Archive for November, 2010
Two year old Girl Dies after being tossed over Bridge by her Grandmother
A grandmother was arrested and accused of the unthinkable, killing her two-year-old granddaughter. Fairfax County Police say she threw the child from a 6th floor walkway at Tysons Corner Center Monday night. On Tuesday, the grandmother was charged with murder.
The girl’s mother and uncle witnessed her fall to her death. Initially it looked like an accident, but the walkway wall is waist high, with a guardrail. After talking with witnesses and looking at video from mall security, investigators say it became clear the grandmother, 50-year old Carmela Dela Rosa, threw the girl over and no one seems to know why.
“We’re puzzled,” said Victoriano Torres, the child’s uncle.
He says the family never suspected anything like this could happen.
By all accounts, Dela Rosa was a loving grandmother who often babysat her granddaughter Angelyn Ogdoc. Neighbors say she doted on the little girl and can’t fathom her killing the child.
“She seems happy,” said neighbor Makra Chhay, who often saw Dela Rosa with Angelyn. “That’s her first grandchild.â€Â
On Monday night, after shopping at Tysons Corner Center, police say Dela Rosa inexplicably threw her granddaughter from a walkway leading from the mall to the garage, on the 6th floor. One of the girl’s uncles and her mother were with them.
“It happened so quickly, the other two adults didn’t know what was going on,” said Officer Tawny Wright, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson.
Police say mall security captured the crime on video. That video, which is not being released, doesn’t explain why. Family and friends are struggling for answers. They gathered at the child’s home. Lynne Kreher and her husband Bill walked past the family’s home this morning, saddened by her death even though they didn’t know her.
“When I heard it this morning tears ran down my eyes. What does a two-year-old do to deserve this? I don’t know,” said Lynne Kreher.
The couple has two grandchildren of their own and can’t make sense of this.
“You don’t, no rationale as far as anyone’s heard. You know, to be coming back from a shopping trip and have something like this happen, it’s inconceivable,” said Bill Kreher.
Police don’t know what prompted something so horrendous. As part of their investigation, police will be looking to see if there were any family problems, mental illness or something in Dela Rosa’s background that can offer some explanation.
“It’s very tragic, it’s atrocious. I don’t know who does that. We don’t know why people do what they do and these things do happen unfortunately,” said Wright.
Dela Rosa remains behind bars after her first court appearance Tuesday. She has another hearing in January. She was initially charged with aggravated malicious wounding, but after the two-year-old died early this morning, those charges were amended to murder.
Relatives are at a loss for answers. No one, not even Dela Rosa’s family or neighbors, saw it coming.
“She’s very nice, sometimes she’d come to our house and bring popcorn and candy,” said Chhay.
For the family, the pain of losing a child is even greater because the person accused is no stranger but her grandmother.
By SHERRI LY
UK Ballet teacher accused of child sexual assault let off with minor charge
A BRITISH ballet teacher with a budding career in showbusiness was warned today that she faces a possible jail sentence after pleading guilty to abducting a teenage pupil.
Sarah Pirie, 27, was an aspiring dancer, actress and choreographer and had appeared in TV dramas Waterloo Road and Hollyoaks when she met the 15-year-old boy during one of her classes at a dance school.
She was initially accused of having sex with the youngster at a succession of hotels in Manchester and across the UK’s North West over a three-month period between March and June last year.
But the dancer learned that she would no longer have to face the five charges of sexual activity with a youngster when she made a brief appearance before Judge Michael Byrne at Preston Crown Court.
Instead she changed her plea to guilty on a single count of abducting the teenager on May 22 last year. She was freed on bail until January 7 when she will be sentenced.
Judge Byrne ordered a pre-sentence report to be drawn up but warned Pirie that all sentencing options, including jail, remained available to him.
Pirie, the daughter of a wealthy banker based in Luxembourg, cut a glamorous figure in a black trouser suit in the dock, the (London) Times reported.
Michael Lavery, for the prosecution, told the court that there had been discussions with Pirie’s defence team for some time. He said that the change of plea was “acceptable” to the prosecution.
He said: “The consideration revolved around the boy’s video evidence in this case which, in the light of disclosures, were scant in detail. The Crown is very concerned in respect of the boy’s previous behaviour, allegations that have been made and his assertions as to what happened in this relationship with the young lady.”
Pirie was bailed on condition that she does not try to contact the youngster.
Woman raped another woman, court told
Yes, the secret is out. Women are Rapists too!
A woman digitally raped another woman in a toilet cubicle at an inner Brisbane hotel, a jury has been told.
Anne-Marie O’Loughlin, 25, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape, deprivation of liberty and sexual assault in the Brisbane District Court on Monday.
Prosecutor Chris Minnery told the court in his opening statement the victim, who cannot be named, was at the Caxton Street Hotel with her partner and friends when she went alone to the bathroom and was raped by O’Loughlin on November 29, 2008.
Mr Minnery said O’Loughlin first kissed the victim, who kissed her back in a bid to escape.
But when she tried to leave, the accused grabbed her by the hair, slammed her head into a wall and pulled her into a toilet cubicle, he said.
O’Loughlin then allegedly digitally raped the victim, Mr Minnery said.
“(The victim) heard someone in the cubicle next door and started to say something and bang on the wall,” he said.
“She was told by the accused to shut up and stay quiet. The person next door came and knocked on the door of the cubicle and said something like, ‘I’m getting security.’”
He said O’Loughlin left before security came but she had forgotten to take her purse containing identification, which was picked up by the victim.
O’Loughlin was detained outside the hotel and later told police she had only kissed the woman in the toilets.
Mr Minnery said police had taken samples of skin found under her fingernails and found it matched the victim’s DNA.
The trial continues.
Read what th verict of the rape case was here.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8412131/woman-raped-another-woman-court-told/
How False Allegations Destroy Lives
The labor government wants to give women a free reign on perjury and false allegations. This article is about what damage was done by my ex-wife with just one single lie.
In December 2007 I, along with 4800 other employees of a global giant were outsourced and made redundant.
Between Christmas and April 2008 I paid maintenance of $1100 per month, and my ex-wife extorted around $6000 from me by using the children as weapons and made several threats if I didn’t keep handing over money.
I had absolutely no idea how the “system†worked, all I knew what that the terrorist organisations Centrelink and Child Support Agency would be of no help. Indeed, my ex-wife threatened I would not see my kids again if I told Centrelink and CSA I had lost my job. By March I was in a desperate financial situation.
With no income I could not pay child support and I told Centrelink and CSA of my situation and sparked a violent retaliation and spate of false accusations to both Centrelink and CSA which overtook my life in defending.
My ex-wife stated that if I didn’t stop paying rent and give her the money she would destroy me. She stated it was my responsibility to ensure she never had to work or support herself or the children. At the time I thought she could not actually do that. How wrong I was!
She started leaving bills on my doorstep, stopped paying for the kids sporting activities, stopped clothing them adequately, and ramped up extortion, threatening disadvantage to the kids if I didn’t pay up.
In August 2008 I started working for myself through a computer servicing franchise, having obtained a large unsecured loan. Unfortunately, it didn’t go very well.
In February of 2009 my ex-wife noticed a large franchise sign posted at a local sporting venue, which she alleged was mine. It wasn’t, but she stated she knew how expensive advertising was, and I was therefore making considerable income from the franchise. Nothing could be further from the truth. She stated if I didn’t start paying her enough money to quit work and support her and the kids she would make me regret it.
At the same time she was being supported by her new boyfriend, living at home with her mother, and got off completely free with no debt (I got all that).
In late May of 2009 she kept her promise. She made a false allegation to Centrelink stating I was earning considerable undeclared income at the same time as claiming new start. I was making no income, and under section 4.6 of the social security legislation I was entitled to claim new start. However, Centrelink, being the biased organisation that they are came after me with a vengeance.
Centrelink forced me to shut the business down at the threat of withdrawing benefits. Then they demanded all my records, in original form which they promised they would copy and return. Centrelink then put me on a very short leash and it was not until March 2010 that they finally closed the case. In the meantime, my physical and mental health had declined markedly, and I ended up on an outreach program trying to cope with the continual onslaught from my ex-wife, which persists to this day, more than 3 years later.
The outcome – My credit rating got destroyed. I defaulted on the bank loan, I lost my business, I became financially destitute, had to sell many of my assets and am now looking at filing for bankruptcy.
To make matters worse, Centrelink lost my records. As such, I had nothing I could file a tax return with. I applied to the Australian Taxation office for a private ruling to allow certain documents to be used as evidence of expenditure. They took 5 months to reject my application, and threatened me with fines for unfiled tax returns. To this day I’m still waiting on the ATO to make a determination on what documents they will allow me to use.
Written by fathersdomatter – published exclusively on F4E on 4th November, 2010
Exposure Draft: Family Law Amendment – (Family Violence) Bill 2010 Consultation Paper
November 2010
If you are querying the bizarre logic in this Consultation paper to the extent that I am, and you are concerned that this is an exercise in the appeasement of Women’s Groups and will do nothing to safeguard children from abuse or violence  (remember, the majority of child abuse is instigated by mothers and their boyfriends – 80% of all familial abuse), then you owe it to all Australian children of separated families to write or fax stating your concerns to the below email or fax number.
Email:  familyviolencebill@ag.gov.au or        Facsimile: (02) 6141 3248
——————
MESSAGE FROM THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL
The Hon Robert McClelland MP
AG believes that all child abuse caused by divorced fathers.
I am pleased to release this Exposure Draft Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 (the Family Violence Bill) for public consultation.
Family violence and child abuse cannot be tolerated. The safety of children is of critical importance in the family law system and the Gillard Government takes the issue of addressing and responding to violence very seriously. The family law system must prioritise the safety of children to ensure the best interests of children are met.
The Family Violence Bill proposes amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 in the following key areas:
- prioritising the safety of children
- changing the meaning of ‘family violence’ and ‘abuse’ to better capture harmful behaviour
- strengthening the obligations of lawyers, family dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors
- ensuring courts have better access to evidence of family violence and abuse, and
- making it easier for state and territory child protection authorities to participate in family law proceedings where appropriate.
The Family Violence Bill sends a clear message that family violence and child abuse are unacceptable. I welcome your comments on this important legislative measure.
Robert McClelland
Exposure Draft
Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010
Consultation Paper
INTRODUCTION
The Exposure Draft Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 focuses on prioritising the safety of children whose rights and interests are considered under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). This Bill would amend the Family Law Act to strengthen the role of family courts, advisers and parents in preventing harm to children while continuing to support the concept of shared parental responsibility and shared care where these are safe.
The Family Violence Bill responds to recent reports commissioned into the 2006 family law reforms and how the family law system deals with family violence. These reports are the Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), the Family Courts Violence Review by Professor Richard Chisholm AM and a report by the Family Law Council entitled Improving responses to family violence in the family law system: An advice on the intersection of family violence and family law issues.
Other recent research reports on family violence, shared care and infant development help round out a strong evidence base for reform. These reports are: Family Violence and Family Law in Australia: the Experiences and Views of Children and Adults from Families who Separated Post-1995 and Post-2006 collaboratively produced by Monash University, the University of South Australia and James Cook University; Shared Care Parenting Arrangements since the 2006 Family Law Reforms by the Social Policy Research Centre of the University of New South Wales; and Post-separation parenting arrangements and developmental outcomes for infants and children by Jennifer McIntosh, Bruce Smyth, Margaret Kelaher, Yvonne Wills and Caroline Long.
Public comment is welcome on the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act.  If you would like to make a submission on the Family Violence Bill please forward it to:
Public Consultation: Family Violence Bill
Family Law Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
Email: familyviolencebill@ag.gov.au or        Facsimile: (02) 6141 3248
Please note that the final date for making submissions is 14 January 2011. Submissions may be the subject of a request for access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
PRIORITISING THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN
- Children deserve to be protected from harm. The Family Law Act aims to uphold this principle in a number of ways––most notably by requiring family courts to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration when making parenting orders and in other provisions involving court proceedings. A key challenge is to ensure that children are protected from harm where their parents make arrangements without going to court.
Convention on the Rights of the Child
- In 1990 the Australian Government ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention). This is an important international instrument which sets out the basic human rights of all children. In ratifying the Convention, the Australian Government agreed to develop and undertake all actions and policies to promote the best interests of the child.
Prioritising safety in the two primary considerations
- Under the Family Law Act, family courts must consider two primary considerations when determining the best interests of the child. These considerations are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. The considerations have been described as ‘the twin pillars’.
- Recent reports into the family law system highlight tensions between the two primary considerations where there are concerns about family violence or abuse. The reports suggest that the apparent equal weighting of the primary considerations should be reassessed. The Family Law Council’s report suggests that, in practice, parents may give greater attention to the benefit of a child having meaningful involvement with each parent which may, in turn, lead to decisions that are not in the best interests of the child.
REDEFINING ‘FAMILY VIOLENCE’
- Being able to identify family violence is an important first step in responding appropriately to this often hidden problem. Understanding the way violent or coercive behaviour impacts upon children is crucial to informing views about the potential value or detriment to a child of an ongoing relationship with a family member who behaves in this way.
- Presently, the Family Law Act defines ‘family violence’ to mean ‘conduct, whether actual or threatened by a person towards, or towards the property of, a member of the person’s family that causes that family member or any other member of the person’s family reasonably to fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal wellbeing or safety’. Recent reports have highlighted concerns about this definition.
- The Family Law Council concluded that the definition is too narrow and does not reflect current understanding of what constitutes family violence. The AIFS Evaluation Report indicates that legal professionals consider the requirement for a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal wellbeing or safety imposes a significant evidentiary burden on people who are already vulnerable. The Family Courts Violence Review recommended that the provisions relating to family violence be strengthened, so that the nature and consequences of family violence are clearly identified in the Act.
IDENTIFYING ‘ABUSE’ OF A CHILD
- The Family Law Act requires courts to protect children from abuse when making parenting orders and imposes mandatory obligations on court personnel, arbitrators, family dispute resolution practitioners and independent children’s lawyers to report child abuse to relevant State and Territory agencies.
- Presently, the Family Law Act defines ‘abuse’ in relation to a child as including assault, sexual assault and sexual exploitation. Broadening this definition to cover other forms of abuse, including where serious harm is caused by exposure to family violence, is consistent with social science research understanding about what is damaging to children. For example, the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare have recognised the serious, and often long-term, negative effects of exposure to violence on a child’s physical and social development. Serious neglect amounts to abuse by omission and should also be recognised and reportable.
STRENGTHENING ADVISER OBLIGATIONS
- Advisers play an important role in the family law system. Advisers are family dispute resolution practitioners, legal practitioners, family counsellors and family consultants, each of whom assist parents to make arrangements for their children. The information that advisers convey to parents should be consistent with the focus of the Family Law Act.
- Advisers have obligations under the Family Law Act to give advice in relation to parenting plans so that, among other things, these serve the best interests of the child. The Family Law Act does not currently impose obligations on advisers at a general level.  Recent reports suggest that existing obligations in relation to parenting plans may lead advisers to place greater emphasis on the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents and subordinate the protection of the child from harm.
BRINGING EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE AND ABUSE TO COURT
- Finding ways to encourage people to put forward evidence about family violence and abuse is a great challenge confronting family courts. Courts can only protect families where parents and others provide sound evidence of the family dynamics. Recent reports have recommended that new measures are required to get better evidence of family violence and abuse into family courts.
Requiring parties to disclose family violence
-
Item 29 of the Family Violence Bill would require parties to proceedings who allege family violence to file a Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence with the court. Once reporting occurs, the court would be required to act promptly to ensure that the issues are dealt with expeditiously. Recent reports indicate that family law practitioners and parties have been reluctant to report family violence to the court despite Family Law Rules requiring them to do so. This requirement is not currently included in the Family Law Act.
Requiring parties to disclose involvement of child welfare authorities
- Information about whether a child is or has been the subject of a care order under a child welfare law is crucial in assisting the family courts to make decisions about children, including a decision to allow the relevant child welfare authority to protect the child from harm. Information about whether a child is the subject of child protection proceedings or is or has been the subject of a notification, investigation, inquiry, assessment or report by a child welfare authority is also important information for the family courts to consider in making an order in relation to the child.
|
REMOVING DISINCENTIVES TO DISCLOSING VIOLENCE
- When determining whether parenting arrangements are appropriate and in the child’s best interest, family courts need accurate information about issues affecting the family. To help courts deal effectively with family violence and abuse, it is important that legislation does not create barriers to raising concerns about these issues.
Disclosure should not make a parent ‘unfriendly’
-
Items 18 and 20 of the Family Violence Bill would remove the ‘friendly parent’ provisions of the Family Law Act, namely, paragraph 60CC(3)(c) and subsections 60CC(4) and (4A).  Removing the ‘friendly parent’ provision would not prevent the court from considering a range of matters relevant to the care, welfare and development of the child such as a parent’s attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood. Under the Family Law Act, the willingness and extent to which one parent has facilitated the child having a relationship with the other parent is taken into account in determining the best interests of the child and, ultimately, orders dealing with parenting arrangements and parental responsibility. This is known as the ‘friendly parent’ principle. Recent reports indicate that some lawyers caution parents against alleging family violence or abuse where there is limited evidence, to ensure that victims of family violence are not characterised as an ‘unfriendly parent’.
Cost orders
- Recent reports have found that provisions that direct the court to order a party to pay the costs of another party to the proceedings in certain circumstances have operated as a disincentive to disclosing family violence, with vulnerable parents deciding not to raise legitimate safety concerns for fear they would be subject to a costs order if their claims cannot be substantiated. Family courts have a broad power to order costs against a party, and the reports concluded that this power is adequate to deal with false allegations of family violence as well as false denials of family violence.
|
Courts must ask about family violence and abuse
- The Family Courts Violence Review notes the difficulties victims face in disclosing and reporting violence. Victims of family violence are often reluctant to share their experiences but are more likely to do so if directly asked. Courts can play an active role in drawing out family violence and abuse concerns, and ensuring that child welfare authorities receive early notice of allegations of child abuse.
IMMUNITY FROM COSTS ORDERS FOR STATE AND TERRITORY CHILD WELFARE AUTHORITIES
- In some circumstances a family court will invite a state or territory child welfare authority to become a party to family law proceedings. In many instances, the relevant authority will decline the court’s request to intervene in proceedings. It is important to ensure that requests are not refused simply because of a possibility that a cost order might be made against the agency or its employees or agents.
OTHER AMENDMENTS
- A number of minor consequential amendments would be needed to introduce the above measures into the Family Law Act. These are discussed in full in the Appendix which provides detailed information about each item in the Bill.
Appendix
Information about
individual amendments
INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS
Table of contents
Item 1â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of abuseâ€â€New provision. 11
Item 2â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of exposed in relation to family violenceâ€â€New provision 13
Item 3â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of family violenceâ€â€New provision. 14
Item 4â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of member of the familyâ€â€New provision. 17
Item 5â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Paragraph (a) of the definition of Registry Managerâ€â€Revised provision 18
Items 6 and 7â€â€Paragraphs 4(1AD)(a) and (c)â€â€Definition of member of the familyâ€â€Revised provision 19
Item 8â€â€Paragraph 4(1AB)(c)â€â€Definition of exposedâ€â€New provision. 21
Item 9â€â€Subsection 12E(3)(note)â€â€Obligations on legal practitionersâ€â€Revised provision (note only) 22
Item 10â€â€Subsection 12G(1) (note)â€â€Obligations on family counsellors, FDR practitioners and arbitratorsâ€â€Revised provision (note only) 23
Item 11â€â€Paragraph 43(1)(ca)â€â€Principles to be applied by courtsâ€â€Revised provision. 24
Item 12â€â€Section 60CAâ€â€What Division 1 of Part VII doesâ€â€Revised provision. 25
Item 13â€â€Section 60Bâ€â€Objects of Part VIIâ€â€Revised provision. 26
Items 14 and 15â€â€Section 60C (cell at table item 1, column headed ‘Divisions and coverage’) (cell at table item 8, column headed ‘Divisions and coverage’)â€â€Revised provision. 28
Item 16â€â€Subdivision BA of Division 1 of Part VIIâ€â€(heading) Best interests of the child: Court proceedingsâ€â€Revised provision. 29
Item 17â€â€Subsection 60CC(2A)â€â€Determining a child’s best interestsâ€â€New provision. 30
Items 18, 19 and 20â€â€Section 60CCâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬ËœFriendly parent provisions’â€â€Revised provision (revision and repeal) 31
Item 21â€â€Subdivision BB and sections 60CH and 60CIâ€â€New provisions. 34
Item 22â€â€New Subdivision BB (after Subdivision BA)â€â€Best interests of the child: adviser’s obligationsâ€â€New provision. 36
Items 23 and 24â€â€Section 63DA including new subsection 63DA(1A) and repeal of paragraph 63DA(2)(c) â€â€Obligations of advisersâ€â€New provision. 38
Items 25 and 26â€â€Repeal of Note 1 of subsection 65DAA(5) and revision to Note 2â€â€Court to consider equal time or substantial and significant time in certain circumstancesâ€â€Revised provision (notes only) 39
Item 27â€â€New paragraph 67A(ca)â€â€What Division 8, Part VII deals withâ€â€Revised provision. 40
Item 28â€â€New note to subsection 67ZA(3)â€â€Suspicion of abuseâ€â€Revised provision (note only) 41
Item 29â€â€Subdivision D of Division 8 of Part VIIâ€â€Allegations of family violenceâ€â€New provision 42
Item 30â€â€Note in section 68Nâ€â€Purposes of Division 11â€â€Repealed provision (note only) 43
Item 31â€â€New paragraph 69ZN(5)(a)â€â€Principles for child related proceedingsâ€â€Revised provision 44
Item 32â€â€New paragraph 69ZQ(1)(aa)â€â€General duties of the courtâ€â€New provision. 45
Item 33â€â€New Note at the end of subsection 91B(2)â€â€Intervention by child welfare officeâ€â€New provision (note only) 46
Item 34, 35 and 36â€â€Subsection 117AB costsâ€â€New provision and revisions. 47
Item 37â€â€Section 117ABâ€â€False allegations and statementsâ€â€Repealed provision. 49
Item 1â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of abuseâ€â€New provision
1.1      This item would repeal the definition of ‘abuse’ in section 4(1) of the Family Law Act and replace it with a new definition of ‘abuse’. The definition has been expanded to include forms of abuse recognised in the State and Territory laws, namely, physical abuse or non‑accidental physical injury; sexual abuse and exploitation; psychological abuse; and neglect.
1.2      As with the existing definition, paragraph (a) would provide that an assault, including a sexual assault, amounts to abuse. However, the new definition would remove the requirement for the assault to be an offence under a law in the force of the State or Territory. This means that family members would not have to have regard to the terms of State and Territory laws when considering whether abuse has occurred. It would remove uncertainty about knowing the elements of an offence and whether an offence has, in fact, been committed.
1.3      Paragraph (b) which deals with sexual exploitation contains minor drafting changes that reflect current drafting practice.
1.4      New paragraph (c) provides that abuse involves causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm including by being exposed to family violence. This reflects current social science and approaches to child protection.
1.5      New paragraph (d) of the definition of ‘abuse’ would extend the definition to serious neglect of the child. The meaning of neglect is not defined and therefore takes its ordinary meaning. Neglect encompasses a range of acts of omission and remission, including a failure to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, supervision, hygiene or medical attention. Serious neglect amounts to abuse by omission (or remission) and should be recognised and reportable under the mandatory requirements in subsection 67ZA(2) of the Family Law Act.
1.6      The existing discretionary reporting requirements in subsection 67ZA(3) for ill‑treatment would not be changed.
Item 2â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of exposed in relation to family violenceâ€â€New provision
2.1      This amendment inserts a ‘signpost’ or ‘marker’ to new subsection 4(1AD) of the interpretation section of the Family Law Act. Item 8 proposes that new subsection 4(1AD) would provide a more detailed and particularised definition of what it means to be ‘exposed’ to family violence.
Item 3â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of family violenceâ€â€New provision
3.1      Item 3 replaces the existing definition of ‘family violence’ with one that better specifies the types of behaviour that constitute family violence.  Identifying family violence is an important first step in responding appropriately to it.
3.2      The definition deals with behaviour by one family member towards another family member. Whether a person is ‘a member of the family’ is defined in subsection 4(1AB) of the Family Law Act. This definition includes people who are or were married or in a de facto relationship and relatives such as a parent, grandparent, step-parent, child, step-child; sibling, half-sibling, step sibling, uncle, aunt, cousin, niece, nephew and so on.
3.3      Paragraphs (a) to (h) set out behaviour that would be family violence for the purpose of the Family Law Act. The paragraphs cover physical abuse, sexual abuse and coercion, economic abuse as well as behaviour that torments, intimidates, harasses or unreasonably controls, dominates, deceives or coerces a family member or causes them to feel threatened or feel fear for safety.
3.4      Paragraphs (a) and (b) concern physically abusive behaviour. These would apply to behaviour that causes death or personal injury or constitutes an assault. The term ‘assault’ takes its ordinary meaning and is intended to encompass common law and criminal law assault.
3.5      Paragraph (c) provides that family violence includes a sexual assault or another form of sexually coercive behaviour.
3.6      Paragraph (d) concerns behaviour that is psychologically abusive. It provides a non‑exhaustive list of examples that might meet this definition. This definition would generally encompass stalking of a family member which is a form of behaviour that torments, intimidates or harasses that person.
3.7      Paragraph (e) includes non-exhaustive examples of behaviour that could unreasonably control, dominate, deceive or coerce a person including behaviour that would be considered economic or financial abuse. This would include acts that result in the person’s access to financial resources being blocked or obstructed as well as manipulation that prevents the person from maintaining friendships and more aggressive behaviour like depriving another person of their liberty.
3.8      Paragraph (f) refers to behaviour that might not be covered by the preceding subparagraphs but would cause the person to feel fear for his or her safety or for the safety of another person. The element of ‘fear’ would be a subjective test based on the victim’s actual state of mind rather than an objective or semi-objective test of how a reasonable person in the street may react to the behaviour with or without the same history.
3.9      Paragraph (g) would cover behaviour that causes the family member to feel threatened irrespective of whether that behaviour causes harm. Paragraph (g) may apply to threats to engage in conduct covered in subparagraphs (a) to (f).
3.10    Paragraph (h) would apply to behaviour that involves a family member threatening to commit suicide or self harm with the intention of tormenting or intimidating another family member. This type of conduct is recognised under some other laws as emotional or psychological abuse.
Item 4â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Definition of member of the familyâ€â€New provision
4.1      This item would repeal the existing definition of ‘member of the family’ and insert a new definition to act as a ‘signpost’ to subsection 4(1AB) which provides the more extensive definition of ‘member of the family’.  This amendment combined with changes to subsection 4(1AB) proposed in items 6 and 7 would apply the definition to a broader range of provisions in the Family Law Act.
4.2      This amendment follows existing drafting of the Family Law Act which places more extensive definitions at the end of the interpretation section.
Item 5â€â€Subsection 4(1)â€â€Paragraph (a) of the definition of Registry Managerâ€â€Revised provision
5.1      This item amends the definition of ‘Registry Manager’. The purpose of the revision is to ensure that a special definition of ‘Registry Manager’ in existing subsection 67Z(4) of the Family Law Act continues to apply to section 67Z (dealing with allegations of child abuse) and is extended to proposed section 67ZBA which deals with allegations of family violence.
5.2      Sections 67Z and 67ZBA set out what is required by a party to proceedings and the Registry Manager when a party makes an allegation of child abuse or family violence. The provisions, including references to ‘Registry Manager’, have been streamlined to ensure consistent reporting obligations and to avoid duplication.
Items 6 and 7â€â€Paragraphs 4(1AD)(a) and (c)â€â€Definition of member of the family â€â€Revised provision
6.1      These amendments would ensure that new subsection 4(1AD), which defines the meaning of when a child is ‘exposed’ to family violence, picks up the definition of ‘member of the family ‘in subsection 4(1AB). New sections 60CH and 60CI, which place new obligations on parties to proceedings to report certain matters to the court, would also rely on subsection 4(1AD) to define ‘member of the family’ and therefore must be mentioned in subsection 4(1AB).
6.2      These amendments are consequential to amendments set out in items 8 and 21.
Item 8â€â€Paragraph 4(1AB)(c)â€â€Definition of exposedâ€â€New provision
8.1      This item would include a new definition explaining what it means for a child to be ‘exposed’ to family violence.
8.2      This new term provides that ‘exposed to family violence’ means, among other things, behaviour that causes a child to hear, witness, or otherwise be exposed to the effects of, behaviour towards another family member. For the purposes of the Family Law Act, the examples listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the definition proposed by item 8 are examples only. The examples clarify that there does not need to be intent for a child to hear, witness or otherwise be exposed to family violence.
Item 9â€â€Subsection 12E(3)(note)â€â€Obligations on legal practitionersâ€â€Revised provision (note only)
9.1      This item would repeal the note under existing subsection 12E(3) of the Family Law Act, which deals with the obligations on legal practitioners to give their clients documents containing information prescribed under section 12D of the Family Law Act.
9.2      The existing note refers the reader to additional information-giving obligations under section 63DA of the Family Law Act. The revised note would be reworded to include a reference to new general obligations for advisers to be introduced by new section 60D of the Family Law Act by item 22 of the Family Violence Bill.
Item 10â€â€Subsection 12G(1) (note)â€â€Obligations on family counsellors, FDR practitioners and arbitratorsâ€â€Revised provision (note only)
10.1    This item would repeal the note under subsection 12G(1) of the Family Law Act which deals with obligations in family counsellors, family dispute resolution practitioners and arbitrators to give married persons (and in appropriate cases, that person’s spouse) documents containing information prescribed under section 12C of the Family Law Act.
10.2    The existing note refers the reader to additional information-giving obligations for these professionals (except arbitrators) under section 63DA of the Family Law Act. The revised note would be reworded to include a reference to new general obligations for advisers to be introduced by new section 60D of the Family Law Act by item 22 of the Family Violence Bill.
Item 11â€â€Paragraph 43(1)(ca)â€â€Principles to be applied by courtsâ€â€Revised provision
11.1    This amendment would promote consistency of terminology in the Family Law Act by replacing the word ‘safety’ with ‘protection’.
Item 12â€â€Section 60CAâ€â€What Division 1 of Part VII doesâ€â€Revised provision
12.1    This amendment would update section 60A of the Family Law Act which sets out the issues dealt with in Division I of Part VII of the Act (covering introductory issues relating to children’s matters). The issues are drawn from the titles of the Subdivisions in Division 1. Under this amendment, section 60A would refer to retitled Subdivision BA and new Subdivision BB introduced into the Act by items 16 and 22 respectively.
Item 13â€â€Section 60Bâ€â€Objects of Part VIIâ€â€Revised provision
13.1    Item 13 would insert a new provision into section 60B, Objects of Part and principles underlying it¸ to provide that a further object of Part VII of the Act is to give effect to the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is an important international instrument which sets out the basic human rights of all children. In ratifying the Convention, the Australian Government agreed to develop and undertake all actions and policies to promote the best interests of the child.
13.2    The proposed provision reinforces this obligation on decision-makers and courts to interpret the Act, to the extent that its language permits, consistently with Australia’s obligations under the Convention. To the extent that the Act departs from the Convention, the Act would prevail.
13.3    The note provides the reader with an internet reference for accessing the Convention.
Items 14 and 15â€â€Section 60C (cell at table item 1, column headed ‘Divisions and coverage’) (cell at table item 8, column headed ‘Divisions and coverage’)â€â€Revised provision
14.1    This item would update the table in section 60C of the Family Law Act which provides an outline of issues dealt with by Part VII of the Family Law Act (dealing with children’s matters). New issues would be included for Division 1 as a result of items 16 and 22, and in Division 8 as a result of item 29.
Item 16â€â€Subdivision BA of Division 1 of Part VIIâ€â€(heading) Best interests of the child: Court proceedingsâ€â€Revised provision
16.1    This proposed amendment would change the heading of Subdivision BA of Division 1 of Part VII of the Family Law Act to indicate that the issues dealt with in that subdivision relate to court proceedings. This is necessary to distinguish between existing Subdivision BA which deals with matters a court must consider when dealing with a children’s matter and new Subdivision BB which would deal with adviser’s obligations in relation to children’s matters which is to be introduced by item 22 of the Family Violence Bill.
16.2    Advisers communicate with parents and other people about their children, and these communications may occur before, during or after court proceedings. Accordingly, matters relating to courts and advisers warrant separate treatment.
Item 17â€â€Subsection 60CC(2A)â€â€Determining a child’s best interestsâ€â€New provision
17.1    Under the Family Law Act, family courts must consider two primary considerations when determining the best interests of the child. These considerations are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse neglect or family violence.
17.2    Presently, in deciding what is in the child’s best interests, there are two primary considerations for the court. Recent reports suggest that the apparent equal weighting of the primary considerations should be reassessed. The reports also describe perceptions that, in practice, greater attention is given to the benefit of a child having meaningful involvement with each parent.
17.3    Item 17 proposes a new subsection 16(2A) which would require the court to give greater weight to the primary consideration that protects the child from harm in cases where there is inconsistency in applying the considerations. In cases where child safety is a concern, this new provision would provide the courts with clear legislative guidance.
Items 18, 19 and 20â€â€Section 60CCâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬ËœFriendly parent provisions’â€â€Revised provision (revision and repeal)
Item 18â€â€repeal of paragraph 60CC(3)(c)
18.1         Item 18 repeals paragraph 60CC(3)(c) which, in combination with paragraph 60CC(4)(b), is commonly known as the ‘friendly parent provision’. These provisions require the family courts to consider the attitude or conduct exhibited by one parent towards the other in facilitating a child’s relationship with both parents. Recent reports have found that these provisions can prevent evidence of violence and abuse being brought to court.
Item 19â€â€amendment of paragraph 60CC(3)(k)
19.1    Item 19 would delete paragraph 60CC(3)(k) and replace it with a similar provision which removes the requirement for family violence orders to have been final or contested. The effect of this new paragraph is the courts may have regard to any family violence order made and give appropriate weight to these orders including interim, non-contested and police issued orders. The definition of ‘family violence order’ in subsection 4(1) of the Family Law Act would remain unchanged. It is noted that this is an extensive definition relying on prescribed State and Territory legislation. It is intended to encompass all family violence orders recognised in the States and Territories.
Item 20â€â€repeal of subsections 60CC(4) and (4A)
20.1    Item 20 would remove subsections 60CC(4) and (4A). The proposed deletion of paragraph 60CC(3)(c) warrants the removal of subsection 60CC(4) given the connection between those provisions. Subsection 60CC(4A) is a consequential amendment to the repeal of subsection 60CC(4).
Item 21â€â€Subdivision BB and sections 60CH and 60CIâ€â€New provisions
21.1    Item 21 inserts two new obligations on parties to provide the court with information regarding risks to the child, or another child who is a member of the child’s family. Section 60CH will require parties to parenting proceedings to notify the court of any orders or arrangements under child welfare laws relating to the children of one or both of the parties. Section 60CI will require parties to disclose to the court whether the child has been the subject of notifications to, or investigations by, child welfare authorities.
21.2    Information about whether a child is or has been the subject of a care order under a child welfare law is crucial in assisting the family courts to make decisions about children. The information is an indicator of the risks of harm to the child and may alert the court to other evidence relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests. In addition, the information will assist the court in determining if the jurisdictional matters under section 69ZK arise and whether to request the involvement of relevant child welfare authorities. For example, the court may order the authorities to provide information relating to the notifications and investigations.
Item 22â€â€New Subdivision BB (after Subdivision BA)â€â€Best interests of the child: adviser’s obligationsâ€â€New provision
22.1    Item 22 would insert new Subdivision BB in Division 1 of Part VII that would outline the obligations on advisers when working with parents to reach parenting arrangements for their children. As with current section 63DA of the Family Law Act, an adviser would be defined as a legal practitioner, family counsellor, family dispute resolution practitioner and family consultant.
22.2    The new subdivision would direct advisers to focus on the best interests of the children when providing advice about parenting arrangements and other matters relating to children under Part VII of the Family Law Act.
22.3    Where there is inconsistency in applying the primary considerations of a child’s right to a meaningful relationship with parents and the child’s right to be protected from harm, advisers would be required to encourage parents to prioritise a child’s wellbeing and right to safety. This approach is consistent with the amendments proposed at item 17. The new adviser obligations would enable parents to consider the protection of their children from harm as a priority at an early stage of discussions and with the assistance of their advisers.
Items 23 and 24â€â€Section 63DA including new subsection 63DA(1A) and repeal of paragraph 63DA(2)(c) â€â€Obligations of advisersâ€â€New provision
23.1    Items 23 and 24 would provide that the adviser obligations in new Subdivision BB are in addition the obligations of advisers in section 63DA which (under item 22) would include taking account of the child’s best interests and prioritising the child’s safety.
Items 25 and 26â€â€Repeal of Note 1 of subsection 65DAA(5) and revision to Note 2â€â€Court to consider equal time or substantial and significant time in certain circumstancesâ€â€Revised provision (notes only)
Item 25â€â€repeal of Note 1
25.1    This item would remove Note 1. Note 1 would no longer be necessary given the proposed repeal of subsection 60CC(3) of the Family Law Act as proposed by item 18.
Item 26â€â€amendment to Note 2
26.1    Note 2 would be renamed as ‘Note’. This is a consequential amendment.
Item 27â€â€New paragraph 67A(ca)â€â€What Division 8, Part VII deals withâ€â€Revised provision
27.1    Section 67A of the Family Law Act outlines the matters that are addressed in Division 8 of Part VII of that Act matters relate to children such as child maintenance, location and recovery of children and reporting of allegations of child abuse. Item 27 would amend section 67A of the Act to inform the reader that Division 8 also contains provisions introduced by item 29 relating to the reporting of family violence.
Item 28â€â€New note to subsection 67ZA(3)â€â€Suspicion of abuseâ€â€Revised provision (note only)
28.1    Item 28 responds to the scenario where the facts of a case may trigger multiple reporting obligations. The note confirms that a person who is authorised to report ill-treatment under subsection 67ZA(3) of the Family Law Act is not excused from mandatory reporting obligations which arise under subsection 67ZA(2) of the Act where that person has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child has been abused or is at risk of being abused.
Item 29â€â€Subdivision D of Division 8 of Part VIIâ€â€Allegations of family violenceâ€â€New provision
29.1    Item 29 would insert new section 67ZBA into the Family Law Act to require parties to proceedings who allege that there has been or is a risk of family violence to file a notice of family violence with the court.  It is anticipated that the existing Form 4 Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence which is prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 60K(1)(d) would be prescribed also for proposed section 67ZBA.
29.2    The Family Law Council noted that there is currently no requirement in the Family Law Act to report family violence, and that the Family Law Rules which provide for a similar rule are not followed by legal practitioners or litigants other than in cases of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse of a child. This provision would act as a clear flag to parties and their representatives that the court must be told about family violence.
29.3    Section 67Z of the Family Law Act provides for a similar requirement in relation to allegations of child abuse and was used as a guide for this provision.
Item 30â€â€Note in section 68Nâ€â€Purposes of Division 11â€â€Repealed provision (note only)
30.1    Item 30 would repeal the note at the end of section 68N of the Family Law Act which signposts other provisions dealing with family violence. This note is unnecessary and risks becoming unwieldy with the addition of new family violence provisions. The outline of Part VII at section 60C already provides guidance to the reader about provisions relating to family violence.
Item 31â€â€New paragraph 69ZN(5)(a)â€â€Principles for child related proceedingsâ€â€Revised provision
31.1    Item 31 would amend paragraph 69ZN(5)(a) of the Family Law Act to provide consistency in terminology throughout Part VII. There is no change to the intent of the provision.
Item 32â€â€New paragraph 69ZQ(1)(aa)â€â€General duties of the courtâ€â€New provision
32.1    Item 32 would impose a new duty on the court to actively inquire into the existence of abuse or family violence. Imposition of this duty would implement the family courts’ obligation under subsection 68ZN(5) to conduct proceedings in a way that will safeguard the child and the parties to the proceedings from harm. The duty does not currently extend to requiring the court to proactively inquire about other information which might be useful evidence from people or agencies other than parties to the proceedings.
32.2    The family courts have general powers to order expert evidence, including evidence from child welfare authorities, and may seek additional information from persons or agencies not party to the proceedings where the court determines this is appropriate.ÂÂ
Item 33â€â€New Note at the end of subsection 91B(2)â€â€Intervention by child welfare officeâ€â€New provision (note only)
33.1    Item 33 would insert a new note under section 91B of the Family Law Act. The purpose of this note would be to alert the reader to the immunity for costs provision where the intervention occurs at the request of the court and officer acts in good faith. This note would provide a signpost to proposed subsection 117(4A) of the Family Law Act discussed in item 36.
Item 34, 35 and 36â€â€Subsection 117AB costsâ€â€New provision and revisions
Item 34â€â€remove reference to section 117AB
34.1    Item 34 is a consequential change that would arise because of the repeal of section 117AB of the Family Law Act proposed by item 37. Accordingly, the reference to section 117AB in subsection 117(1) should also be removed.
Item 35â€â€insert reference to new subsection 117(4AB)
35.1    Item 35 is a consequential amendment which would insert a reference to the new subsection 117(4A) introduced by item 36 which introduces a new cost immunity for certain officers.
Item 36â€â€provide cost immunity to certain officers
36.1    Item 36 would introduce a cost immunity for State and Territory child welfare authorities, and their officers, who intervene in family law proceedings following a request by the court and act in good faith throughout the proceedings. Intervention by state and territory child welfare authorities can be essential for the family courts to have comprehensive information about violence and abuse affecting the child. It can also provide the family courts additional options to protect the child from harm when determining parenting orders.
Item 37â€â€Section 117ABâ€â€False allegations and statementsâ€â€Repealed provision
37.1    Item 37 would repeal existing section 117AB of the Family Law Act.
37.2    Section 117AB requires the court to make a mandatory cost order where it is satisfied that parties have knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. Recent reports suggest that section 117AB has operated as a disincentive to disclosing family violence. Vulnerable parents may choose to not raise legitimate safety concerns for themselves and their children due to fear they will be subject to a costs order if they cannot substantiate the claims. Section 117 of the Family Law Act would remain. This provision allows family courts to make cost orders in response to false statements in appropriate cases.
An Australian Political Party for Men too!
The Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Yes, a political party from the men’s movement, that is not about gender hatred, female vilification or discriminatory policies.
No, this isn’t the Labor Party or the Greens.
Its the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting).
Show your support for the only political party that support MEN TOO!
Become a member, make a donation, or email your support.
Or just visit their newly enhanced website and vote on the online poll.
Get familiar with this party now, because it could be your only voice in Canberra.
The Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) was formed in Australia in 1998. It is registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) as a political party.
It has a large membership base consisting of divorced fathers, divorced mothers, second wives, grand parents  and other relatives who believe that all children have a right to be cared for by both their parents, in the event of separation or divorce.
The Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) has participated in all federal election campaigns since registration. We have fielded candidates for both the Lower House (House of Representatives) and the Upper House (the Senate) in four (4) States. We have achieved a consistent increase in the number of votes it has secured since its first campaign.
The core policies centre on the issue of family law reform, emphasising legislative changes in order to enshrine  a child’s natural rights to a meaningful relationship with both parents, and legal and procedural changes to ensure that the Child Support system is fair, equitable and aimed at fulfilling its primarily goal, that being to support the child/ren.
Join us (its Free) – Membership Form
http://www.equalparenting.org.au/membership-2/
Where do you believe the Greens stand on Australia’s Shared Parental Responsibility laws?
http://www.equalparenting.org.au/take-our-poll/
Our Policies
http://www.equalparenting.org.au/other-policies/
http://www.equalparenting.org.au
Mother on murder charge after toddler found dead in the water
Police have charged a 22-year-old Greenwood mother with murder after the body of her two-year-old child was found at Hillary’s Boat Harbour last night.
Sergeant Graham Clifford said the boy was reported missing earlier in the evening.
He was later found in the water at the popular tourist spot.
It was first believed the boy drowned after running off while his mother was distracted packing shopping into her car, according to reports.
After further investigations, the woman was charged overnight by major crime detectives.
She will appear in court this morning.
Woman accused of murder sobs in Court
A woman charged with stabbing an older woman to death insider her Girraween home yesterday sobbed and apologised to her supporters in Fairfield Local Court this morning.
Krystal Jade Seymour, 24, of Newman Street in Merrylands, has been charged with the murder of Donna Marie Seymour, 48, at Girraween in the early hours of yesterday morning.
She appeared in court handcuffed and dressed in a hooded prison jumpsuit.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Ms Seymour sobbed throughout her short appearance and whispered "I’m sorry" and "I love you" to a small group of supporters sitting next to the dock.
Legal Aid solicitor Stuart Bouveng made no application for bail, which was formally refused.
Magistrate Susan McGowan agreed to adjourn the matter to Liverpool Local Court next week, where Ms Seymour will appear via video link, and gave police until January 6 next year to finalise a brief of evidence.
Ms Seymour’s supporters broke into tears and one woman leaned into the dock to kiss her at the conclusion of her appearance.
Outside the court, they pushed news cameras aside and declined to comment.
Ms Seymour will appear in Liverpool Local Court on December 1, for a review of mental health orders.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/stabbing-accused-sobs-in-court-20101125-1885e.html
Woman’s school-run sex with 14-year-old boy
A YOUNG woman told a 14-year-old boy’s mother she was driving him to school before taking him to her home and having sex with him, a court heard.
Kimberley Annette Gale, 24, of Hillside, pleaded guilty in the County Court to two counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16.
Her lawyer, Amy Wood, told Judge Sue Pullen her client had had a difficult childhood and the attention of the boy, plus moving back home to live with her mother and stepfather, had made her feel "like she was 16 again".
The court heard Ms Gale met the boy and his mother through their involvement in a suburban football club.
Prosecutor Susan Borg said Ms Gale had become friends with the mother at the club and after overhearing her say she was having trouble getting him to school, Ms Gale offered to drive him there.
For three or four weeks in March and April, Gale drove the boy to school every morning, and on at least one occasion put her hand on his leg and told him he was "hot", Ms Borg said.
On one occasion Gale, then 23, asked the boy if he wanted to spend more time with her, and he replied "yes". She drove him to her family’s home. The pair had sex then she drove him to school.
Two weeks later, they went to Gale’s home again on the way to school and had sex.
Ms Wood said her client knew the relationship was wrong but had become "blinded" by the attention the boy had given her.
Judge Pullen said; "What we have here is a 23-year-old woman and a 14-year-old boy and she knew what she was doing was wrong."
When the school contacted the mother to say her son had been late several times, she was puzzled and contacted Ms Gale who said she had been stuck in traffic, Ms Borg said.
The mother told Ms Gale she would make alternative arrangements for her son and confiscated his mobile phone.
Ms Gale texted the boy’s phone, saying she missed him. After the mother responded "really?" she sent another telling him she loved him.
Confronted by his mother, the boy broke down and admitted the relationship.
Ms Gale pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16. The plea hearing was adjourned to December 15 for a psychiatric assessment of Ms Gale, who was remanded in custody.
Anger at no prison for abusive mum
A JUDGE voiced his “frustration” yesterday at being unable to jail a mother who let her two children get so sunburned police had to rush them to an emergency ward.
Police discovered the woman’s five-year-old son and two-year-old daughter covered in 2cm-high blisters on their face, shoulders and back when they went to serve her partner with outstanding warrants at a caravan at Wyoming on the New South Wales Central Coast.
They rushed the children to hospital where they were given antibiotics and painkillers.
The five-year-old boy was placed in a burns suit and told police he hadn’t slept much because he was “sore”.
Despite pleading guilty to neglect, the 24-year-old mother will not face jail.
A police prosecutor told Gosford Local Court he was “amazed” when he learned the offence only carried a fine.
“You can go to jail for cruelty to a dog but not for a child,” he said.
The woman, who police said “shows little or no remorse”, is facing a $44,000 fine – which the court heard she would never be able to pay.
The children who were described as being in “immense pain”, hungry and thirsty were taken into the care of Community Services.
