man for the Easter school holidays....... There is only time.. and there is hope..

Posted by: Mik 4:27pm today
Comment 105 of 111

he family law court has a lot to answer for its failure to enforce its own access orders. Particularly the former head of this unjust court.

Posted by: bill of port macquarie 3:51pm today
Comment 104 of 111

me of gc - fantastic post. I'm in a similar situation except the two eldest children of my partner told their mother that they would prefer to live with us, at least until the two of them can sort something out. We're still waiting on something formal to happen though, so fingers crossed. I'm beyond amazed at how selfish and jealous women can be when it comes to their children.

Posted by: JM of WA 3:33pm today
Comment 103 of 111

This mother may have a bloody good reason for why she does not want the father to have access to these children. This father has criminal convictions, and this woman has been running from him since she was pregnant. Stop assuming that this is all the mothers fault, and look at the bigger picture!

Posted by: Tania of Canberra 3:16pm today
Comment 102 of 111

This debate has many levels, the first and most important to BOTH parents is take some responsibility for your actions. It's not the taxpayers job to pay for your kids (unmarried mothers take note). To both parties pay your child support. Yes it's true the females get a better deal in family court, but try not to get there in the first place, use a condom, the pill or the word NO. Too hard perhaps, stay at school and listen to the sex Ed class perhaps. I see that is still to hard. I ask the PM to review all the welfare payments instead of penalising real job holders.

Posted by: Richard Ward 3:11pm today
Comment 101 of 111

To Shane of Sydney- When was child support mentioned in this story? And who are you to judge women if they decide not to allow access to the father of their children?Maybe the father does not deserve the children!

Posted by: Tania of Canberra 3:03pm today
Comment 100 of 111

If my EX-defaco dosn't pay on time its a simple case of the children are sick on his weekend visit rights,I have a life style to live as well.no money,NO KIDS, simple as that

Posted by: Vicky Bradstone of NSW 2:44pm today
Comment 99 of 111

Listen up Mothers with custody. If you breach a court order this should happen to you. You have no moral right to demand child support payments and then deny the father his right to be a father. I applaud whole heartly Magistrate Jarretts decision, its is correct and proper. The only time a parent should be deny access to their children is when PROVEN abuse of any kind occurs. By proven I mean charges are laid and a conviction is made.

Posted by: Mike of NSW 2:34pm today
Comment 98 of 111

Finally some real action from the FCA. It is all to easy for mothers to make false, hurtful & vindicitive allegations against the father of their children in custody matters in order to "win" sole or major custody. (I know it happened to me). If they do & get away with it, the CSA then comes along & rewards them for it. Kids are not pawns in a battle between fueding ex's. Kids have the right to know, love & grow with both parents. If the mother in this case had legitimate concerns then she should have gone to appropriate body, possibly DOCS, not make a unilateral decision that is in her best interest.

Posted by: Trevor of Hunter Valley 2:10pm today
Comment 97 of 111

Don't let Robyn Jones fool you. I was in the family court for 14 years and the courts continue to bow to the tantrums thrown by the mothers and consistantly screw over the father. It's about time the courts took a dim view on the selfish and spiteful behaviour of either parent. If the mother has a concern about child safety then she should submit her evidence to the court, not take the law into her own hands. Plenty of people (male or female) with criminal records are excellent and loving parents and the behaviour during emotional custody battles is not always indicative of how a person normally behaves.

Posted by: B of Canberra 2:04pm today
Comment 96 of 111

Well as usual the court disregards the welfare of the children. It's amazing that they say it's a "RARE" occurrance, sadly it's not. The wife leaves the abusive husband only to have the court order the children to be with the abuser and continue to be abused and the only way to stop it is to have the mother defy the court order, risking jail. The mother can only try to protect her children from the abusive father and can only try to fight the court system that protects the abuser at the expense of the children. It's a complete outrage that in our day and age a court of law would allow this to happen and arrest the one person who is there protection her own children. The rest of you who say she got what she deserved, obviously have not been in the same situation where every weekend you are forced by a court of law to send your children to be abused or get arrested, this is the choice this woman faced and she chose to protect her children.

Posted by: Margaret Tucker of Sydney 1:42pm today
Comment 95 of 111

It is women like Sharon who are thankfully making a mokery of mothers with an extreme view. Can you believe (laughing loudly) Sharon's extreme views of mothers are higher than thou and Fathers are sperm donors. My god how many children (and it is going to get worse) have been mentally and emotionaly damaged by women like Sharon. It is this higher than thou, that is ruining it for our children. START at 50/50 access, then work out the evidence (pure evidence) to get to the actual residence time and supervision at the very least. I fear for your children Sharon. PLEASE get some help for your childrens sake.

Posted by: MacDaddy of Sydney 1:38pm today
Comment 94 of 111

There is now hope for all males finally being given fair treatment by a family court.

Posted by: Steve of Sydney North West 1:24pm today
Comment 93 of 111

There are so many good points of view here and so many sad stories. My message to Sharon is that not all dads are like your ex. My son had to take his 18 month old daughter to work for 2 years because her mother wouldn't get out of bed until lunch time. On the one occasion he left his daughter with her mother, he came home to find her playing in the street unsupervised while her drug affected mother slept. She was three. When it came time to grant custody, the court said the mother was the primary care giver and because the child was so young, gave 100% custody to the mother. Not all mothers are saints and not all dads are monsters. In my own case, I was indebted to the 'new woman' in my kids lives when they were growing up - she is a good, caring woman. My kids and grandkids continue to have a good relationship with my ex and his wife and both sets of families attend birthdays and Christmas together. If only other families were as lucky as we are.

Posted by: Annabel of Sydney 1:23pm today
Comment 92 of 111

I feel very sorry for Sharon who posted here, she appears to hate almost 50% of the population....men. I would not wish to be her son.

Posted by: tragic of Canberra 1:18pm today
Comment 91 of 111

Has anyone ever put a thought as to why the Mother did this. Sometimes the mother knows their ex-husband so well, and what they are capable of, that they are putting their children first when they take such action. To all those who think a mother would commit such act out of revenge is WRONG!! Have the judges ever thought of the children's safety when they are granting the father access these days. Can the father look after their children during these access visit. What food are they feeding their kids during these visits and what are they doing with them or are they just asking for access for the sake of it and to get revenge on their ex-partners. Have the judges ever thought of the consequence of allowing the father access who sometimes un-do all the good disciplines instilled by the mother? Of course not, all they think about is fair equity and equal rights but half of these men can't look after their children and don't do anything productive when they have access. Why don't we promote stability for the children instead of 2 days here and 5 days there. Our family laws need to be reviewed for our future children's sake. I know my nephew's father doesn't even know which class he is in this year and which room to pick him up from when he recently wanted to pick up his son from school. The boy's father didn't even take the initiative to ask the mother, who later had to remind him. Not surprising!

Posted by: Abear of Sydney 1:16pm today
Comment 90 of 111

How can courts pretend they act 'in the best interest of the child' when they can't even define 'unreasonable risk' and use terms like 'entrenched violence (like the level of violence you as an adult copped isn't bad enough!) What do you do when you feel you barely escaped with your life - just hand over the terrified children who saw it all, or who were used as punching bags? How much risk would you want if you really cared about the best interest of children, especially when you look at the constant research that tabulates the devastating outcomes for abused children. And Steve from Sydney, if a lawyer gave you bad advice, why is your remedy to lock up more mothers? Why isn't it lock up the lawyers? Besides, the laws changed last July so experiences from before will pale into insignificance as the determination to appease the angry men's movements allegations of bias against them gets going. Go sit in court and watch - see it live with your own eyes. You might get the same thrill of the kill like they did when Christians were thrown to the lions. There are no penalties for people who lie, there are no penalties for parents who do not turn up for access granted to them by the court. There are cases of children living overseas where there is supposed to have access for children in this country, but at the last minute the residential parent changes their minds. The system sucks internationally and the governments care little for the best interests of children. New Zealand has a policy that puts safety first. Why don't we? Working with the children of these relationships tells me the rise in violence amongst our children is their response to us (adults and systems) not caring enough to keep them safe from the violence they have spoken out about, but have not been heard. Our courts don't listen to our children, and too many parents righter's don't either. And people whining about paying for the costs of children you created? Stop procreating so readily until you have the emotional maturity to raise one and pay for it.

Posted by: Robyn Jones of Hunter 1:16pm today
Comment 89 of 111

my son 14yrs has not seen of heard from his father in 13 years, his father has court papers to allow access. does this mean after all these years he can walk in tomorrow & claim his rights... I DONT THINK SO.......

Posted by: tracey of st clair 1:12pm today
Comment 88 of 111

Going through it RIGHT NOW! 2 years ago my ex suddenly cut me off from seeing my kids...this is besides the fact that I only got to see them for an an hour and a half every sunday and never without her around. All of a sudden, she up and moves house without telling me where to and stops picking up the phone or returning calls. I tried calling her job - They acted like I was Hitler and wouldn't put me through. I tried calling her ex-best friend - nothing. I went to FLC - They sent papers to her last known address except that's not her address anymore is it!!?? The Police? HAH! The other weekend, my dad runs into her and my kids just by random luck. She gives him a bogus phone number that doesn't even work...all the while my kids are looking at him like they're in shock he's alive! My point here is: Dads deserve the same rights as moms. This one-sided prejudicial stance that moms are the holier - than - thou spirit of fertility is old. Fathers deserve the right to be the primary care-giver just as much as the mother. If the mom doesn't grant access, jail is a great answer. The more time the better...it keeps their poison out of the ears of the kids. Am I bitter?

Posted by: MJ of Syd 1:06pm today
Comment 87 of 111

To those mothers who think it's ok to deny access to fathers because they don't pay child support, go and jump off a cliff. While I support whole heartedly the concept of child support, as it is a moral and legal obligation for a father (non custodial parent) to do so, the whole concept of preventing a father seeing their kids because of money is wrong. I understand there are two side to every story, but child support and acces to one's children are totall separate issues, and should be treated as such by the parents. Failing to do either is wrong. More women should get it through their empty heads before thay make the ridiculous statement "I won't let him see the kids until he pays me" This is a vexing issue, but too many see money and access as a way to manipulate things to their own advantage. To all those mothers who deny access for any reason - you don't deserve to have your children To all those Fathers who won't pay a fair and equitable amount to their ex wives - you are pond scum

Posted by: Shane of Sydney 12:54pm today
Comment 86 of 111

About time the law set a precident and did something to stop these mothers taking the law into their own hands hope this is the start of something possitive for these poor dads who have access orders in pleace but have difficult ex's who think they are judge and jury when it comes to their children and override these orders. Congradulations Steven Tester for the win in this ludicrus judicial system.

Posted by: Bronwyn Hamilton of Albury 12:49pm today
Comment 85 of 111

It's about time a mother who flauts the decisions of the courts gets time in jail. In my opinion she deserves time in jail equal to the time that she denied access to the kid's father. I find it completely unfair that a man can be charged with kidnapping or abduction, and have the cops chasuing him if he fails to bring the kids back to their mother, but no-one does a damn thing if a mother refuses access, particularly when it's court ordered access. Serves her right, and if everything is fair she'll be denied custody of the kids when she is released, because (I love this bit), she is a convicted criminal!!!.

Posted by: Shane of Sydney 12:48pm today
Comment 84 of 111

Posted by: Shane of Sydney 12:47pm today
Comment 83 of 111

We need some equality in our justice system. This woman got what she deserved. Using visitation rights as a weapon to beat down her ex. What a cow! What kind of mother comes between children and their father? It takes 2 people to make children and they are not the "possession" of 1 parent. My brother's ex-haggis (she's from Scotland) got a passport for their child by lying on the application paperwork that my brother was off the scene and unlocatable. She took off back to the UK with my nepwhew one day while my brother was at work earning the money that paid the rent and bills for their family home. She had to be extradited from the UK with my nephew and has been on every kind of Govt assistance available including Legal Aid ever since. My brother has had to fight tooth and nail for access and had to pay his own legal bills. Haggis has accused him of being a drug addict, which is a lie (legal drug test that he offered to do and submitted to the court immediately was negative for a list of about 6 different types of drugs) and of rape. She even fished around his ex-girlfriends trying to find someone that would back her story all of whom told her to jam it and "as if". My brother has shared custody and final court case is in 2 months. This has dragged on for 2 years and she has not been dished any form of punishment except her passport be held by authorities and my nephew's falsley obtain passport cancelled. Haggis has committed international child abduction and perjury. We'll see what happens in 2 months... Proabably just rule that the shared access continue and she will not be punished at all for all the trauma, anguish, drama and cost she has caused for everyone that knows them.

Posted by: V T of not at the beach right now 12:38pm today
Comment 82 of 111

Posted by: simon Hunt of Mornington 12:37pm today
Comment 81 of 111

I am sure not all non custodial ex partners are deprived of seeing there children. There have been many instances where my ex doesnt even bother turning up or phoning to say he cant have the children, yet is quiet verbal about his rights to seeing them when it suits him! You dont hear about the cases where dads are taken to court breaching court orders for neglect ! Reason being, mothers get on with the job of raising their children. They dont have the time or money to go to court.

Posted by: miriam of Sydney 12:25pm today
Comment 80 of 111

So Sharon, In your words : "As for the "new" woman in the fathers life, leave children alone that are not yours and in most cases you seem to be fighting for the fathers "rights" not for the well-being of the kids. " Im one of "those women" your talking about, how can you even state that women arnt interested in the well-being of these kids? We spend over $16,000 in airfares and accomodation a year trying to get access to my partners kids, i absolutely love them to death and would do anything for them. I have tried to get along with their mother and she's just too much of a fruit cake, extremely jealous & still harrasses me after 4 years & is finding it hard to move on. i know im not the kids mum & would never try to be their mum but i wont be "leaving them alone" pretending they dont exist, what kind of person would i be if i did that? Its a big mistake to deny a kid of a loving supporting step parent just because of jealousy.

Posted by: me of gc 12:12pm today
Comment 79 of 111

Too often fathers cop the loss of children and lose out financially as well. Mothers find it very easy to make a mockery of the justice system by not allowing the children to see the father. All the time fathers are portrayed as dangerous, untrustworthy or hopeless to take care of the children. Fathers emotions do not seem to have any value in this society. People believe mothers concoctions about husbands being abusive and wife bashers when it has been the other way around. A small push and shove to a abusive mother is interpreted as a bigtime bashed up' and almost everyone believes this.

Posted by: VR 12:02pm today
Comment 78 of 111

About time the courts stood up for the father - if you reversed the scenario the father would have been sent to jail about 10 court cases ago due to the bias show towards the mothers. A step in the right direction by the courts but only a small step towards equality for both the father and the mother.

Posted by: Julian of Sydney 11:56am today
Comment 77 of 111

I wouldn't comment on this case because I don¿t know the full details. If the father is as bad as the mother alleges and something happens to the kids, I hope the court takes full responsibility if something goes wrong. If this is the case, I can understand why the mother would make such a drastic decision. In saying this however, I really hope my ex daughter in law in Queensland reads this article. Like some custodial parents, she thinks the other parent is disposable once a new boyfriend is on the scene. Twice my son has had to fight in court to see his daughter because his ex found a new boyfriend who didn¿t him in their lives. This time was worse because she moved to Qld against court orders to be with her latest boyfriend, taking my granddaughter with her. By the time the case was heard in court, it was too late to bring my granddaughter back, due to the 'status quo'. This mother has used every trick in the book to stop my granddaughter from seeing her father. She underestimated my son's love for his daughter and wrongly thought he would give up and fade into oblivion . Despite the judge warning her, this woman continues to try and stop access visits. My son is a good dad, we are good people and we all love this little girl. The rights and well being of children must take priority and every child has the right to know and love both parents.

Posted by: Alice's Nan of Sydney 11:37am today
Comment 76 of 111

It is extremly important for both parents to have a helthy relationship with both parents, and to have regular contact if it is in the best interest of the child. It is not in the best interest of the child to have their mother in jail, this lady is not a criminal, weekend detention or community service would have been more appropriate if any punishment was really nessessary. As it is important for both parents to realise that the child needs to have acess to both parents. This mother's motherly instincts were telling her her children would be in danger with their father, there was supervised visits in place previous and he was a convicted criminal, for the mother to go into hiding with the child, tells you there is more to this than the mother just being spiteful or trying to stop access, but a real concern for the child. Supervision can be by one of the fathers realatives/friends even and this may be a better alternative than a court appointed person to ensure the safety of the children and ensure access happened.

Posted by: Jen 11:37am today
Comment 75 of 111

This woman gets put in prison for four months for a family dispute but a P-plate driver who puts people's lives at risk caught doing 220km/hr is escapes a prison sentence. Well done. Fantastic justice system we have in place in this country. (sarcasm). .... These magistrates and judges need to a reality check.

Posted by: Jay Tee of Sydney 11:36am today
Comment 74 of 111

Sharon Get off the drugs please.

Posted by: DF 11:34am today
Comment 73 of 111

If the father has the children now anyway, why did the mother have to be jailed. Wouldnt losing the kids to this guy be punnishment enough or did the court want its drop of blood as well. The woman was obviously misguided and now distraught and its not a good message to send to the kids by disobeying the court but losing them should have been what it cost her, not her freedom.

Posted by: Ivan Schloeffel of Dubbo 11:32am today
Comment 72 of 111

Finally justice is being served on a person who deliberately and blatantly disobeys the law. I've had to deal with many contraventions by the mother of my children and each time the courts have said "naughty, naughty, don't do it again" and refused to take any action. This is happening to many other fathers and their children also. Women are getting away serious child abuse and it needs to be stopped.

Posted by: Tom Knoll of Melbourne 11:29am today
Comment 71 of 111

Why would the mother be so defiant and not allow the children to see their farther, even supervised, she is claiming the children would be in danger that in itself has to raise some sort of concern. While I experience a court case of my own, when my ex husband came across the Tasman outside of school holidays taking the children for a weekend I saw them 3wks later, with no contact, no idea of there wereabouts, needless to say I was beside myself, . Mine were later found (with their father) in a run down Motel in Sydney's South. Not that they were in any danger, he broke the rules and lost my trust and also disturbed the children, they still mention it sometimes and this was 3yrs ago. I hope this case does not turn into a fatality.

Posted by: concerned mum of Sydney 11:28am today
Comment 70 of 111

I agree with Sydney wholeheartedly. The mother and ONLY the mother knows what is happening to her child by the other parent. The courts do NOT care about abuse, they care only about beeing seen to be fair so that they do not get appeals on their cases. I would also go to jail to protect my kids, the unfortunate thing here is that because of the judge making this decision, the children will now be wit the father fulltime without any supervision and she cannot now do anything about it, he has been awarded custody and she will now look like the bad parent becasue of the criminal conviction and may have to fight to regain custody on her return from jail.I feel for her and her children.

Posted by: angellee of sydney 11:25am today
Comment 69 of 111

This isn't about other cases, its about the rule of law and this particular case. The court decision was made, clearly over and over again it was decided the father was no risk to the children. The mother refused to abide by the decision. The only way to enforce the court's decision was harsh, but the courts must prevail.

Posted by: Timmuh of - 11:17am today
Comment 68 of 111

As a non-custodial parent I can saying nothing but 'its about time.' dont know how many times I have been denied contact by my ex spouse who LIED in the family courts about abuse (both physical and sexual) and has treated the children as possession to be dealt to me when she feels fit. I for one will take this decision into the court so maybe I can finally have some justice when it comes to COURT ORDERS. The Family court is a joke. Its orders arent worth toilet paper. It is stacked with bias and lies aimed directly at fathers. This decision shows that the contempt that some women hold for orders will now be treated as they should be - as a criminal offence. Fathers should have exactly the same rights as mothers when they stand before the magistrate. We need a royal commision - an open and transparent one - into the actions and decisions of this court. Anyone who says there is no bias is a person who must have either no real knowledge of its actions or have a vested interest. Fathers just want to see their children. Is that so bad?

Posted by: Anton of Geelong 11:09am today
Comment 67 of 111

At the end of the day it is the children who suffer the most. Seperated parents need to let go of their crap and think about the impact their bitterness between eachother is having on their kids.

Posted by: JP of Sydney 11:02am today
Comment 66 of 111

Dear C.Back.Of Obviously you have never been in either a physical or abusive relationship, or seen/heard your child being physically/verbally abused. NOBODY male or female should be allowed to see their child if there is even a minute chance that the child is in any danger. You cannot tell me that it is in the childs best interest to have both a mother and a father if one of the parents is abusive? A bad case of rose coloured glasses I think!

Posted by: Marc Stu of Sydney 10:55am today
Comment 65 of 111

I think Emma is right, particuarly in the courts and the parents acting in "THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST". However, the case of father's not seeking full time care was in my case the advice of my solicitors telling you, you can't expect any better than the usual every second weekend and half the school holidays. I think that locking a few mothers up will in the long term lead to greater compliance with Court Orders, in much the same way as the power of the CSA have over non-custodial parents.

Posted by: Steve of Sydney 10:55am today
Comment 64 of 111

Louise, think about this. Why would a person choose jail over giving access to the father? I figure it's because she believes the kids are better off without him in their lives. Absolutely people need to grow up and stop fighting over their kids. And it's great that your children get to see your ex. But I'm guessing that your ex is a good dad. What would you do if he wasn't? Wouldn't you do everything you could to protect your children? Sometimes it's not about fighting over kids as possessions, but fighting for the right of the children to be safe and secure. How does sending their mother to jail achieve that?? If I believed my son wouldn't be safe with another person, no matter who they were, I wouldn't allow them anywhere near him. I empathise with fathers who are refused access to their kids, it's hideous, and I do believe the law needs to work with both parties to achieve the best outcome for the kids. But this particular situation is not about them. This is about a mother who believed she was doing the right thing for her children and felt so strongly about it that she was willing to take the consequences. The law be damned, I say.

Posted by: Sydney 10:46am today
Comment 63 of 111

You would hope that this is a wake up call for mothers who defy Family Court orders, but don't hold your breath... Along with false allegations of violence in custody disputes and the appalling behaviour of the Child Support Agency, we have a long way to go before fathers get a fair deal.

Posted by: Brett of Gosford 10:45am today
Comment 62 of 111

The ignorance of the majority of these posts shows me that not enough people go and sit in the public arenas of courts so they can see the tanty throwing, bullying tactics of judges, magistrates. If you've been there in your case, perhaps you're a tad one eyed? The Australia says no to violence campaign hasn't reached the courts, its own Family Violence strategy is ignored, and woe betide any parent stupid enough to to report the other parent has sexually abused a minor child. The courts do not give a damn about incestuous parents and punish the protective parent. They punish those whose children are too young to give evidence, and repeatedly award custody to the violent parent to punish the parent for speaking out. If a parent cannot in conscience hand over a child to a known perpetrator, no matter what the courts have found (or the state has not bothered to investigate, and tells a judge 'I cannot, if you want to take responsibility YOU do it, perhaps it points to I'd rather go to jail that particpate in the ongoing rape of my child.

Posted by: Robyn Jones of Hunter 10:38am today
Comment 61 of 111

What amazes me in many of the comments is the assumption (without foundation in the story) that the father is abusive. The cases of post natal depression and mothers taking their children's lives seem to be forgotten here. i too have experienced the family court and am lucky enough to have shared care of my children, talk to them daily and even bought a home two streets away from their other home so we could be close. They are both well adjusted and capable boys thanks to having two loving parents who are able to be adult enough to recognise that even if they no longer like each other, that the kids come first. That being said it has taken three years in order for my ex to come around to the fact that it is in the best interests of the children to share the parenting between us. Unfortunatley the media reports the "sensational" and it sells stories. Given the large and increasing number of seperated households perhaps it is important to look at what is the norm and not sensationalise the minority.

Posted by: Lucky Dad of sydney 10:33am today
Comment 60 of 111

Posted by: Lucky Dad of sydney 10:31am today
Comment 59 of 111

It is a pity that it has come to this, however in this instance the mother has made her bed - now she must accept the consequences. There is an amount of pride that goes through separations and custody battles, and it takes a big person to give up that time with a child for the benefit of the child to have time with the other parent. There is still an old mindset lingering around about "mother's rights", which was what I had to fight. It is archaic, and the child has every right to equal access to both parents. There are circumstances where this does not happen due to whatever personal issues - however the status quo should remain equal. Fathers have had a rough deal for a long time, and personally, I would do anything to have more time with my daughter, however I accept the arrangement that is in place purely not to put my daughter through any further grief. My plea to all parents - give up you pride - and allow equal access for your child to both parents.

Posted by: Squizy 10:30am today
Comment 58 of 111

A Child has the right to know and see both parents. If the mother was concerned about the safety of the children whilst they were with their father then supervised visitation was the way to go. Unfortunately a lot of women think that they OWN their children and will do anything to stop their exes from seeing the children, even lying, to get back at them or even with them which is very sad, but, it does happen. I'm not saying that this is the case here. Surely when this woman was placed on a good behaviour bond that she would of understood the ramifications of breaking the bond. The Judge would have explained it to her. Also if she didn't understand Free legal advice can be obtained through the Family Law Court itself. My concern now is what will happen to the children while the mother is in jail.

Posted by: GLORIA of DULWICH HILL 10:18am today
Comment 57 of 111

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA !!!! I do not know of any mothers who do not make all decisions with the children as the main focus. My ex appears to be a fantastic father, he is certainly manipulating anyone who will listen, but if he was this fantastic I wouldn't have left him in the first place. No one knows what happens behind closed doors and of course most things are hard to prove in the courts. My main point is that NOT ALL CHILDEN NEED ACCESS TO THEIR BIOLOGICAL FATHER!!! If there is conflict, I child should not be stuck in the middle. There are never 2 prime ministers of a country. I doubt every man out there would know exactly how many children he has to 100% surety, but every single woman does!! So lets let mothers be mothers, because they are the best at it and instinctively know what is right for their children. "Wronged" fathers should go out and have more children with another. Men should not be allowed to control child raising, let us get on with it! Mothers need the lobbying that fathers are getting at the moment. As for the "new" woman in the fathers life, leave children alone that are not yours and in most cases you seem to be fighting for the fathers "rights" not for the well-being of the kids. GOOD LUCK TO ALL MOTHERS!

Posted by: Sharon 10:13am today
Comment 56 of 111

Lots of good points here. Yes six years is unequivocal proof that the system has failed. It is completely unacceptable to have a six year gap if he was trying all of his legal avenues. Another point is that yes, often one parent is BETTER for the kids than the other BUT that does not mean that it is in the best interests of the child to have no contact. No contact should only be an option when there is danger. Overall, it does seem too easy for a custodial parent to deny access. The law must be changed to ensure that failure to hand the children over at the right time and place at the beginning of a planned access visit is just as serious an offence as not returning them at the end of the visit.

Posted by: gav 10:12am today
Comment 55 of 111

As a former coordinator of a children's access centre, I have to say that it is (unfortunately) extremely rare for the Family Court to take action in cases where the custodial parent does not comply with orders. This woman was only sent to jail after six years of litigation involving 22 Family Court and Federal Magistrates' Court hearings. Some might see this as indicative of the mother's commitment to her beliefs and her desire to protect her children. Others might see it as indicative of the admirable perseverance of a loving father. Whatever the case may be, the myth that motherhood bestows some sort of sanctity is a quaint and bigoted notion that is well past its use by date.

Posted by: Grey of Coffs 10:11am today
Comment 54 of 111

I spent $40,000 trying to get access to my kids and lost everything I owned except for some furniture and some cloths and got that after I was advised to raid the house during the day by my lawyer . I see my kids every fortnight during school term only,despite court orders .My ex holds all the power and tells me when I can see them or not . If I take her back to court they will give her a slap on the wrrist and change nothing .The court orders are for the children ,but there is no "custody police " that can ensure orders are followed.

Posted by: M of Adealide 10:07am today
Comment 53 of 111

I agree it is about time that the courts punish mothers (and fathers) who deny the other parent contact with the child. In our situation, there is no history of violence, physical or otherwise, just a spiteful mother who when she didnt get her own way took away the child. She has broken numerous court orders and the only threatened punishment she has had is Legal Aid threatening to take away her funding. Good on you Magistrate Jarrett for sticking up for the rights of "the other parent."

Posted by: N of Brissy of Brisbane 10:04am today
Comment 52 of 111

To Louise of Sydney, what do you think the mother's financial input is compared to your husband's assessed $500/month? I'm going to assume it's more. Child support is high because bringing up children costs a lot of money. If you don't want to have a considerable financial burden for 20 years, the only real solution is not to have children or not to be involved with someone else who has them. It IS going to be expensive, and it IS going to impact your lifestyle financial.

Posted by: Emma Robson of Sydney 10:02am today
Comment 51 of 111

Patricia Merkin 8:13am today said " Why would she refuse"?? Spite, espeically if the bloke started going out with her sister or best friend.......

Posted by: Victim Syndrome of Lismore 9:58am today
Comment 50 of 111

"Fathers have rights just like a mother does. If this was the other way around the father would have been locked up for alot less and alot longer." That is absolutely not true - as pointed out in the article it almost never reaches the point of anyone going to jail, and this is a fairly exceptional case. The focus of the family court is NOT the best interests of the parents, it is actually the best interests of the child. It is also worth noting that in the vast majority of cases (and this is a FACT) the father does not actually request or want full time custody - this only happens in a relatively small minority of cases. And to Patricia Merkin, if the court believes there is a risk, they can organise supervised access. No system is infallible, as nice as that would be. No matter what standards you apply, there are always going to be individual cases and situations that fall through the cracks.

Posted by: Emma of Sydney 9:47am today
Comment 49 of 111

this is not about denying an abusive father the right to see his kids, this man had the right to see his children, the mother refused to comply with the court orders, so she is now punished and so she should be. good on the father, i supportive of both parents having a relationshp with their children, and that means access for both parents.

Posted by: c.back 9:47am today
Comment 48 of 111

yeah & they give a covicted peadofile 1 month jail it really doesnt surprise me

Posted by: shane fitzpatrick of sydney 9:45am today
Comment 47 of 111

I have been unfortunate enough to have had experience in a number of courts, including the Family Court, and I have found that if a person swears on the bible that what they are saying is true, the judge believes them regardless of the credibility of what they are saying and any evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: MW 9:24am today
Comment 46 of 111

God forbid we read in a few months how another father has killed himself and his kids to get back at his ex.

Posted by: Diane Magaric of Mt Kuring-gai 9:23am today
Comment 45 of 111

The mother even refused supervised visits?! The Courts had no other alternative but to jail her. It is well documented in the media every other day (and by research) that the new partners of mothers are the most likely to maim or kill their children, and sadly, mothers kill their children too! Children NEED a mother AND a father. "Parental Alienation Syndrome" is well and truly alive in this country. (Look it up on the net). How about mothers AND fathers who have custody put the NEEDS of their children beyond the hatred they feel for their ex-spouses? Of course, in some cases the parent should be denied access. After spending well over $100 000 in the Courts fighting to maintain a relationship with his children, my husband gave up. There was never any consequence, and the associated Court costs took all the money. The children have been denied (by the mother) access to a wonderful father. The mother may have believed she has "won," but there are really no winners when children are deprived of a father (or mother: whatever the case may be).

Posted by: Danee Wilson 9:21am today
Comment 44 of 111

To Sydney of are you kidding? This woman was holding her kids hostage. She was given a choice, she chose jail. Unless there is abuse, neglect etc a child has the right to grow up knowing their dad. I am sick of spiteful mothers keeping their children from their dads for trivial reasons like not paying child support. Why should a child be punished because dad can't afford to pay what CSA says? My ex certainly can't afford the $500+/month CSA assessed, but the children see their dad at least 3 full weekends a month, talk on the phone when they want & go away in the school holidays. This arrangement was worked out without solicitors or the courts. Some people need to grow up & stop fighting over their kids like they are a possession. Do what's best for the children.

Posted by: Louise of Sydney 9:16am today
Comment 43 of 111

Posted by: Louise of Sydney 9:14am today
Comment 42 of 111

A lot of good comments and certainly worth value on both sides. The most important thing is the children's welfare at the end of the day; sadly there are quite a few mothers out there that believe there actions of dividing the family is not harming the kids. I am not condoning bad fathers as there is naturally a percentage out there, but why is that everyone must feel sorry for mothers and kick the dads in the guts. Do they not have feelings for their children? I have been trying to sort issues out with my ex for the past 10 years, from consent orders through to agreed payments outside of CSA and what do I get back? Zip. Their mother has gotten inside their heads to turn them away from my side of the family, including their siblings (half brother and sister) from my current marriage. She has moved them from state to state while I have tried getting orders put in place, the kids attended 4 different schools in two years. The eldest is 15 and has lived in 15 different houses, with an obvious run down through to the youngest. Why has she done this, to deny me any rights the way she see's fit just to upset me and my new family. A few years ago it brought me to the brink of quitting life, thank god for my supportive and loving wife. It's about time mother's starting being made examples of as they are definitely not all innocent; there is such a thing as a "dead-beat Mum" and they too need to be exposed. Agree totally with akiiva and Stepmum of sydney, neville of sydney - some mum's don't deserve to be mum's either and the world is not flat.

Posted by: tired of fighting ex of sydney 9:14am today
Comment 41 of 111

Spite is such a powerful motivator. This woman would rather go to gaol than give one nansecond of consideration to her kids' father. Spite, pure and simple - "I've got the bag of lollies and I ain't gonna share". Then to justify it, pull out the old "he's violent" accusation. It's about time a few more of these spiteful and malicious women got locked up.

Posted by: Jack Richards of Snowy Mountains 9:14am today
Comment 40 of 111

Its comments like those of Patricia Merkin that should have us all worried, ¿bad parents end up with their children and good ones end up in jail¿¿.I can only assume you are a jaded individual, and as such; we should all have serious concerns for your children and ex-spouse.

Posted by: josie halloway of canberra 9:10am today
Comment 39 of 111

The mother would have been more use to her children outside of jail. Do you think she had this in mind when she decided to accept a prison sentence? IT's all about EGO. Stupid stupid stupid parents. Always remember "the best interest of the child"... IT's NOT ABOUT YOU!

Posted by: Michelle of NSW 9:01am today
Comment 38 of 111

Good to see the bias against fathers is now gone in the courts, if not the posters here. 'a woman protecting her children', from what? The article says no where that the father is in anyway a danger to the children, why shouldn't he see them as per the custody agreements? It is not the mother's decision to make on whether children get to see their father, the story doesn't say whether the children want to see their father or not. Just seems to describe a petty, selfish woman, could be wrong but the story doesn't give enough information to decide either way.

Posted by: tragic of Canberra 8:50am today
Comment 37 of 111

Thank God for this judgment, being the father of a child who's mother had taken off interstate, I know the inadequacy's of the system. Mothers need to be accountable for their behavior and fathers need more justice in the courts, I hope this is the first of many wrongs made right in the courts.As long as your female you have parental rights , the parental rights of the father are just about paying up to top up the womans pension,not about being able to spend quality time with the kids you love.This woman should be made to foot the bill for all the time that this man has been dragged through the courts. Best of luck Dad ,chock one up for the fathers of this country.

Posted by: The Chooksta of Newtown NSW 8:49am today
Comment 36 of 111

About time.

Posted by: stuart of sydney 8:35am today
Comment 35 of 111

I went through something similar though less extreme i had a costly & long battle to achieve a 60/40 agreement though it has become more flexible over time, Its unfortunate that the mother was jailed but women in general in Australia need to learn that times have changed & that children deserve equal time with each parent , i found a culture exists when a marriage fails that the mother thinks & in most ways was able to call all the shots in terms of child access, it was extremely unfair system & i am glda to see it come to an end, congratulations to the father, lets hope when the mother is released common sense will prevail & the kids can see both parents, after all its about the kids & what is best for them, its too easy when going through a seperation for parents to lose sight of that & become bitter & vindictive, its a sad fact but many custodial parents try to make the non custodial parent see their children as lilttle as possible for no other reason than to be vindictive

Posted by: David of wagga 8:35am today
Comment 34 of 111

Fathers have rights as well, its about time the law recognised this....if the mother is that much of bitter ex that she wants to deny her kids a father, then she deserves to loose the kids....if people acted like adults in the beginning this would never have happened.

Posted by: matthew 8:34am today
Comment 33 of 111

To Patricia Merkin. I read your comments and then re-read the article. Where does it talk about violence and abuse??? Don't turn this into a gender war. Stick to the facts. 1. The Family court heard evidence (after 6 years I'm guessing it was a lot of evidence including Family Reports, police records, counsellors etc). 2. The judge made a decision that it was in the best intersts of the children to see their father. 3. The mother decided that the law did not apply to her. $. She was warned. 5. She decided again that she did not have to follow the law. No surprises what happened. What is the point of having laws that are optional.

Posted by: KR of Byron Bay 8:33am today
Comment 32 of 111

I don't fully understand this case, but it seemed the mother was concerned for her children, no one listened and she (and they) ended up worse off. It is important to keep children safe, even if no one listens to you. If you believe they are in danger, protect them. For example, it is a criminal offence to make false child abuse reports. But in SA the local law means criminals can walk away scot free. Notifiers can tell lies about children and damage their liberty, safety and freedom (and telling lies is just the tip of the iceberg in many cases). Your only choice when criminals aren't dealt with by the system is to protect yourself and your children.

Posted by: goldilocks 8:32am today
Comment 31 of 111

I left my husband because of violence (in the end police took out an AVO on my behalf)- He wanted to hide his true nature from family and friends and keep seeing his children as they were a "possesion" We went to court many times - each time I had to allow access as he was their father. It came as no surprise to me when the children got old enough to have an opinion, that caring daddy started punching and beating them - thankfully they are old enough to say they don't want to see him now. The courts have a hard time, I'm sure, deciding each case on its merits, but I felt we were just sausages churning along a well worn path. No personal input necessary!

Posted by: mum from central coast 8:29am today
Comment 30 of 111

Another case of adults acting like children, if it wasn't for people like this we would'nt need courts.....if people acted thier age and came to a normal agreement after they split up this would not happen.....not all marriage's work out, but the children should NEVER be used as a tool of torment against each other, if you split up with your partner, then all you need to do is come to some sort of arrangment that allows both parents to see the kids and vice verser....

Posted by: matthew 8:29am today
Comment 29 of 111

Why would a woman refuse, in the face of jail, to comply with orders sending the children to their father? The Family Court are mandated by the Constitution to focus on parental rights. It's no wonder that bad parents end up with their children and good ones end up in jail. It is high time that cases that involve abuse and violence be removed out of the family court jurisdiction, because their focus is the parents, in an environment where they are not required to make further enquiries other than that what the parties present as evidence. This woman was self-represented. How much experience would she have had in evidential process? Does anybody remember the case in April 2004 where a family court judge sent two children with their father despite evidence that he was violent? Those children were killed on those orders and nothing has changed.

Posted by: Patricia Merkin 8:13am today
Comment 28 of 111

Its about time that the courts punish those parents who deny access to the other parent, in this case yes it was a mother who denied access to a father, yet there are plenty of fathers out there who deny access of the children to their mothers. This is a sad fact of child custody matters, some parents feel that they are above the law and put their needs first and decide on their own terms that the kids will better off without the other parent or in a lot of cases.... its just plain spite and its a horrible thing to do to the children and the other parent of these children. im glad that the courts have finally decided to act, im sorry for the mother, but i am especially sorry to those children and their father who have missed out on time together and 4 months in jail does very little to bring back that lost time.

Posted by: c.back 8:13am today
Comment 27 of 111

What about the fathers who dont want to see their children? Who doesnt acknowledge the children's birthdays. What about the grandparents and the aunties and uncles who also dont acknowledge the children's birhdays. Is this fare on the children, do they deserve to be treated like this, who has to explain to the children why there are no pressents from the father or his family, of course the mother. Some fathers dont deserve to be fathers.

Posted by: neville 8:12am today
Comment 26 of 111

I find the comments interesting considering the amount of information we have been given - and also the reputation some journalists have for biased reporting. I have been in a court room where a father swore up and down that he had never hit his wife (my current wife) even though physical violence had been occuring for 13 years; lets not even start on the mental abuse which he refuses to believe actually exists.

Posted by: James of Sydney 8:11am today
Comment 25 of 111

My daughter's father had wanted nothing to do with her for almost 7 years he even denied paternity until he thought that he would get something from it, I had never recieved child support never wanted it either until a magistrate decided that it was fine for her to go to his house every second weekend and half the holidays. A few weeks ago he told her and myself that she wasn not to return to his due to her not listening. The following fortnight my daughter told me she didn't want to go back so she let him know that she was not going and he carried on saying he ran the show and not to speak to him like that in front of your c!@# of a mother, is it no wonder she does not want to return to his house?? He know after only 7 months being in her life wants nothing to do with her ever again. I have broken the court orders am I going to jail because my child has made a decision?

Posted by: Sam 8:09am today
Comment 24 of 111

To Daniel of Ontairo, My sister in law experienced the same issues as you, her Australian husband would not support her reisidency status and tried everything to get her deported, although he brother and I were citizens, in the end we contact the local MP, and within weeks she was granted residency and family support payments, and after 6 months had a full time job, her idiot ex husband refused to support the child and decided never to see the child until she turned 13 when he was diagnosed with cancer and is dying. Never give up on that child of yours and seek legal advice, you as a father have rights as well.

Posted by: Harry's Mum of Brisbane 8:08am today
Comment 23 of 111

Where did this woman think the kids would go considering she obviously knew she risked a jail sentence?? I assume it was a conscience decision to be able to reason that she went to jail rather than agreeing that Dad have time with them and adhere to legal contact orders. Basically an unsafe environment and/or not in the childrens' best interest is what will stop the non custodial parent gaining more access. Suddenly decent people are being accused of vile behaviour. We were accused in court of disgusting things but a week later i looked after the kids for a few hours as mum had something on................. Seems you can say whatever you like in a legal document entered into court yet are not accountable for any of its content. Sadly I can now start to understand why people suicide over the constant emotional/legal battle of trying to maintain a relationship with their children post breakup with an angry ex spouse.

Posted by: Stepmum of Sydney 8:08am today
Comment 22 of 111

Obviously, the court does not have the best interests of the children in mind when making decisions like this. Why cannot the politicians make the law so that the major consideration is given towards the best interests of the child? How can anyone consider a tug of war between parents can do the child any benefit? A child needs stability and certainty to be able to develop fully, and these battles between parents does not serve well for the child to achieve full potential.

Posted by: Wayne of Cairns 8:08am today
Comment 21 of 111

Are you kidding me?? People murder, maim, assault each other and escape jail terms, and this woman gets sent to prison for protecting her children?? This is a frigging joke and yet another example of the stupid patriachal justice system.

Posted by: Sydney 8:06am today
Comment 20 of 111

About bloody time. I'm sick of seeing pretentious mommies get custody of their children no matter what the actual situation is. The reality is that these women will do anything, ANYTHING, in their power to inflict as much damage as they possibly can on the father, completely ignoring the damage that this is doing to her own children. By this alone, they're the ones that should have supervised access. And to all those that spout the "No mother is prepared to go to jail for no good reason she must genuinely feel they are threatened" argument - get a life. Start looking at peoples motivations with some realism. Thinking your way, I could say, that imagine what an absolute rot-bag she must be, that the judge, who has plenty experience in dealing with cases like this, decided to toss her in the slammer. T This treatment of the "mum" as a pure, sinless, benevolent goddess has seriously gotten out of hand.

Posted by: akiiva of sydney 8:05am today
Comment 19 of 111

It is about time that the courts put mothers who blantantly ignore access court orders for fathers to have access to their children. I have not seen my daughter for 7 years now as each time I go to pick her up for the court aplroved access my daughter is not home, or no ones home or its only the new husbands who tells me tp f### off. Start throwing more of these mother in jail. If a father has to attend court more than 3 times to get court approved access enforced, send the mother to jail and let the father have full custody.

Posted by: Sydney Dad of Sydney 7:57am today
Comment 18 of 111

Good on you dad, now you have six years to catch up with your children all the best and good luck. Daniel of Ontario, keep sending those parcels to your son and when they come back keep them and send them to him when he turns eighteen. To all the other dads going through the same or similar s***, keep your chin up and soldier on.

Posted by: Glen Mathie of Newport 7:45am today
Comment 17 of 111

It is one thing to deny access to hurt the father but why would she go to jail if it was just for spite? It makes no sense. People who say "Hah. she should suffer for the years that men suffered" are speaking out spite and therefore being ill informed. Many of the times women have a romantic view of a person and stay and stay until it is too late and children are involved. She fought in the worst possible way and now has ensured that the father has 100% access to those kids instead of supervised visits. I hope the kids are ok.

Posted by: Seth of Canberra 7:44am today
Comment 16 of 111

What a shame... a shame it took six years, and 22 court appearances. Why didnt the courts act sooner? That father has missed enjoying a part of those children growing up, and those children have missed his company and guidance. What a shame that more magistrates dont do the same in their courts.. the women know that they can get away with anything, again and again. And legal aid goads them on.....

Posted by: richard clark of sydney. 7:43am today
Comment 15 of 111

It took six years and 22 Family Court and Federal Magistrates' Court hearings to put the female away. Any bloke would have been a goner on day one.

Posted by: Cheney.D 7:43am today
Comment 14 of 111

I hope this sends a message to all those women who deny their chldren access to their fathers and the grandparents and other relatives on his side of the family. Sure, she may have had good reason to go to such extremes, but she could have accepted Supervised Access when it was offered - at least she would have had some control over the situation then. Children need their fathers and the extended family, no matter how bad the mother thinks that is - even limited access can stop lots of resentment in the future. How would the mother feel if she is denied access to her grandchildren after her children's relationships breakdown ??

Posted by: DIane 7:37am today
Comment 13 of 111

My full support to Michael Jarrett on this case. How many times do we see the Custodial Parent relocate just to make it impossible for the non custodial parent to have access rights,is it fare that a custodial parent can use a child as a weapon just to hurt there EX as much as possible,there are many fathers out there that are in great distress due to a spitful EX partner.its time for the courts to put there foot down and make it clear to all custodian parents that if you ignor the court ruling in regards to access then you loose the right to gardianship of that child.

Posted by: Mark Williams of Port Macquarie 7:37am today
Comment 12 of 111

I don't care about either parent in any of these situations - all I can think is those poor children. How mortifying it must be to grow up knowing you were made by a pair of complete f*wits, barely more than children themselves, with no intelligence or maturity or sense of committment or understanding that a child is an enormous responsibility, always and forever. By all means, marry idiots, screw around as much as you want, spend months in court fighting about the rental properties and a share of income that was never yours and you couldn't ever prove a moral entitlement to. For God's sake, just don't conceive.

Posted by: Bitten 7:34am today
Comment 11 of 111

I feel that sometimes women try to hurt the father because if whatever he did but at the same time they do not realize that the ones that they are hurting are the children. Keeping the children away from their parents (either or) is only going to hurt them in the future unless there is a fair reason for it. She was being selfish and for some reason I can't help but wonder if she did all of that intentionally thinking that she was going to win and it ended up backfiring on her

Posted by: Bridget of Jersey City, NJ 7:24am today
Comment 10 of 111

Lets be fair here............There would be a hell of alot more to this story than what we know so lets not all start doing the blame game as if we did. There are 2 very long and complicated sides to this subject - I am a mother who has been through court many times getting custody of my kids and doing everything possible to protect them from their mental case of a father. For that I had many documented reasons. Although this was necessary for the safety and wellbeing of my children at the same time it broke my heart that they couldnt have a proper dad. Some men DO NOT deserve to have kids. However,I know of alot of women who deliberately keep their kids away from their wonderful and deserving fathers and nothing makes me angrier when children have a father who just wants to love them and take the best care of them but the woman wants to keep them apart out of spite. No woman has that right and from a woman who always just wanted that kind of dad for my kids you don't have any idea what kind of pain you are inflicting. Some women DO NOT deserve to have kids. Each case is different and needs to be judged on there own merits.

Posted by: KJ of Gold Coast 7:23am today
Comment 9 of 111

David - you're not making your maintenance payments fair enough. CSA should do what they're doing too many dead beat dads out there. Genlte of QLD sounds like a sad case but I wonder how much of your story is just one side of the Story, the courts in this country have rigid rules of evidence and if the things you said couldn't be proven then... And omse kids from "good" families end up in jail. Jail for any parent is harsh but parents should understand despite their differences children are entitled to a relationship with both mum and dad, get on with it put your differences aside and put your kids needs first.

Posted by: Dino 7:22am today
Comment 8 of 111

Some cases are legit where the Father is being hard done by. Then there are others where either the mother OR the father should not have access to the kids for different reasons and if they do it should be supervised. You have to take every case differently. I think the mother wouldn't be going to such drastic lengths if she thought the kids were going to be same though.

Posted by: Sarah of sydney 6:51am today
Comment 7 of 111

It's about time something like this happened.To many times the mother will do anything to inflict as much pain as possible on to the father as payback. Maybe this will start to change things regarding how hurtful alot of controlling mothers can be but i doubt it. Fathers have rights just like a mother does. If this was the other way around the father would have been locked up for alot less and alot longer.

Posted by: Stephen best of ballina 6:33am today
Comment 6 of 111

This is what men have had to go through for yrs. About time some equality in the family courts.

Posted by: Daddy of sydeny 5:39am today
Comment 5 of 111

yes I've known a case where the mother fought tooth and nail not to let the father have access but the courts wouldn't listen - she told the courts the children were in danger - the father had been jailed for marijuana growing, had a molotov cocktail thrown in his front yard near one of the children, he slept with two women in his bed around the children and had pornograhy on the television in front of the children who were about 5 and 8 at the time and did other things I can't write about - the children showed clear signs of distress and abhorrent behaviour but no one would listen to the mother- the eldest of the children grew up and ended up in jail for violent behaviour and the younger one had huge social integration problems -- she used to cry every weekend when they were forced to go away with him - but the courts kept telling her the laws the law. No mother is prepared to go to jail for no good reason she must genuinely feel they are threatened - the law is not about justice any more and who was looking after the children in this woman's case - only the mother - with no help from the law ........ and the kids suffered in the long run because the father washed his hands of them when they grew too old for him to be bothered.

Posted by: gentle of queensland 3:08am today
Comment 4 of 111

I'm assuming he already had those criminal convictions BEFORE she had 2 children to him. Sorry honey - you can't SUDDENLY decide that those convictions mean he wont be a good father, and decide to keep his children from him. This is your own fault.

Posted by: cyn 2:18am today
Comment 3 of 111

I was married to a Australian lady for 2 years. She would not support my application for residency, thus I had to return to Canada. I was employed by the NSW Government for the full time I was in your country and introduced a number of harm minisation strategies to reduce alcohol related anti social behaviour. We have a beautiful son who will be 5 this year. I have had no contact with him since I left or with his mother. She will not return email messages, phone messages and to add insult to injusry she sends back anything I post to him, clearly written in her hand writing address unknown. Is it fair to me...

Posted by: Daniel Ramer of Midland, Ontario, Canada 2:10am today
Comment 2 of 111

I being a father who has been diened visiting my children for 7 years. Dispite the court granting me rights to see my children twice a year. The problem in my case is not my ex wife but CSA, who deem the i am not unemployed in Malaysia (no matter what info I supply to prove I hVE NOT WORKED SINCE 2003) any way that is another matter being guilty with CSA until proved inicent. I have asked to visit my children (note I am now married to a Malayisan citizen CSA say can visit but not return to my present wife. Hence in my option CSA is breaking a court order allowing me to visit. Ah life Australuia public service sucks they forget who they work for.

Posted by: David 12:29am today
Comment 1 of 111

MEN DEMANDING SAME RIGHTS AS WOMEN - MEXICO

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:50:00 +0000

FW: Sending you an interesting link
Hi all,
Looks like men in Mexico are willing to stand up for themselves. The following link is for a Reuters article that I accidentally heard while doing the washing up this morning. I had my PC running news.com.au on stream and this showed up. Typically, I could not find it by doing a search on domestic violence. I had to search on men's rights to get it. Listen to the Mexican statistic on men filing DV claims of abuse by women.

http://video.news.com.au/videoplayer?channel=World+News&clipid=878136
Rob.

Family Law Double Speak - discussion

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:46:00 +0000

To Geoff Holland,
Equal Parenting Movement

Dear Geoff,

This smacks dangerously of double speak and a covert agenda,

9 times out of 10 high conflict is simply the consequence of one parent being denied contact with their children by the other parent - the one empowered by the court to exclude the other.

Obviously the solution is to remove the exclusion.

Contact centres are part of this abuse and stem from allegations of abuse.
We all know how this game works (or do we?). My daughter was subjected to change over at a Contact Centre when the school was the idea venue and had been working fine.
Its all part of the process of marginalizing the father.
The places mainly deal in supervised access (which the father pays for) where fathers get a couple of hours a fortnight under the watchful eye of young feminazi trained to treat men as being dangerous to women and children.
The fathers walk around like zombies, the smarty ones at least. The ones that object soon get excluded altogether.
These places are torture chambers for children and their fathers.

Again the solution is to make the exclusion of one parent by the other illegal.

As for "Parenting Orders Programs" can you explain or point me to an explanation of what exactly this means. Without clear definition it sounds dangerous and an opportunity for the opponents of equal parenting to deny fathers contact. Double speak and Orwellian language are the hallmarks of the anti father child abuse industry.

As for "fines and community orders" doesn't this only affect mothers who have primary care giver status. ie: where the father gets a weekend or less a fortnight and is therefore at risk of having his contact denied by the custodial parent. Again the solution here is equal parenting.
Non compliance wasn't a problem if equal parenting is ordered by the Family Court.
If a mother decided to deny Equal Parenting the solution would be reduced contact or even supervised contact on the basis that she was harming the children. However this scenario is extremely unlikely, because as I keep on pointing out, the problem is caused by empowering one parent to exclude the other.

The solution is making exclusion of one parent by the other illegal.

Kind regards
Simon

PRESS RELEASE

24 February 2007

The Equal Parenting Movement applauds the actions of the Federal Government to put in place services, announced by the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today, which help facilitate meaningful contact of children with both parents after family separation, in contrast with the previous Family Court policy of marginalising one of the parents, usually the father, if there was chronic conflict between the parents.

Convenor of the Equal Parenting Movement, Geoff Holland, said that the new Parenting Orders Programs would hopefully allow more couples to avoid the Family Court system and thereby avoid possible escalation of conflict.

However, Mr Holland argues there is a strong need for more programs to be made available by the new Family Relationship Centres such as Conflict Resolution programs, Parental Alienation Awareness programs, and Anger Management programs. He also stressed the importance of imposing fines and Communiy Service for parents who continually behave in inappropriate ways with damaging consequences for the children.

The Family Court system has so far generally been reluctant to impose such fines. Mr Holland says that the practice of reducing access to the offending parent is not a desirable policy of the Family Court system, (except in extreme cases), as this penalises the children.

Equal Parenting Movement

Street Campaign now underway ! More info contact:

Equal Parenting Movement

tel (07)4055 9995

0404 376 991

PO Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870

EqualParenting@optusnet.com.au

_____________________________________________________________________

From: "Media Releases" <mediarel@lstsvr1.ag.gov.au>
To: "Media Releases" <mediarel@lstsvr1.ag.gov.au>
Subject: NEW SERVICES KEEP FOCUS ON CHILDREN [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:48:01

NEW SERVICES KEEP FOCUS ON CHILDREN

The Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the organisations that
have been invited to operate eight new Parenting Orders Programs and nine
new Children's Contact Services.

These new services, to be established later this year, are part of major
changes to the family law system being implemented by the Australian
Government to improve outcomes for families. The successful organisations
will now negotiate funding agreements.

"Where conflict between separating parents prevents children having a
relationship with both parents, it is the children who suffer," Mr Ruddock
said.

"These new services help ensure children can continue to have a
relationship with both parents," he said.

Parenting Orders Programs help separated parents experiencing high conflict
to put aside their own interests and to focus on the best outcome for their
children. As a result many parents are able to reduce the level of
conflict and put in place arrangements that enable both parents to have a
relationship with their children.

Children's Contact Services also help families in high conflict or where
there are safety concerns. They provide safe transfer of children from one
parent to another and supervised visits where this is needed.

The Attorney-General and the Minister for Families, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough called for organisations to apply for funding
to provide a range of services in early September 2006.

More information about the changes to the family law system and the new
services available to support the changes can be found at
http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au or by calling the Family Relationship
Advice Line on 1800 050 321.

A list of the successful organisations is attached.

Michael Pelly
Media Adviser
Office of the Attorney-General
Parliament House, Canberra

MOBILE: 0419 278 715
PH: 02 62 77 73 00
FAX: 02 62 73 41 02
michael.pelly@ag.gov.au

Dirty Tricks in Family Law

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:23:00 +0000

Dirty Tricks in Family Law
By: Bettina Arndt

Herald Sun - Monday 12 February 2007

Family courts have always been known for dirty tricks but recent stories to emerge from Britain show gutter tactics have reached new lows. A father recently appeared in a UK Family Court, representing himself in a custody dispute. He made his argument, quoting a judgment sent to him by a well-known fathers’ support group. The opposing barrister pulled him up – claiming the case he’d mentioned had never appeared in the law reports. The father was made to look a fool and a con-man, with the angry judge warning he could face up to $20,000 in court costs. But when the source of the offending email quoting the forged case was finally traced, it turned out to have been sent by the wife’s barrister – who is now scheduled for a court appearance for perverting the course of justice.

Then there was the misleading 2004 document produced by a UK feminist support group for victims of violence – Women’s Aid federation of England - which suggested that in the previous ten years 29 children had been killed by their fathers as a result of court-ordered contact arrangements. The so-called research made a huge media splash leading to the paper being used as ammunition by lawyers arguing against child contact with men with any history of violence. Well, now appeal judge Nicholas Wall has released a report investigating the real circumstances of those 29 tragic homicides. In eighteen of the cases, the families had nothing to do with the family court while in another eight cases court proceedings gave no forewarning of the violence. He found only three cases where which gave rise to concern but Wall concluded that even here the judges had good reason to allow contact from the evidence presented.
Yes, we should be very concerned about the risks of violence to children of separated parents. However, it is disgraceful the way the violence card is played to try to frighten politicians and the public from making proper decisions about the care of children after divorce. Last year in Australia, amendments were made to family law to support children’s rights to contact with both parents after divorce, changes which included extra protection for children from violence.
Yet these welcome changes are under attack from women’s groups afraid the new laws will undermine the license given to mothers to shut fathers out of children’s lives. The cries of alarm began long before the changes made it into law. Look at the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, which makes clear its position on the irrelevance of fathers with its insulting slogan – “Half the couple, twice the parent”. NCSMC executive officer Elspeth McInnes’ reaction to the legal changes was to express horror that this will mean “more children will be required to live in two households and families fleeing violence will face new risks and penalties,” adding that 100 mothers and children are “killed every year by partners and fathers around family breakdown.” Sound familiar? The Brit homicide tactic rides again.

Many of the women’s groups are very nervous about new Family Relationship Centers (FRCs) set up particularly to deal with children’s matters. The government has rightly concluded that caring for children after divorce is a relationship issue, not a legal one and that the previous adversarial system was disastrous for children. But that legal system served the interests of the punitive mother very well since it failed so dismally to enforce contact orders and allowed allegations of violence to be used to deny fathers contact with their children. Remember the 1999 magistrate’s survey which found 90% of magistrates believed false AVO’s were used as a tactic in family law cases “to deprive partners access to children”?

Be prepared for more dirty tricks as lobby groups do their best to discredit the FRCs – aided by nervous lawyers who rightly fear that if the centers are successful, fewer divorcing families will use lawyers to fight over children. In a local paper from Merimbula on NSW’s South Coast, local lawyer Andrew Warren recently issued a dire warning that without legal advice parents could be persuaded by FRC workers to enter “unacceptable parenting plans” with “dramatic legal consequences.” That’s one lawyer already feeling the pinch. (ends)

Shared parenting - the solution that removes the problem.

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:42:00 +0000

Attached (when I work out how) please find letter received from our AG Mr. Ruddock today .

Note his reference to engaging with "stake holders" in point 5 - those who derive the living from the system (who rely on the exclusion of one parent for their cash flow). Pity he can't give at least equal time engaging with people who have been affected by the dysfunctional system.

However, nice to see he's going fund research into how alligations of violence and abuse are raised and addressed in Family Law, after all its widely acknowledge by the lawyers and 'stake holders' that most are contrived and that false alligations are damaging to children. In the next sentence he to says how concerned the govt is about rising incidence of "reported child abuse" and that they are focusing prevention and early intervention. ..Classic Ruddock ....keeping both "sides" happy - the vested interests on one hand, the shared parenting lobby on the other.

There will be those that assert that its better that many children are denied their fathers in custody litigation if a few are protected from child abuse.

Personally I have great difficulty with this argument, especially considering the increasing incidence of child abuse amongst children who've had their fathers removed with fraudulent intervention orders (AVOs). In other words if having a father is a determining factor in reduced levels of child abuse surely its best that the problem of false alligations be a predominant focus?

The government initiatives listed by Mr Ruddock will provide lots of work for his stake holders and increasing incidence of child abuse by way of father removal (and/or mother removal)...more work.

Children don't need the government to protect them, we all now the damage they cause. They need the love and protection of both their parents (shared or jointly) - the two people for whom protecting their children is a biological imperative.

He finished up by denying the link between Family Court ordered restriction of the parent it deems the non "custodial parent" and suicide....and not to write to him further unless I have new issues to discuss.

Shared parenting - the solution that removes the problem.

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/

Family Court fights back over bias claims

noreply@blogger.com (TheFamilyCourtPhenomenon) — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 04:17:00 +0000

To activists and supporters of children's rights,

What an amazing admission! ... in a Family Court's Christmas PR initiative. ...that the FC doesn't know how many parents is has excluded from children's lives!. That they will now respond by looking into what they have been doing for the last 31 years! Just when excluded parents from all over the world are enduing heightened grief for their children.

The fact that chistmass is so important to Children and family causes us all to focus on the horror foistered on our children by the Family Court.

And they trot out the PR lie they've been using for years ...

"Justice Bryant said the court figures could not be taken as the basis for generalisations about the fate of Australian children after their parents' divorce because the cases that went to trial in the Family Court comprised only 7 per cent of the court's case load and represented the most intractable, complex and difficult disputes "

This, in essence make the outrageous suggestion that Consent orders are consensual, that the court process, that expense and outcomes have nothing to do with the advise offered by lawyers to parents that would otherwise fight for the right to be more involved with their children.

And this ! .... " Comparisons would also be made between orders made by judges and those made "by consent" of the parents" What? ...as if the decisions people are forced into should be a rule of thumb.

Chief Justice Diana Bryant admits that fathers get excluded when there are "allegations of sexual abuse or substance issues," she said. "Mental illness is also a big issue in many cases, as is entrenched conflict" So if one parents lawyers accuses the other purest mental illness of substance abuse the kids cope it!

She even claims the number of people who avoid the Family Court altogether as proof of its success!! This is breathtakingly absurd and further admission of their failure to deliver justice to children and their otherwise excluded parents.

If there's a positive in this article its that at last we have convinced the Family Court that it has to at least pay lip service to the notion of accountability.

Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au

Family Court fights back over bias claims

Liz Porter December 24, 2006

STUNG by criticism that it is biased, the Family Court is hitting back by keeping detailed records of its decisions on parenting.

For the first time in its 31-year history, the court is collecting statistics — including the percentage of arrangements involving or excluding fathers.

"One of the things that frustrates me most is people saying that the court is biased — or that there is a systemic bias against fathers," the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, told The Sunday Age.

She said the court had started documenting the number of shared parental responsibility arrangements and the number of orders where a mother or father was given sole responsibility for children.

Reasons for the exclusion of one parent are also being recorded, with the categories including "family violence", "mental illness", "substance abuse", "distance" and "entrenched conflict".

"With the parliamentary inquiry recently there was a lot of discussion about what the court was and wasn't doing," Justice Bryant said.

"There were a lot of people saying the court was biased. But nobody pulled out a judgement and said 'the result was wrong'. It was all about impressions and rhetoric and the court itself wasn't really able to respond well to that because we don't have the data."

Is this unprecedented fact-gathering exercise an effort to combat allegations by the Blackshirts and other men's groups that the court discriminates against men?

The Chief Justice said she would not describe the project in such terms. But she said that, in the past, the court had been unable to refute criticism with statistical proof.

The parenting order data will be posted on the court website, along with links to the 850 judgements handed down each year.

"So (it would say) here is the data, and if you want to read about the cases where there was no contact (with one parent), read them," Justice Bryant said.

Data would also be collected on the amount of time children of separated parents spent with each parent. In cases of little or no contact with one parent, reasons would also be noted. Comparisons would also be made between orders made by judges and those made "by consent" of the parents.

The first results should be ready by June 30.

Justice Bryant said the court figures could not be taken as the basis for generalisations about the fate of Australian children after their parents' divorce because the cases that went to trial in the Family Court comprised only 7 per cent of the court's case load and represented the most intractable, complex and difficult disputes.

Many separated parents also resolved joint sharing of their children amicably and with no court involvement. "These are parenting cases which involve allegations of sexual abuse or substance issues," she said. "Mental illness is also a big issue in many cases, as is entrenched conflict."

She said the court was often a scapegoat for people's unwillingness to compromise.

"People always want to blame someone for it. We get the hardest cases — and some of them are awful," she said.

The Family Court is also planning a February-March blitz on a backlog of 1490 Melbourne cases awaiting a final trial. All nine Melbourne judges will be sitting, with three extra judges being brought from interstate to help clear the list.

Delays in the court increased in the 2005-06 financial year, with 90 per cent of defended cases now taking up to 26.9 months before a final judgement — more than two months longer than in 2004-05.

But the Chief Justice said that the number of "pending" cases had dropped over the past two years, from 2100 in January last year, to 1550 last October and 1490 now.

She said the backlog of older cases was being cleared so judges would be free to start working on the new, "less adversarial trials" — a system that applies to all cases that began after July 1 this year.

Under this system, one judge would run each case from the beginning, helping the parties narrow down the issues in dispute and making hearings shorter.

Justice Bryant said having different judges at different interim hearings was identified as one of the many factors that bothered clients of the court.

Working at the bench

The long wait

In 2005-2006

■The average time between application and first hearing was 6.5 weeks

■ 91 per cent of cases completed within 27 months.

■50 per cent of cases took between 3.7 and 22.4 months.

On the books

Cases pending

January 2005: 2100

December 2005: 1725

October 2006: 1550

December 2006: 1490

http://familycourt.gov.au

Copyright: This article has been copied from the Melbourne Age's website to inform only. There is not commercial gain associated with sharing this article with others some of whom may not have read the Age on 24/12/2006. The article will gladly be removed if requested by the Age or the author of the article.