Australia’s Shared Parenting laws have FAILED to increase Shared Parenting arrangements – new study
Life Insurance Quotes - Get Life Insurance Now, Fast Efficient and Reliable. Protect your children's tomorrow by preparing for their interests today. Life Insurance Quotes Australia
Children in separated families continue to spend more time with their mothers despite law reforms aimed at promoting shared parenting.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies tracked more than 10,000 separated parents who split following the Howard government’s 2006 family law reforms.
The changes were designed to encourage 50-50 parenting arrangements, while increasing services to help parents reach custody agreements out of court.
But since the reforms, shared parenting arrangements have increased only slightly and at a similar rate to that post reforms.
The study shows about 16 per cent of children have a shared care arrangement, most commonly a 35/65 split in favour of their mothers.
But 80 per cent continue to spend most nights with their mother, and eleven per cent don’t see their father at all.
While mothers continue to be the primary carers, the number of custody cases ending up in court has dropped by 22 per cent since the reform.
The majority of people involved in the family law system, including judges and parents, believe the changes have been an improvement on the old system.
Lawyers, however, remain divided, arguing that the changes have been complex and favour fathers in relation to property settlements and child support payments.
They are also concerned fathers expect equal custody arrangements, regardless of the interests of the child.
University of Sydney family law expert Patrick Parkinson agrees that the notion of equal time can give a false sense of entitlement to parents.
“It’s only one of many options that can work, depending on the circumstances,” he told AAP, noting in many cases sole custody arrangements are needed.
“It may actually prevent judges from making the hard calls they ought to.”
Professor Parkinson points out that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries when it comes to shared parenting arrangements.
But he says the barriers are not legal, but social and economic.
“A lot of people try shared care but it doesn’t last longer than a year,” he said, explaining parents often need to find cheaper accommodation away from their children.
Labor has proposed amendments to the Family Law Act, which Professor Parkinson says will only make a difference “at the very margins”.
The draft laws incorporate a UN convention on children’s rights, which would compel the court to consider protecting a child above custody rights.
Susanna Dunkerley
January 31, 2011
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
I read endless reports and complaint from folk usually correctly identifying the ‘people’ cause of unlawful ‘tampering’ but then misguided going on to only whinge about something else that is neither the cause nor the remedy.
The remedy is for YOU as the ‘legally’ aggrieved person to move out of your family law case temporarily or return to it and make ‘administrative’ prosecutions of THE OFFICERS or solicitors or false report family report writers etc. You mostly correctly identify in relating your stories that you already know WHO the prosecutable person was. Mostly a feminist or one of their sympathizers breaking the law so that ‘women win’.
This is where you begin and not end – by making the appropriate ‘administrative’ laws for this purpose work’ to go then back and make your family law work. On appeal for a retrial that the ‘administrative’ prosecution uncovered and revealed an ‘unlawfulness’ occurred by officers during the trial or previous trial.
Those who persist on with ‘tampered’ evidences against them to appeals without pausing to reveal the ‘tampering’ are fools with more money than sense. Most likely those who say the law does not work. Nah – nah it it is THEY the victims who are failing by not correctly identifying the ‘culprit’ to the most appropriate law ‘enforcement’ agency and asking for remedy
You must get the shithead who betrayed your confidences in your case and make them pay and use it to get a retrial.
Citizens best and cheapest ‘protection’ is by way of an administrative persecution ANYONE can do is foolishly ignored. These ‘women win’ officers break the law against The Commonwealth Government as well as YOU but slackers in the PS watchdog agencies are not up to it so if you want anything done it has to begin with YOU.
Leastwise you report to Ombudsman of Fed Police or AG Dept or Aust Nat Audit office or like. BUT YOU MUST CORRECTLY IDENTIFY THE PERSON AND THE UNLAWFULNESS AND WANT AN ACTION TAKEN (a) on behalf of The Commonwealth and (b) on behalf of your behalf.
I know several reliable barristers successful in such prosecution and ‘compensation’ claims against PS and Government who I am trying to assemble into OUR ‘prosecution team’.
Regards Robert E Kennedy 08 8932 3339 seeking your financial help into a trust account ‘fighting fund’ or any other help in forming a prosecution team and making ‘real’ prosecutions’ of these dodgers. Including CSA and domestic violence etc. biased administration.
[Reply]
zac Reply:
August 20th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Very inspiring Robert but when I wrote (3 times) to the Legal Services Commissioner of Victoria about a Ballarat Family Law Specialist who DRAFTED and FORWARDED, to me, a statement ‘in the name of’ my daughter’s Grade 5 teacher falsely describing fear and family violence …and without that teacher’s knowledge, approval or SIGNATURE..the Commissioner, Victoria Marles, did nothing about it….Her excuse was that, the lawyer that I was complaining about was not MY lawyer, and so I was not in a position to complain about HER even though I was protecting my daughter(10) who was knowingly in the middle of false allegations which led to her self harming whilst any adults that were exponents of THE TRUTH (ie , me and the teacher) were not being heard.
The school and the Regional Office of Education enquired as to the contents of the ‘phantom’ statement (that had the name of the lawyer/ Officer of the Court that “prepared” the document) and found that the teacher had done nothing wrong..ie.failed to mandatorally report family violence…which hadn’t occured….this female lawyer was simply trying to scare me into thinking that the teacher was on their side…the lying side.
I gave the teacher the copy of the statement that was written in her name..She immediately said that two of the paragraphs were false and were my ex-wife’s opinion/ disclosure/ rantings.
This teacher was NOT happy that a lawyer had produced and circulated a FALSE document in her name and asked me how this lawyer still had her practise licence…We can all ask this..but will it get us anywhere?
[Reply]
All I here about is shared care, or 50/50 parenting, not what is in the childrens best interest or providing stabilty. Who does this really benefit the parents or the children. How would you feel shipped from house to house on a weekly basis. How much will this affect our children lives in their future as adults, will they be settled or always feel the need to move on a not be able to settle in one place for a period of time. I know a few children my self in this situation and they dont know where they are going to sleep most nights. Their wants and needs are not taken into account by their parents at all. What parents seem to consider is that they have owner ship over their children, they are not a material possessions to be shared or laoned out. We must remember their needs come first and our are secondary to to theirs. I have recently left my former de facto after 17 years he was very controlling and didnt see a problem with our relationship, it took a long time to make this decision because we have two young children and I kept belieiving everything will get better. I didnt want them to be wittnessing such a destructive relationship. He threaten me when I left 18 months ago, stating he will take our children from me, this was enough for me to go back. I went back because of this new equal shared parenting, beleiving that he can and will have our children in his care. I ended up leaving for good and I am so glad I did as our children are more settled and no longer have to wittness his mental abuse of me. They grow up with this and they beleive this is normal but now they won’t, because they and I have a chance of a new life. He gets to spend time with our children on a regular basis but he still wants to have them week about. He dosent seem to care that they wish to live with myself, only his rights and and how many nights he wants, not days. And he does get nights with both children. So you have to wonder if this could be a money factor as well. The only thing he is now using his maliputions on our children, now he doesnt have me there. How to stop him ruining our childrens self esteem and self worth. He could be describe as a passive agressive or narrcastic. Now after four months at least I can start to gain some self worth and realise I am not dumb and are a very capable human being. After years of him degenerating my intelligence and then my son starting to treat me in the same manner was more than anyone could put up with. What was worst was our children getting use to us fighting all the time, I would look over at them and it would break my heart for them to see us fight so I would back down which gave him more control and I can still remember the look in their eyes when we fought which haunts me everyday. I have had to move into my parents home with our two wonderful children and I have promised them there will be no more fighting. Unfortunatly I have been told by his lawyer today that my former de facto has every success of succeeding when and if it goes to court to be granted the 50/50 shared parenting, I have no lawyer, no money with only the faint hope from legal aid that they may reconcider my application. He holds all the money and and I cant get the single parent payment because they can only go by 2009 tax records because he distributes aprox $70,000 per year to me from his trust, which I dont actually receive. So luckliy I have great parents who have been helping myself and our children with our day to day cost, they have even helped pay for a course so I can gain employment. All I care about is what our children need and want and unfortunately to him its his rights. I wish things could be different for us all. They say children suffer more after the separation than the inital separation itself. Fathers4Equality seems to me a little unfair because it seems to be all about the dads not the best interest of our children and I do agree that it is important for both parents to be part of their childrens life, but what about Children4Equality and what they need. What upset me today was my former de facto’s Lawyer said children are resilient, does this imply they can cope with everything thrown their way because they dont have a choice or is it their veiws arent considered or they just dont have a loud enough voice to be heard. Its true though children do seem to cope better with cancer and children who are from war torn countries, why is that? I said to his lawyer today would he like to be the one to tell our children that they wont get to live with their mother on regular basis if the courts decide in his favour. On every change over one or both of our children always gets upset about leaving me, its hard on us but I tell them its ok and that they will be ok and they will have lots of fun. I just hope soon it will become easier for them as its been over four months now. Their Dad resents the fact that they get upset and his attitude is they will toughen up. Now does this sound like a parent thats cares about them or his own rights. I wish he would give them time to adjust to their new change in circumstances and then slowly introduce longer periods of time spent away from myself. Let our children grow up with stabilty, love, peace, not adults rights and conflicts. Best interest of the child or best interest of the parents?
[Reply]
Lisa Reply:
May 16th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Your post brought back flooding memories of my separation/divorce back in 2006. Your story reads almost word for word exactly what myself and my 6 children went through. I too believe in the childrens rights and safety, but unfortunately, the way the court system is, I believe it is failing our children miserably. I too was unable to get assistance from Centrelink because my ex also had a trust, distributing moneys (on paper) to both myself and all my children, but us not receiving a cent…so I know how you feel there. I have since moved on from this ordeal, after spending 3 years on my own with my children. I swore I’d never marry again after the heartbreaking situation we went through, but I would have to be the luckiest woman to have found a sincere and loving husband to share our lives with, one that earnt my respect and my love and vice versa. The only difference between yours and my story is, even though my ex had access on a regular basis, he absconded overseas to prevent my children and I accessing any form of financial settlement. I am greatful in a way that my children no longer have to grow up with his mental abuse, but will never forgive him for throwing them into poverty. And of course, my children, who I believe are smarter than the courts think, know whats right and wrong, and havent batted an eye to the fact he is no longer around. Sad that it is, he will never see his children grow up, because of his doing.
I hope and pray you do not go through the same court battles I went through, as you do have a long way to go, sorry to say. But I wish you well and hope that what is decided is in the best interests of your children.
[Reply]
Thank you Zac for your comments about my blog.
In reference to Carol’s comments, I would like to add the following:
I have 2 young children.
My ex-husband and I have a shared care arrangement with our 8 year old daughter, which works very well for us. This is because we have always put our daughter first.
I also have a step-daughter, who spends every second weekend with us. For privacy reasons, I cannot make any further comment about this particular arrangement, however I can state that this has been very a difficult process for all involved.
Having said all of that, I certainly agree that every family is different and there is no “one size fits all” approach. My intention here, is to simply point out that many of us who conduct research in this area, have lots of personal experience, contrary to what some of you may believe.
[Reply]
To be clear what part of shared parenting has failed? I say none because shared parenting in any form with little exception is a success. But answering the Australian Institute of Studies report it is alleging its uptake is failing, And again I say shared parenting as a parenting arrangement is not failing
What I say is that the good principle is under constant attack by feminist in the family law industry assisting recalcitrant mothers to sabotage the principle and the intentions of the legislation to assist there be more shared parenting. Than there currently is.
Anyone reporting to Robert McClelland would be foolish to simply argue the merits of shared parenting without also reporting the horrendous sabotage by ‘in house’ feminists staff and support workers and solicitors in the family law industry and a similar view held by family court judges and federal magistrates. Who have time to time control during the confidentiality of case administration and ‘tamper’ with the evidences to work against making 50 -50 shared parenting arrangements possible or work.
Done only to satisfy the feminist ideology that 50 – 50 shared parenting ‘dis-empowers’ mother although many mothers submitting would of their own accord would otherwise be happy with 50 – 50 shared parenting.
The Attorney General must be urged by you all to concentrate on removing this impediment to allow the community to be more uninhibited or dictated to make freer decisions.
There is no failure in of shared parenting but there is a horrendous failure in its ‘government administration’ from the causes above reducing drastically the greater number of times parents would choose it as best option. Best above all for the children.
Folks stop simply yacking and attacking each other. Instead redirect that energy into attacking ‘feminism’ as an unlawful insurgent ‘governing by proxy’ out of our Government service deliveries. There is a chance right now for you to tell Robert McClelland why shared parenting could be a much more frequent choice.
Those who say they want it but do respond to such as this invitation by Robert McClelland really are only tire kickers who really only want it as it is. Opportunities like this are the real tests if you really want 50 -50 share parenting. Not only in the court.
Robert E Kennedy 08 8932 3339 NT Office Status of Family
[Reply]
Hi Zac,
When and where is your Court date?
Maybe you would like to contact me on mackian27@hotmail.com
[Reply]
zac Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 2:12 am
Ian, no summons yet but my daughters tell me that their mother is in constant contact with her family lawyer and my older daughter says it’s a done deal, moving to the big smoke, your town… Court will be there or in the state’s third biggest city. Her lawyer is a bitter twisted single mum herself who has used my mentally ill ex as a meal ticket for the last 5 years.,,,sucked $90+K out of her easily.She’s the one who sent the unsigned teacher affidavit that the LS Commissioner did nothing about.
Thanks for your offer that I may take you up on but I need to stay anon to a certain extent while I wait for the next mortar round. In the meantime I have had great support from my daughter’s school principal ( female) who is going to follow the orders to the letter…until and if, they change. The area Ed. Psych (who I met tonight in my supermarket) has been brilliantly supportive also..beyond his calling…just what I needed.
Ive also been doing what Craig is doing, a cronology of alienation, child psych abuse, order breaches, perjury and false reporting, contradictions and secrets exposed and started writing my Q’s for the ex-wife for court…..She’ll be like a prostitute at a sea port if i’m allowed to ask at least three questions.
I feel enriched and empowered that the truth may finally come out.
[Reply]
Craig Reply:
February 10th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Zac, I don’t know what to say exactly but feel I need to encourage you, go for it, we need to bring an end to their lies to their damage, to the , and most importantly, to the Childrens abuse.
Go for it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am also making a change in my tacticts, I am approaching the police about vexatious behaviour against me and the related effects on everyone it has caused, that should stop anymore harrassment hopefully and ease tensions and maybe I can be vindicated by the outcome.
Ian, thanks for helping Zac
[Reply]
the above wasnt Carol it was me
[Reply]
Thaks everyone for all of the above, screw the system, the lawyers, the polies, my Girls are staying with me despite FLC orders, they want to and are old enough, and i cant see anyone doing anythig about it
[Reply]
Craig Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:10 am
I want you all especially Zac and Ia to know, that the little brain I have has absorbed eough information to turn the tables on the stats, but not for policy reasons, it’s because I care for my Girls and they are of a age to decide, it takes guts to stand up to the bullying against Fathers, you Guys ad there are Wome here too, that have inspired me, to bypass the system for the welfare of my Daughters and the blended Family I have, I want you all to realise that your knowledge and opinions, have , well , without the support of my Carol, and the information you guys so willingly share, the lone feeling of taking it on based on how you feel, without the knowledge, would have been very probably impossible, therefore, the effect on my Daughters would have been worse than it is, if that doesnt explain how much I appreciate what you lot do, I cant explain it better
[Reply]
Craig Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:12 am
sorry for the typos my ” n ” key doesnt respond well
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 3:42 am
It would seem that after successive subversions of Family Law reforms and the promise of further repression in the proposed Family Violence amendments we are left with little choice but to take matters into our own hands. There is no harm in being radical when the status quo breeds injustice.
The application of Family law is profoundly flawed. It is rarely of benefit to the child and has promoted injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale for generations. Most custody rulings show no understanding of contemporary society but remain rooted in 1950’s contract law.
How can the Family Court expect us to accept that 95% of Fathers are unfit to share in the parenting of their own children? How can they justify $5million annually being ripped out of Australian family pockets by family lawyers to be in the best interests of children?
How can one be better off financially by separating than remaining in the tax paying married family. How can they rationalize welfare becoming the 5th largest item in GDP. Men cannot be expected to carry the financial burdens of family without the benefits of family. It is not surprising that the national birth rate has declined below that to sustain population. They offer us the incentive of maternal leave.
We are neither fools nor criminals. The Family Court is no more than a means to legally seize a man’s property, assets, children and sell him into child support bondage for the term of his natural working life. Any objections are silenced by Family Violence Orders/undertakings (with appropriate death inference) and if the father is foolish enough, that is obsessive and controlling in Family Law parlance, not to consent to his predetermined sentence he is legally bankrupted as an example to others. Forget about appealing a discretionary decision with the LAT rules of evidence & due process removed. A quick perusal of Austlii shows only the Mother has the right to be upheld.
We must act in some way to remove the laughable pretext of gender neutrality and impartiality of the Family Court in its application of the best interests of the child, with its inherent presumption of lives with the Mother unless she is proved a drug addicted prostitute, and reveal its true face of bias, discrimination and prejudice.
I urge all readers to subscribe to the technology which can make this change.
http://twitter.com/fathers4equalty
[Reply]
zac Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 10:45 am
Howard, It would be a brilliant social experiment to do a gender neutrality test of some of the rulings of the FCA. They would definately fail.
You are so right about the abuse, and over use, of Family Violence orders and the failure of many men to bother to contest them..DIDS have been good in their support to fathers there.
We’ve just got to be more assertive, less aggressive, in putting our points forward and thus being excellent role models for our sons (and daughters).
[Reply]
zac Reply:
February 4th, 2011 at 11:08 am
And further to your point Howard, the success (or failure) of any business, including a Family Law practise, is the ongoing ability to provide a ‘good’ or a ‘service’ where the client is left satisfied or is better off and where the goods or services can be readily paid for by the client…. Well in Family Law land many clients are DISsatisfied and the fees are exorbitantly high BUT the practicioners will almost always be paid (usually in advance) during the carve up of the hard earnt ‘family’ assets… and to the detriment of the children.
What a veritable monster western law has created here and our society and governments continue to allow it to swallow people whole.
Carol (Craigs Fiance) Reply:
February 5th, 2011 at 10:34 am
hey guys, it took me 15 court cases to have my criminal conviction quashed and the avo reduced back to the date of appeal hearing, that very day my brother, who supports my ex wife, placed an avo on me, then there was two arrests, twice my girls taken from me, so many welfare checks we couldnt count, phone calls from police, stalking on the net and in the street. I believed i’m hacked, very possibly the phones are bugged blah blah blah, anyway……………
Today I am spending the whole day collating the iformation about all those events in chronological order, and writing about each event.
Then, those that caused us all distress can go to Gaol for all I care
Stand up Men, and to the Woman who wear the same shoe as I do, stand up too
zac Reply:
February 9th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Your brother must have been born out of another orriface Craig.
I’m off to court again soon (self rep) as my ex, the health professional, is ‘attempting’ to lead our 15 yo d. 150 km away with promises of o’seas holiday and all other sorts of candy. She is the consumate child abuser by stealth and manipulation, and glam and attractive to boot.
Her latest alienating behaviour is contrary to the 4 year old shared care orders that have kept our busted family reasonably stable. Not that she has always followed the orders..she has taken our daughters from school on my days, taken our daughters to 5 different doctors at 3 clinics and constantly still shares a bed with our youngest.. in breach of orders….well this will now come out in court if I get a fair, gender neutral federal magistrate who lets me have my say…
I can hear you Ian, but no, I was not flush enough to launch a Contravention Application in the past.
I’m going into court with the attitude that my daughter has already gone with her abuser( she’s turning into a ‘mini mum’) …I have kept all child protection people fully informed of the perjury, pervertion of justice, child emotional abuse (misrepresenting/ misquoting a child) over the last five years. I am going to ask them all to keep their files open (past 7 years) so that my daughters, as adults, have a chance to read them one day.
If my daughter had self harmed in my house 4 years ago, due to my manipulative actions, I probably would never have enjoyed residency at all. Because our daughter DID self harm in her mother’s home (aged 10.5) and after her mother refused her an overnight visit to me( I was secretly blamed and had to fight for restitution of time) she was held tight by her ‘lioness style’ mother “acting protectively” of her offspring and NONE of the child protectors wanted to get their hands bloodied by asking hard questions about the mother.I really don’t know how much more ‘fight’ I have got in me, but it is comforting to know that I have a gorgeous and seemingly unaffected younger daughter (now 11) that is sticking with me in her school town and with bucketloads of unconditional love.
Yes Craig, we have to stand up and to not let the opposition take everything, least your sense of humour.
As Red Symonds said on his radio breakfast show once, “The wife and I had a sit-down meeting last night, and we’ve decided to keep going until somebody wins.”
The moderators of this site do not like you being informed of the fundamental right of all people to pray to our Government for a correction of wrongs or some other issue by pet it ion.
[Reply]
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Men earn-women spend says:
“Lawyers and judges need to be held to account and the only way for this to happen is to remove the section 121 that protects these conmen that masquerade as advocates for the law.â€Â
I believe this is a misguided thought, due to s121 of the Act is only for the concealment of the identity of parties and their children.
Therefore it’s removal would cause proper knowledge of proper children who are being caused the wrongs by the judiciary. Children have enough problems with their parents in the Court without the world knowing the details of each child’s matter hence I say s121 of the Act must stay.
There is no law preventing the publication of the names of judiciary or lawyers.
Therefore I say, the best way of causing these “conmen†“con-persons†to be accountable, is for an Independent Committee of Inquiry that accepts complaints from the public in regard to judicial and legal representative misbehaviours like the NSW Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity Committee which is confined to NSW State judicial misbehaviours.
Over the years there has been a push for a Commonwealth like Committee but the AG appears to be able to have it quashed before each of those Bills has had a 3rd reading.
Look at this link:
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Look at this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/terms/23november2009/terms247.pdf
NOTE: the AG’s response by Misrepresentation of claiming the prays are for removal of judges and not for the Committee or inquiry sought:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/ministerial/8feb2010/response244_247_248.pdf
Look at these links not responded to yet:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/terms/24may2010/terms309.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/terms/2010nov15/terms343.pdf
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
These links don’t work because the – in Pet-tions needs to be replaced with an i.
Look at this link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet- tions/terms/23november2009/terms247.pdf
NOTE: the AG’s response by Misrepresentation of claiming the prays are for removal of judges and not for the Committee or inquiry sought:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet-tions/ministerial/8feb2010/response244_247_248.pdf
Look at these links not responded to yet:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet-tions/terms/24may2010/terms309.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet-tions/terms/2010nov15/terms343.pdf
These links don’t work because the – in Pet-tions needs to be replaced with an i.
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
These links don’t work because the % in Pet%tions needs to be replaced with an i.
Look at this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet%tions/terms/23november2009/terms247.pdf
NOTE: the AG’s response by Misrepresentation of claiming the prays are for removal of judges and not for the Committee or inquiry sought:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet%tions/ministerial/8feb2010/response244_247_248.pdf
Look at these links not responded to yet:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet%tions/terms/24may2010/terms309.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/pet%tions/terms/2010nov15/terms343.pdf
These links don’t work because the % in Pet%tions needs to be replaced with an i.
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Sorry the above links to the http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ Gov site are blocked by the site moderater
NOTE: the “Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee†of the House no longer exists in that name, therefore that will be the claim of the AG to defeat the pray sought.
The Honourable Speaker should have caused the AG Mr McClelland to be removed for his seat due to the above and more, misrepresentations to Parliament.
I believe the dishonourable McClelland is still our dishonourable AG seeking to further undermine the requirement for honesty in the Family Court by removal of s117AB of the Act is he not?
[Reply]
Men earn-women spend says:
“Lawyers and judges need to be held to account and the only way for this to happen is to remove the section 121 that protects these conmen that masquerade as advocates for the law.â€Â
I believe this is a misguided thought, due to s121 of the Act is only for the concealment of the identity of parties and their children.
Therefore it’s removal would cause proper knowledge of proper children who are being caused the wrongs by the judiciary. Children have enough problems with their parents in the Court without the world knowing the details of each child’s matter hence I say s121 of the Act must stay.
There is no law preventing the publication of the names of judiciary or lawyers.
Therefore I say, the best way of causing these “conmen†“con-persons†to be accountable, is for an Independent Committee of Inquiry that accepts complaints from the public in regard to judicial and legal representative misbehaviours like the NSW Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity Committee which is confined to NSW State judicial misbehaviours.
Over the years there has been a push for a Commonwealth like Committee but the AG appears to be able to have it quashed before each of those Bills has had a 3rd reading.
Look at this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/terms/23november2009/terms247.pdf
NOTE: the AG’s response by Misrepresentation of claiming the prays are for removal of judges and not for the Committee or inquiry sought:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/ministerial/8feb2010/response244_247_248.pdf
Look at these links not responded to yet:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/terms/24may2010/terms309.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/terms/2010nov15/terms343.pdf
NOTE: the “Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee” of the House no longer exists in that name, therefore that will be the claim of the AG to defeat the pray sought.
The Honourable Speaker should have caused the AG Mr McClelland to be removed for his seat due to the above and more, misrepresentations to Parliament.
I believe the dishonourable McClelland is still our dishonourable AG seeking to further undermine the requirement for honesty in the Family Court by removal of s117AB of the Act is he not?
[Reply]
The part about outcomes favouring fathers for property and child support couldn’t be more wrong in my case. I lost almost everything. The ex got almost all of my seperannuation. And when there wasn’t enough super to pay her what the judge ordered my to pay, she sued me for more money. She has over $500,000 in the bank, has THREE income streams, has ZERO care of the children, and still gets FTB payments. Centrelink refuse to investigate her for fraud. I get $5 per week per child for two of the three boys. I am on a disability pension barely keeping my head above water and she contributes absolutely nothing towards cost. I don’t think the howard governments changes favoured me in any way.
[Reply]
Without prejudice.
Unless you fully understand the FLC proceedings and its hearings, and unless you find a Lawyer with integrity, fathers enter the arena blinded and disabled, and are often shafted by the professionals hired to sere them.
It is a tragedy and and a travesty regarding apparent ‘children’s rights’
Both my lawyers worked for the machinations of the system and not for the best interests of my children.
Lawyers and judges need to be held to account and the only way for this to happen is to remove the section 121 that protects these conmen that masquerade as advocates for the law.
Like the medical industry and every other profession, there is a duty of care and a paper trail. But not with the Law industry. Lawyers and Judges alike have no policy and procedure, or a protocol. Many make it up as they feel fit, or force their clients to fit into the predetermined set of outcomes that are usually in the mothers best interest and not the child’s.
The question is, why on earth would this occur? There must be a controlling monster that regulates the FLC. The FL act is fair and square, Its the courts and those working for the courts that, IMO, are not.
I entered mediation and was certainly not green, However, the entire episode stank of collusion and of a higher agenda, In addition, I was not allowed to document, or, record in any way, the corrupt proceedings. I instructed my lawyer, and my lawyer had a duty of care to attain the best for his clients case, which was my child. I had evidence of child abuse, neglect, and a proposition for 50/50.
Upon entering, all the mediation got presented with, was the mothers proposal only, as my so called lawyer apparently ‘forgot’ to both prepare mine, and in the event of this, I submitted my own to him, and he apparently ‘forgot’.to bring one too. The incriminating evidence also allegedly ‘must have fallen out of the folder’. What a farce.
The mediation was carefully engineered and all parties were in the camp of seeking the best interests of the mother. I was lucky to get 33% as my lawyer distracted and diverted attention from the issue, and railroaded myself to sign the consent forms. I was not even given time to read it. And, was the last member of the party of 5 signatories to sign.
My lawyer was continually sweating and appearing anxious and fraught at every turn.
Sold down the river. And three years on, I am still waiting for an answer for accountability after numerous complaints to varied depts. And all I have been told, is that The powers that be have resolved the issue, but under the privacy act, such information cannot be released.
IMO can only define the FLC as a cartel that protects its own interests. The queen that sits upon the beast is the problem here. And IMO, the servants of the beast and queen are mere bottom feeders.
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:44 pm
It would seem good practice not to pay the lawyer up front or on time. They all want retainers and then escalate costs as the case is dragged out to trial. Inevitably your own $450/hr lawyer turns on you, with the support of his barrister, in the court waiting room. All they are interested is consent. This lets them off the hook. They maximise profit without the risk of having their performance scrutinised and you can’t go back without a significant change of circumstance.
It is all a great con masquerading as the best interests of children. Importantly this con could not work without the implicit support of the judiciary. Shared parental responsibility without equal time is no more assuaging the conscience of the conman.
I note no family lawyer offers the “no win, no fees†reassurance.
I would be interested in the Legal Services Commissioner response which presumably investigated professional misconduct, dereliction of duty, etc. Their response to your complaint would not be private. Similarly if you prosecute your own family lawyer then privilege is waived.
[Reply]
Ian Mack Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 9:35 pm
I believe the High Court granted Counsel and Lawyers immunity from prosecution back in about 2006 when it was proven they had coerced a young boy into pleading guilty of a rape later proven as being committed by someone else.
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:33 pm
That would be a convenient precedent, namely, to know the law allows one to ignore it.
Who made that ruling Crennan J?
Australia’s Shared Parenting laws didn’t fail.
The Australian Family Court system failed to enforce the law.
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 1:09 am
I cannot agree more strongly.
The unelected Family Court judiciary has simply refused to implement the will of the people as mandated by our Parliament. The 2006 amendments have gone the same failed way as the 1995 reforms and will likely regress with the Family Violence amendments.
Ideologue judges have simply created agenda caselaw to subvert, circumvent and effectively sabotage the intent of the shared parenting amendments. Case in point the statutory best interests of the child which have been effectively redefined by caselaw to incorporate the Chisholm-McIntosh contraindications. These parenting factors, which contraindicate shared parenting in marriage, have no more scientific validity than feminist gossip. Nevertheless Australian judges prefer this academic paper to twenty years of legitimate, peer review research which shows conclusively that equal shared parenting is in the best interest of everyone – except lawyers.
Caselaw has provided provision to ignore the legislative distinction between primary and secondary considerations. Discretion to promote Family Violence ahead of meaningful relationship already exists. The judges have pre-empted the amendments now being proposed.
A review is commissioned, in Machiavellian circumstances, to have their mouthpiece investigate Family Violence. Former family court judge Chisholm’s recommendations based on findings directly contradicted by the independent AIFS study involving 30,000 cases over 3 years, are used to justify refining (winding back) the shared parenting amendments.
In effect the government has retrospectively legalised the judicial refusal to implement the law. We must ask who is legislating – the judges or our elected representatives.
[Reply]
zac Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:36 am
My family separated in the week after the 2006 Howard reforms and my ex had legal advice 8 months prior, so her lawyer would have warned her about the pending ‘reforms’…hence the false allegations of child sexual assault.
Ten months and $70k later I gained a 46% residency in a pre-court agreement to avoid a est. 5 day hearing (and another $35k) My ex was probably shitting bricks about the exposure of her false allegations and her lawyer’s advice to settle, was a surprise..but in the best interests of the children.
Near 50/50 residency is fair on everyone and most kids also are constantly learning what is fair, they’re not stupid.
So why WOULD a court deny a child not have near equal time with the ‘other’ parent ?(if there are no family violence issues proven) Maybe because an industry ‘expert’ like Prof. Jen McIntosh says that, moreover, children do better with the stability of one main residency. Well I would answer such narrow mindedness by quoting something that Clint Eastwood once said, “Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.”
Leanne Hall, a Sydney Clinical Psychologist who has done extensive research on Parental Alienation for an upcoming book, also disagrees with Jen McIntosh on her blog site, Health Matrixx. Leanne Hall has worked in Family Law and child protection and her opinions are much more dynamic and credible.
[Reply]
Craig Reply:
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:48 pm
if 50% is good for the kids i’m all for it, but i’m going to go full care with me, each case on its merits i suppose
Carol (Craigs Fiance) Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:37 am
Hey ,my thoughts on all of this is that most of the people who do the research for anything to do with children dont even have any children themselves or have very little to do with children .
You cannot judge any case by how another has gone ,as no matter what every case is different no adults are the same and no children are the same ,apart from that all adults and children are going through a similar situation .
As they think by stats that hey this was good for these few so hey lets make it how everyoe should have it . NO .
It would be great if everything was easy and they make it for the system that is what works for everyone .They need to have very good body language specialists,and very good trained psychologists to watch each of the parents as people can go in as you’s know claiming a whole load of s- – - .They dont take anything into account hardly at all . Just read one sides as usually it is the one who just wants to piss off the other parent by making their life more hell just cause they dont ,cant,wont stay with the other parent. And assume this one must be the one that is best for the children cause they got into the solicitor and got the paperwork in first Crap.
With our situation ,i dont think 50/50 share works at all ,as these girls being made go from one place to another is too unsetteling as they would rather go to school with the rest of our children and not made go where someone else thinks they should go. Here they know that all 6 of them go to school come home do their homework dinner showers and bed early and have a routine.
When they go to their mothers they dont know from day to day whats happening , they have to check their phones every afteroon to find out where they are ment to take themselves each day ,they dont know where they will be to have dinner ,when they might be able to have a shower or do their homework which is alot more i high school,or even where they might be sleeping at each night.
They really need to be reading each and every bit of evidence as I know from our experience ,they dont always .Mabye might ok and be great for some but they need more stability ,I know !! Oh well thats my two-bobs worth goodight .
zac Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:12 am
Very true Carol, each case is different, must be reviewed differently by a panel (of three i reckon) before court.. and yes BODY LANGUAGE speaks volumes about sincerity,honesty and intent, so throw the accuser in with the accused.
I could have forked out another $30k and may have gained residency of my daughters as I am self employed and stayed in the girls’ school town and could quite easily have proved my ex-wife’s perjury, but the girls still love their ‘challenged’ mother and could easily gravitate to her, as my 15 yo (maternal psychological abuse victim) constantly does, planning o’seas trips and school changes.
It is an arm wrestle for many years and as Craig has read Dr. Richard Gardner (Parentectomy) the target parent is often left battered, broke and mentally depleted..The alienating parent, however, is closer to their comfort zone.
As long as you can show your (adult) kids that you did your best then your conscience will be clear.
So if the Shared Parenting laws have made no impact on Shared Parenting in Australia, does this mean that all these women’s groups have been lying about all the children being forced to see their dad?
It certainly looks like it.
[Reply]
Carol (Craigs Fiance) Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:56 am
For sure all the children in all breakdowns all being scared to see their dads ,no of course not ,some might be too scared because of the mother poisoning their minds and those groups dont mention about the kids wanting to get away from their mothers and being scared of them ! I know I took my children for two one night weekend things to see their father and after the second one I never took them back . And I was not being a bitch just keeping them to anouy him he was no good and local court over powered Family court orders and took all parenting rights away from him ,and we havent seen him for six years . But I know I have seen it from the crap some parents play this game ,when they are just not in no best interests for any children only themselves .
[Reply]
Carol (Craigs Fiance) Reply:
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:50 am
If Craig was anything that his ex says he was I would not be able to be anything near him nor have him have anything to do with my children . But I know he is nothing like she says and I wouldnt be needing anyone better then this man to be in our lives .
[Reply]