Tony Windsor MP Responds: Hypocrite or Just a Fool, you decide

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

August 6, 2011

Tags: Armidale Express Extra, Betrayed Children, Child abuse, Child Custody, Country Leader, Family Law changes, Family Violence Bill, Federal Member for New England, Julia Gillard, New England, Radio 2AD, Radio 2TM, Robeert McLelland, Robert McLelland, Shared Parenting, The Armidale Express, The Inverell Times, The Northern Daily Leader, Tony Windsor

Tony Windsor Media Release: Child Safety of paramount importance in family law

F4E: This media release from Tony Windsor is in response to the following announcement by Fathers4Equality, in what our opinion has been the total betrayal of the most vulnerable children in Australia by Tony Windsor, a politician who is not only a hypocrite, but based on this media release, either living in denial or just plain dis-honest.

Tony Windsor: The protection of children is of paramount importance to the Independent Member for New England, Tony Windsor when he considers any Family Law legislation amendments.

F4E: The protection of children, their welfare, safety and natural right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and extended families is of genuinely paramount importance to fathers4equality.

Tony Windsor: Mr Windsor was responding to claims by a father’s group that Mr Windsor’s voting with the Government on the Family Violence and Other Measures Bill in late May was contrary to his previous position back in November 2005 when he supported a bill which gave better recognition to shared parenting.

F4E: Notice that Tony Windsor does not deny the allegation. A complete denial would be rather foolish at this stage , although his staff originally intimated that Tony Windsor never supported Shared Parenting. Once they realised that his letter was a matter of public record, they came up with this bizarre media release, which seems like a confusing mish-mash of rhetoric and petty justifications, which still does not explain why he has made a complete about face on such an important personal and community issue, as he himself acknowledged.

Tony Windsor: Mr Windsor said that the two Bills were on two different issues.

F4E: This statement is a falsehood and complete rubbish.

The family violence bill undoes in effect every measure of the 2006 shared parenting amendments, using the deceptive mantra that shared parenting puts children’s safety at risk.

This falsehood was categorically denounced by the AIFS study (the governments own comprehensive study) of 27,000 parents who have been through the system since the 2006 shared parenting amendments were put in place, where it found no evidence of any increase in risk of abuse to either the children or mothers in shared parenting arrangements.

In fact figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology indicate the exact opposite, that the safest environment for children with regard to child abuse was is in a shared parenting arrangement.

Tony Windsor: “When I consider any family law legislation, I first look at the possible impact on the children.

F4E: Clearly you have not done so in this case Mr Windsor. This bill will effectively guarantee the end of any shared parenting arrangements (statistically the safest environment with regard to protection against child abuse), and it will place almost on an exclusive basis children in contested child custody arrangements in sole mother households (statistically, the most dangerous environment to place children with regard to child abuse, accounting for up to 80% of all child abuse incidents).

Children will have no say and no way to resolve the chasm that this bill will create between their relationship with their mother and father, making the emotional and psychological impact of divorce on children significantly more scarring than it ever needed to be.

Tony Windsor: “It is quite possible to support both the shared parenting legislation and family violence bill and I will always err on the side of caution to help ensure the safety of innocent children.

F4E: The 2006 shared parenting amendments did just that. It supported optimal measures against family violence while also encouraging, where possible and when in the child’s best interests, shared parenting.

The family violence bill does neither. It completely undoes any meaningful encouragement for shared parenting, it encourages the use of children as innocent pawns in parental conflict, while virtually guaranteeing that children will be placed in the highest risk environment for child abuse, without any transparency of care through shared parenting as a protection against child abuse.

Tony Windsor: “This is what the Family Violence Bill does.

F4E: This bill does not protect children. The motivation of this bill is to re-enforce sole-mother custody as the standard in this country. It does this by compromising on the child’s rights, the child’s safety, and the child’s emotional welfare.

Children will have no say in whether they can see their father and their paternal grandparents and cousins,, and there will be nothing to stop a mother poisoning the mind of a child against his or her father, as this bill effectively endorses this kind of behaviour.

This bill is all about the magnification of a mother’s rights, above and beyond what the facts may indicate, at the expense of children and fathers.

The fact that Labor’s Kate Ellis had the gall to effectively state in Parliament that women do not make false allegations in Court (but presumably men do), is a strong indicator that this is a politically gender doctrine, driven by people with entrenched anti-male views, with children having the pay the greatest price for this policy victory.

This bill will not protect one child in genuine need, but it will increase the extent and intensity of abuse experienced by children.

Tony Windsor: “I am satisfied that the Family Violence Bill does not deny fathers or mothers any form of meaningful contact with their children after separation but it does provide for better safety for the children of broken relationships if required,” Mr Windsor said.

F4E: Perhaps Mr Windsor you did not even bother to read the bill to make such a statement, because I find it a remarkable statement to make given the changes to be made.

Let me give you a quick rundown on the changes.

The 2006 shared parenting amendments re-inforced the safety of children to a degree never before seen in the family law act in this country, increasing the scope of the Courts to not only address the risks of physical and sexual child abuses, but to also address other highly damaging abuses of children;

including the insurmountable damage to children’s emotional health, welfare and safety through the deliberate alienation of children against the other parent (Parental alienation);
the epidemic of fatherlessness in this country creating a generation of children being robbed of the unique contributions and nurturing of having a loving father in their lives;
and the malicious False Allegations that have historically clogged up the Family Court and other legal jurisdictions.

A child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and extended families was also incorporated into the act, however could not be inforced (despite the abundant mis-information on this topic) if the judicial officer did not consider that it would be in the child’s best interests.

The 2006 amendments were considered world’s best practice, by achieving the optimal protection for a child’s overall welfare and safety, while weeding out the malicious False Allegations and destructive behaviour by some parents that used innocent children as pawns in an extension of their parental conflict.

The 2006 shared parenting amendments essentially:

Encouraged co-parenting co-operation by removing the “winner-takes all’ adversarial approach to family law resolution.
Encouraged co-parenting co-operation be facilitating a legal requirement for parents to co-operate.
Enhanced this requirement by implementing free mediation for the parents to resolve their conflict before going to Court
Implemented a financial penalty for knowingly false allegations, which was essentially the payment of about half the legal fees of the parent who was the innocent victim of malicious and knowingly allegations of child abuse or domestic violence.

What Mr Windsor has done by voting in support of the Family Violence bill is to remove all the safeguards that were implemented after a three year community consultation program, that highlighted the abuses of the existing family laws through false allegations as legal tactics, despite the overwhelming harm done to children.

The Family Violence bill effectively:

Re-installs the “winner-takes-all” adversarial approach to family law. The name of the game will again be to destroy the character of your children’s other parent, regardless of the truth, because to the victor go the spoils, and that means everything, the majority of the assets and complete control of the children.
The definition of domestic violence will now include anything and everything from raising your voice, slamming the phone, even such things as pouting or being too upset to talk. This definition does not recognise context, so even if you caught your spouse in bed with another person, anything you did or said in that highly vulnerable situation, even the slamming of the door on your way out, would be considered domestic violence. Even being completely placid is no defense, because the new law will consider what your ex allegedly feels, not what you did or are are likely to do. So no proof will be required apart from one parent saying “I am scared of the other parent”. And if both parents say that, no bonus point for figuring out who ends up “winning the case”.
Interestingly, the obstruction of contact between child and father, even when Court Orders are in place, is not defined as a form of child abuse or family violence. Perhaps Mr Windsor you can explain to me why this omission is in place, and how it benefits children?
Tacitly encourages the alienation of children against the father (mostly), as a viable legal tactic with no penalties attached.
Encourages the making of knowingly false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence, by removing any penalty against anyone caught perjuring themselves in Court. In other words, legally speaking it would be foolish to tell the truth in Court because even if you lie and are convincingly proven to have lied, the Court will be powerless to penalize you.
The funding for post-separation mediation services has been slashed, effectively meaning that parent’s will once again be pushed into Court, in many cases having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees, which would otherwise have been completely avoided by the previous 2006 laws.

Tony Windsor: Mr Windsor is very much aware that Family Law is a very sensitive area with which to deal. “The break up of a relationship is very distressing and even more so when children are involved. “Many people are aggrieved when for one reason or another they must prove to a third party that they are fit and proper people to have access to their own children. “It is frustrating for those who have to go through this process however it is important for these people to remain calm and focussed on the objective of gaining access to their children. “The process is not perfect.

F4E: Yes, this is self-evident, but is this your excuse for being a hypocrite? You stated in writing that you supported shared parenting as being in a child best interests, if there was no realistic evidence of child abuse.

Now, in an unexplained turn-around, you effectively support an effective presumption of sole-maternal custody, even if the mother has knowingly made false allegations, even if the mother has maliciously alienated the child from the father, even if the mother has irrational, cognitively detached and completely untrue fears against the father.

So at one stage you believed that a child’s arrangements should be based on a child’s best interests, determined by the overwhelming research in support of a child’s development needs for meaningful relationships with both parents, if practical and devoid of realistic safety fears.

Now, a child’s best interests is secondary to the mother feelings, regardless or whether they are malicious, honest or irrational. Decisions will now focus on the mother’s ‘demands’ and ‘needs’, not on a child’s best interests.

By your hand, cases such as ”Mother wins custody battle after terrifying children about father“, and tragedies such as Keisha Abrahams, are more likely than ever to become common place and the standard.

Tony Windsor: “This is why the Parliament is continually faced with more amendments to try to address the issues that arise,” Mr Windsor said.

F4E: Amendments to enhance a law is one thing. The family violence bill completely undoes the 2006 shared parenting initiatives, and creates a presumption of guilt against separated fathers.

What will be the next amendment you will support Mr Windsor? The immediate imprisonment of all separated fathers?

Tony Windsor: Mr Windsor also supported his staff’s handling of the group’s “demand” for a response.

Tony Windsor: “Since the ‘hung parliament’ my office has been bombarded with correspondence on every issue imaginable and my staff generally turn things around within a working week.

Tony Windsor: “Many are vexatious and sorting through all of them does take time.

Tony Windsor: “It will be attended to but accusing my staff of being condescending or dismissive is a misrepresentation of their commitment to helping constituents with their concerns and I sincerely thank them for their efforts,” Mr Windsor said.

F4E: I stand by my comments, and in my opinion this is more a reflection of your priorities Mr Windsor, not of your staff.

In any case, what does it matter to a child who is being denied contact with a loving father that you are a busy and important politician. Are you suggesting that this excuses you from what has been described by some as reckless, hypocritical and questionable behaviour on your part, since your deal with Labor?

This media release is simply a pathetic response to a serious issue on child safety.

I do not accept it as a response to the questions as to how you fundamentally changed your personally held views on shared parenting, apparently overnight, while ignoring the views of your electorate and that of the Australian public.

This change in view ‘co-incidentally’ occurred during a period when you were being offered perks from the Labor party for your support of their policies.

I do not believe that your response does anything to convince the Australian public that your vote for the family violence bill was genuinely a vote in support of a fundamental policy shift in family law.

You have simply not provided an explanation to dispel the views of many Australians that your change in support for the family violence bill had more to do with political expediency with your arrangement with Labor, than any genuine interest in protecting vulnerable children from the risks of child abuse.

Tony Windsor Media Release- Hypocrite or Fool- family violence bill, child custody, shared parenting Download Tony Windsor Media release