The Greens show their true colours in Family Law reform
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
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has tabled its report into the Family Violence Bill.
Unsurprisingly, it contains varying views from the broad collection of Senator members of the Committee.
To the un-initiated, be warned that this report is more of an expression of ideology, rather than any genuine exploration of family law reform.
As a result, many contributors with hardline extremist views, or otherwise entrenched beliefs, have been given a disproportional voice, clearly at the discretion of the Labor party and/or its Greens partners.
Although of no surprise to some, Â what I still find remarkable given the already hostile ideology that has permeated the majority of this Committee, has been the insatiable blood-lust of the Greens to force through even more punitive, anti-father amendments, in an effort to completely eradicate father’s from a child’s life, upon the event of separation.
To those few who believed that the Greens were interested in equality and fairness among all Australians, you don’t have to read too far between the lines of their recommendations in this report to realise exactly what the Greens want.
If you are a separated heterosexual father who wants to have a meaningful relationship with your children after separation, you have to contend with the views of the Labor Party and their political masters, the Greens, who are hell bent on denying men any avenue of contact with their children, even under the most positive circumstances.
Further Recommendations to the Family Violence Bill by the Greens
The Australian Greens recommend that:
1. Equal shared parental responsibility provisions (subsections 61DA(1) and (2)) are removed from the Family Law Act; Â [GreenSpeak - In other words, Courts will be forced to give children to one parent ONLY, clearly the mother in majority of cases, just as the sexist but hypocritical Greens want]
The demarcation between the two tiers of factors in section 60CC is removed to create one list of factors for consideration, where:
- the safety and protection of children is listed as the first consideration and given priority;
- having a meaningful relationship is listed as one of the many factors;
[GreenSpeak -In other words and given the redefinition of abuse, a mere allegation will be enough for the Courts not to be required to consider a child's right to a meaningful relationship with their father.]
2. the courts should weigh up all of the factors on the list depending on the circumstances of each individual case;
[GreenSpeak -In other words, the Courts should not be required to consider the importance of a child having a meaningful relationship with their father.]
3. Exposure to the effects of family violence be included in the definition of ‘family violence’;
[GreenSpeak -In other words, if mother and father argued, or refused to talk, or didn't get along together prior to separation, that this should now be considered as family violence perpetrated by the father against the children]
4. The definition of exposure to abuse and family violence makes it clear that only the perpetrator is at fault for the child’s exposure; and
[GreenSpeak -In other words, only fathers are capable of being abuse to children or their partners. Despite any available evidence to the contrary, mothers should never be considered to have contributed or initiated any violence, if a father was present. ]
5. The creation of a comprehensive risk assessment framework for the family law system is explored.
[GreenSpeak -In other words, fathers can be denied contact with their children even if no allegations of abuse have been made, by reference to a profiling document that is illegal when used racially, but acceptable if used against men. ]
Senator Rachel Siewert [the hypocrite who herself has Shared Care of her child, but would she under these amendments? I think most definitely not!]
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.
This government should be operating as if in caretaker mode given the huge dissatisfaction in the polls..STOP MAKING STUPID LEGISLATIVE MOVES…that includes the “unrepresentative swill ” (P. Keating) in the Senate.
[Reply]
As I understand it, the Family Violence Bill has been sent back to the Lower House, because of serious concerns that there has been no credible evidence presented that the 2006 Shared Parenting laws exposed children to child abuse.
In fact, as I understand it, not one example of child abuse of a child in a shared parenting arrangement could be found, despite a number of requests being made to present actual examples of child abuse by fathers in shared parenting arrangements.
All that was presented was anonymous allegations, opinions from lawyers and internet polls from women’s websites, but these details have raised more questions than answered.
Given the desperate need to change these laws, because allegedly so many children have been placed in contact with their abusive fathers because of the shared parenting laws, why could they not find one credible and confirmed example to submit?
The answer is obvious, because shared parenting is a disincentive to child abuse, because if you do abuse the child, the chances are the other parent will find out.
It is this transparency that is at stake, should these new laws come into effect, because child abuse will once again go behind closed doors, because children will be controlled by one parent alone, with no input or scrutiny from anyone else.
Julia Gillard, this is an example of institutional child abuse, and you are the child abuser here.
[Reply]
childrens rights Reply:
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:17 pm
http://tiny.cc/6i4rs havent you heard its been passed
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:20 am
your assertion is as ass-backward misleading as your name. The bill is passed back to the House where a single vote will defeat it
[Reply]
Ragnvald Reply:
August 23rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
RECOMMENDATIONS of the Senate Committee
Recommendation 1
3.163 The committee recommends that proposed new subsection 60CC(2A) in item 17 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to read ‘In applying the considerations set out in subsection (2), the court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in paragraph (2)(b)’.
Recommendation 2
3.164 The committee recommends that proposed new paragraph 60CC(3)(c) in item 18 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to require the Family Court of Australia to give consideration to the reason(s) why one parent might not have facilitated a relationship with the other parent in accordance with that provision, including due to risk of harm to a child.
Recommendation 3
3.165 The committee recommends that proposed new paragraph 60CC(3)(k) in item 19 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to read:
(k) any relevant inferences that can be drawn from any family violence order that applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family, taking into account the nature of the order, the circumstances in which it was made, any evidence admitted and any findings made by the court that made the order, and any other relevant matter.
Recommendation 4
3.170 The committee recommends that:
• proposed paragraph (c) in the new definition of ‘abuse’ in subsection 4(1) in item 1 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended by removing the reference to the word ‘serious’; and
• the Attorney-General’s Department review the provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 containing the words ‘abuse’ and ‘neglect’ to determine whether there are any legislative inconsistencies which need to be addressed.
Recommendation 5
3.180 The committee recommends, in relation to the commencement date of Schedule 1 of the Bill, that column 2 of subclause 2(1) of the Bill be amended to delete reference to ‘A single day to be fixed by Proclamation’ and to provide that Schedule 1 will commence on the day after the end of the period of three months beginning on the day of Royal Assent.
Recommendation 6. The committee recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department, in conjunction with the family law courts and relevant professional organisations, institute an education campaign, to commence no less than two months prior to the expiration of any lead time, and to cover the critical amendments made by the Bill, including the Schedule 1 commencement date. Recommendation 7 3.187 The committee recommends that the heading in item 45 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to read ‘Amendments that apply to proceedings instituted on or before commencement’. Recommendation 8 3.188 Subject to the above recommendations, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY COALITION MEMBERS
Recommendation 1 1.6 Coalition senators recommend that items 18 and 20 of Schedule 1 of the Bill not be supported. (Removal of word `serious’ from serious abuse of children.)
Recommendation 2 1.15 Coalition senators recommend that proposed new subsection 4AB(1) in item 8 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to read: For the purposes of this Act, family violence means behaviour by a person towards a member of the person’s family that is violent, threatening, coercive or controlling, or is intended to cause the family member to be fearful.
Recommendation 3 1.19 Coalition senators recommend that item 43 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be removed from the Bill. (Application of the amendments once enacted, to existing cases).
Recommendation 4 1.22 Coalition senators recommend that item 45 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended to apply only to proceedings instituted in the Family Court of Australia on or after commencement.
1.23 Coalition senators agree with and support all other recommendations in the majority report.
http://tiny.cc/6i4rs its about time
[Reply]
Interestingly, I have just had a letter from a lawyer on behalf of a mother supported by a Clinical Psychologist making claims a father has done what the mother has been doing for years to her sons.
That is, this is what we can expect to see more and more:
“[The boy] is experiencing anxiety and stress due to his father’s inappropriate behaviour towards [the boy] in that his father constantly puts his mother down while having access visits with [the boy]. These lectures about how bad his mother is can go on for hours when [the boy] visits his father to the point that [the boy] feels physically sick.â€
The truth is this mother was in NZ and left the boy with friends during her school holiday time with the boy.. While at those friends the boy was attacked by an adult in the friends home, having his shirt ripped a day prior to changeover, hence changeover occurred in his school uniform days after school had finished.
This same mother was required to cause her elder son to be removed from her home, due to his violence perpetrated in her home.
A Police Psychiatrists, diagnosis this elder son as having a mental (personality) disorder consistent with parental alignment/alienation. Moreover, this elder son had, and has, a strained/minimal (when he required money) relationship with his father, who is different to this father, this father witnessed the mother belittling the other father while the mother lived with him and over the phone while talking to his son.
And the laws are not made yet but the Family Law system is jumping on them.
[Reply]