Labor Greens -Shared Parenting Rollback- creating a fatherless society
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
Media Release: Labor Greens ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ creating a fatherless society
Monday 22 August 2011 at 6.30 pm, the Labor Green’s controlled Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee released their report on the ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Bill 2011 www.aph.gov.au/senate . The Green’s member, Rachel Siewert said, “ The Greens have consistently opposed the equal shared parenting responsibility legislation ” brought into law in 2006.
Warwick Marsh, Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation, said, “ The Senate report and the Green’s comments show what is driving this shocking new anti-child and anti-father legislation. Never before have major changes to Family Law been enacted on any other than bipartisan agreement between the major parties. This proposed legislation is opposed by the Opposition, and rightly so, because it removes the very wise friendly-parent provision, redefines family violence to mean anything anybody wants it to be, and removes any possible penalties for perjury and false accusation in the Family Law Court.
This new legislation, even with new amendments proposed by the Senate Committee, is nothing more than radical feminist ideologically-based anti-family legislation that will ensure the destruction of more families, the suicide of more separated fathers and an increase in the heartbreak of more fatherless children.
Mr Marsh continued, “ The Labor Greens government has embarked on an outright war against fatherhood and marriage. This Bill will soon be law and on Wednesday 24 August 2011, this same Labor Green’s alliance will be promoting homosexual marriage in the House of Reps: which a notable member of parliament pointed out this week is an oxymoron. Marriage is what it is – the union of a man and a woman. To accept anything less, in law, is to rob children of their biological birthright, exactly what the new ‘Shared Parenting Rollback’ Family Law Amendment Bill 2011 will do for many more Australian children.
A 2009 Galaxy Poll revealed that 86% of Australians, including those in Labor Party heartland, believe that children should be reared by their biological mum and dad wherever possible.”
Dads4Kids calls on all Australian to make a stand and reject the Labor Green’s attack on fatherhood, marriage and children.
We ask Australians everywhere to write to their local Member of Parliament and request them to reject the Family Law Amendment Bill 2011.
For further information:
Warwick Marsh
0418 225 212
Dads4Kids Fatherhood Foundation
PO Box 542
Unanderra NSW 2526
Media Release. Labor Greens Shared Parenting Rollback
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.
The current Family Law offers no definition of domestic violence and it is left entirely to the discretion and the highly subjective opinions of whimsical and idiosyncratic judges to determine what constitutes domestic violence. So this legislation is not “refining family violence’ but is actually reducing and confining the definitions and criteria which are currently being used.
It is not the role of the Family Courts have any part of “ending those crimes [physical battering]” nor to “help victims” – they are civil Courts whose role and purpose in Family Law proceedings is to determine the care and welfare of children. No one is charged with any offence, no one is on trial, and Family Courts do not have a role as a Quasi-Criminal Court. (Though some judges would like to think so when they apply the Evidence Act 1995 Section 140 and the Briginshaw Principle. Domestic violence is only a part of the legislation as one factor in determining what proportion of time a parent should have shared care of their child.
It is for other government and non-government agencies to help victims. It si only violent offenders and child abusers who will continue to benefit if this law fails to be passed.
Please explain Howard Beale how a household containing a live-in boyfriend (de facto partner) or a step-father (married to child’s mother) can be a “Single parent household”?. Thats how nonsensical such statistics are.
You are making an emotional drama, Howard Beale out of what is a straightforward process. And how far have you benefitted because the law at the moment is so loose and indefinite?. Reduced Child Support?.
The government should now be looking to introduce further laws which will set up a National Register of Violent Offenders and with access for adults to check whether their intending partners have a history of domestic violence as is intended in the UK.
Travis, A. 2011 Consultation begins on domestic violence disclosure scheme, The Guardian, 25 Oct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/25/consultation-domestic-violence-disclsoure-scheme?newsfeed=true
In that way such violent offenders can be isolated from our society and prevented from breeding which would be one of the best things to happen in this country..
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Ragnvald, aka Michael Flood, why do you bother? Boring cunt.
Let me preface this response with reference to Flood’s XYonline website – XY is a pro-feminist website. It is guided above all by a commitment to feminism. XY is intended to advance feminist goals … actively sabotaging men’s rights to protect women… XY is coordinated by Michael Flood, PhD thesis “Why young heterosexual men don’t use condoms,”
The wikipedia page on Michael Flood was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2009. He was found to be using puppet identities to argue his own favourable editing of his extremist views from the page. It gets worse…
Below is a direct quote of a speech given (and subsequently circulated) by Dr. Flood in which he encourages feminists and mother’s rights activists to actively work against fathers who want to be fathers and be involved with their children.
“The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.
Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;
-Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
-Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
-Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
-Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
-Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
-Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;
-Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)
-Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.
-Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.
-`Speaking as a father’
Tell women’s stories
-Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.
In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.
(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and © undermine credibility and support. )
Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc”
These father-friendly views are the basis of our proposed social policy. At 3.179 of the Senate Report recommending the Family Violence Bill “we accept the findings of Dr Flood that false allegations in the Family Court are rare”
Excuse me…. I have to go clean up some puke.
==================
Flood: “The current Family Law offers no definition of domestic violence and it is left entirely to the discretion and the highly subjective opinions of whimsical and idiosyncratic judges to determine what constitutes domestic violence”.
I resent having to waste time rebutting this Pravda-like propaganda which flies in the face of facts. This is not XYonline fucknuckle and stop hijacking the first response.
Section 4 of the current Act defines “family violence” as follows:
“Family violence means conduct, whether actual or threatened, by a person towards, or towards the property of, a member of the person’s family that causes that or any other member of the person’s family reasonably to fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safety”.
Note: a person reasonably fears for, or reasonably is apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safety in particular circumstances if a reasonable person in those circumstances would fear for, or be apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safety.”
Clearly Flood objects to Law requiring fear be“reasonable”. Flood advocates children being isolated with paranoids, mentally ill, the personality disordered, suicidally depressed for years to determine if the mother is dangerous rather than risk the “highly subjective opinions of whimsical and idiosyncratic judges”
Flood: “So this legislation is not “refining family violence” but is actually reducing and confining the definitions and criteria which are currently being used.”
More garbage. The age of the limp dick loser is well and truly upon us.
Below is the new definition of family violence in the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 that “reduces and confines the definitions and criteria currently used” from 2 paragraphs to 2 pages.
4AB Definition of family violence.
14 (1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent,
15 threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls
16 a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes
17 the family member to be fearful.
18 (2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include
19 (but are not limited to):
20 (a) an assault; or
21 (b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or
22 (c) stalking; or
23 (d) repeated derogatory taunts; or
24 (e) intentionally damaging or destroying property; or
25 (f) intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or
26 (g) unreasonably denying the family member the financial
27 autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or
28 (h) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet
29 the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his
30 or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or
31 predominantly dependent on the person for financial support;
32 or
—
1 connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or
2 (j) unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of
3 the family member’s family, of his or her liberty.
4 (3) For the purposes of this Act, a child is exposed to family violence
5 if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences
6 the effects of family violence.
7 (4) Examples of situations that may constitute a child being exposed to
8 family violence include (but are not limited to) the child:
9 (a) overhearing threats of death or personal injury by a member
10 of the child’s family towards another member of the child’s
11 family; or
12 (b) seeing or hearing an assault of a member of the child’s family
13 by another member of the child’s family; or
14 (c) comforting or providing assistance to a member of the child’s
15 family who has been assaulted by another member of the
16 child’s family; or
17 (d) cleaning up a site after a member of the child’s family has
18 intentionally damaged property of another member of the
19 child’s family; or
20 (e) being present when police or ambulance officers attend an
21 incident involving the assault of a member of the child’s
22 family by another member of the child’s family.
The full report can be access via the internet:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/family_law_familyviolence/report/index.htm
This incredibly complicated array of behaviours is further expanded by specifically using the words “include (but are not limited to)”. In effect family violence becomes whatever the accuser says it is, since allegations do not have to be reasonable or proven. In layman’s terms this takes “he said” out of “he said, she said” and removes all penalties for lying.
Flood: “It is not the role of the Family Courts have any part of “ending those crimes [physical battering]” nor to “help victims” – they are civil Courts whose role and purpose in Family Law proceedings is to determine the care and welfare of children. No one is charged with any offence, no one is on trial, and Family Courts do not have a role as a Quasi-Criminal Court.”
No Michael, fathers are not given the rights allowed to rapists and murderers, namely, the presumption of innocence, due process and conviction with evidence and penalties for perjury. The Family Court just takes our kids away, and property and future income in a life sentence.
The criminal conviction is part of this custody process which starts with a pre-emptive strike in local Magistrates Court for an AVO. This allows her to legally seize the home, assets and kids and then try to provoke a contravention of the AVO for some jail time. Yes, reinstating the formerly repealed main tactic for sole maternal custody, the interim AVO, back into Family law proceedings is really a good idea to reduce family violence.
Flood: “(Though some judges would like to think so when they apply the Evidence Act 1995 Section 140 and the Briginshaw Principle. “
What are you taking about you girly whining wanker, you filthy little creature? Division 12A, LAT, threw out the protections of the “Evidence Act” 5 years ago – in effect, anything relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible by judicial discretion.
The Briginshaw Principle or test, requires proof of child sexual abuse beyond the balance of probabilities, that is, more than a 50/50 GUESS. And unless you are some sort of professional paedophile hysteric, oh right, to most people a higher burden of proof is reasonable given the gravity of such allegations, so easy to make and hard to defend, and the devastating consequences of a false positive finding for the father and the child.
I point out that the Briginshaw test is still far below the evidence requirement of “beyond reasonable doubt”
Flood: “Domestic violence is only a part of the legislation as one factor in determining what proportion of time a parent should have shared care of their child.”
No, the proposed amendments equate domestic violence with child abuse so that it becomes the primary consideration according to priority of child safety. And to make sure any discretion is removed the Act is rewritten to force the judge ignore any other consideration regardless of how unreasonable the allegation is.
Flood: “It is for other government and non-government agencies to help victims.[$$$] It is only violent offenders and child abusers who will continue to benefit if this law fails to be passed.”
ALLEGED offenders you fucknut. In your long history of serial dishonesty in the name of advocacy you still have not provided one piece of substantiated evidence that the existent legislation has failed to adequately protect children.
The only beneficiaries of this law passing are family lawyers and people like yourself who exploit “victim” women and profit from the misery & hatred of misandry industry.
Flood: “Please explain Howard Beale how a household containing a live-in boyfriend (de facto partner) or a step-father (married to child’s mother) can be a “Single parent household”?. Thats how nonsensical such statistics are”.
Nitwit, you’re becoming wet with the thought that the target of your derangement: fathers, will be forced to stop having meaningful relationships with their children. Just throw away the 2000+ published peer-reviewed studies and verifiable statistics and read your blog.
The mother has sole parental responsibility for the child, you useful “academic” idiot. Boyfriends come and go, and step-fathers are just as disposable. Not that this semantic quibbling has any merit to the point being made. The father stops anyone else fucking with his kids – the bloke the family violence bill proposes to throw away.
Flood: “And how far have you benefitted because the law at the moment is so loose and indefinite? Reduced Child Support?”
Pathetic. Men want to share in parenting to reduce child support. How does this explain men willingly being impoverished and or bankrupted in an unwinnable custody battle to see the kids rather than pay child support not to see the kids.
Flood: “a National Register of Violent Offenders and with access for adults to check whether their intending partners have a history of domestic violence as is intended in the UK.
Yes, let’s follow the UK with fatherless kids rioting in the streets.
Flood: “In that way such violent offenders can be isolated from our society and prevented from breeding which would be one of the best things to happen in this country”.
I believe Dr “Eugenic” Flood should be cordially invited to go fuck himself.
[Reply]
Michael Flood Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
A colleague has alerted me to the fact that it’s being claimed that I wrote the material to which the person above is responding. That’s not the case. I don’t know who it was, but it wasn’t me. I usually sign my name, as I’m open about my participation in such debates.
Sincerely,
Michael Flood.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Dear Mr Michael Flood,
Given your past unethical and inappropriate misuse of our facilities, of which you were caught red handed and subsequently apologised for (of which I suspect you had no choice given the indisputable proof), it is asking a lot not to assign the above inflammatory Ragnvald comments to you.
This line of misinformation is quite consistent with the line you have been towing as a lobbyist supporting vilification and further gender discrimination against men.
One should also note that the IP address of this poster is the same as your workplace, so it is either you, or someone close to you.
In any case, it is bad form, and I ask again that you and your associates respect our rights as Australians under a democratic system to discuss and debate issues that are important to us, without interference and provocation.
Please cease and desist this interference, as you are upsetting already vulnerable fathers who have been victims of abuse, and your actions only perpetuate further systemic abuse.
I would also ask that you and your associates please cease the threatening and bullying emails addressed to me, as they are taken seriously, and could lead to a report to the authorities.
Email abuse and threats are a crime in this country, please remember that.
zac Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I have used the F4E megaphone to truthfully share the nightmare ‘false’ allegations levelled at me in a child custody ‘battle’ to honorable members of the Australian Parliament who are due to vote on the Family Law Ammendment bill.
As my daughters’ District Educational Psychologist (male) said to me, “You have suffered the worst allegations that a father of daughters can be faced with.”(molestation, physical abuse)
It is with pleasant surprise that one of those recipients has forwarded my true story to another ‘government’ MP whose staffer was moved to telephone me.
Apart from identifying my daughters publicly,(as my older daughter was distressed enough to selfharm in her mother’s presense at the age of ten) I will do anything to stop a reoccurence of this nightmare happening to any other child of divorce.
My daughters, aged 10 and 6 at the time of separation in 2006, suffered the following ‘emotional’ abuse from their mother,
* absense from school for up to 20 days inspite of the Acting Principal pleading with the mother to resume ‘some’ normality.
* denial of contact with their father for one month except for school visits (and where the mother discussed a possible AVO with the Acting Principal if I continued to visit the school, as per my parental rights)
* interuption of the father’s court approved school pickup days by the mother picking our daughters up from school early on 4 occasions.
*denial of my older daughter attending school concert rehearsal to the point where she was the only 5/6 student who could not participate in the end of year concert.
* misquoting and fabrication of my daughter’s words in her mother’s initial (and subsequent) affidavit to the point of perjury, attempting to pervert justice, false report to police etc.. (my daughter, aged only 10, read parts of her mother’s affidavit ‘ over her shoulder on the computer and immediately told her mother that she was wrong…where her mother replied, “Don’t read anymore”)
My daughter conceded to me that she knew that her mother(a health industry report writer of 20+ years experience and a Bioethicist Ma.) had, “made up a report”
*police welfare check to my home via the mother’s 000 complaint after I had separated my wrestling daughters near a blazing wood heater and asked the eldest to go and have a shower (1st in three days)
*2nd police welfare check (to the mother’s house) 3 days later when my eldest exibited bruising on her wrists (from the sibling wrestling) and the fat policeman, whilst sitting down to lunch with my kids and on the phone to a Child Protection detective, said, “It looks like child abuse to me…do you want me to arrest him(father)?” did I mention that my ex-wife’s father was a Snr. Sgt….
I was not arrested, but my ex-wife drove my older daughter 60km to visit the G.P. that had made the molestation ‘notification’ 8 months earlier to seek another DHS notification. This failed..The G.P. would have known that our daughter was prone to bruise easily due to asthma medication…that wouldn’t stop my ex-wife trying.
I have never been heavy handed with my daughters, or my ex-wife, but this does not stop my ex-wife’s perception of fear which is enough (in this proposed Family Law Ammendment bill) to wind back any gains that accused fathers (typically) have made.
I have tried to lobby SBS’s ‘Insight’ to conduct a forum on these very issues, but to no response so far.
We must all maintain the ‘controlled’ rage on this topic.
[Reply]
Lib/Nats support the Campaign against Domestic Violence and the abuse of chidlren:
http://www.ruddockmp.com.au/Blog/tabid/64/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/182/VIOLENCE-AGAINST-WOMEN-AUSTRALIA-SAYS-NO.aspx
[Reply]
Howard Beale Reply:
October 29th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
We all support the protection of all persons – not just women – from violence.
However, we’re talking about people getting hurt. We’re talking about people having to flee in the middle of the night for their safety and that the Family Violence Bill is addressing violence not name calling—not suggestive behaviour– But…the word violence
The Family Violence Bill needs to focus on ending those crimes [physical battering] rather than broaden the definition of violence to the point of meaninglessness.
Redefining family violence to be non-violence trivialises a real problem. Violence can simply be what a man says or how he looks at a woman. It can even be what a woman thinks he might do or say. Definitions that include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress,” claiming to be “fearful,” or just not doing what your partner wants are unhelpful. This wastes the limited resources available and forces real victims of violence to take a number and wait their turn.
The Family Violence Bill is supposed to help victims, but instead this very poorly written law encourages false accusations and mass fatherlessness — and funnels a billion dollars to a divorce-family violence industry which is its real purpose – Ragnavald how much do you benefit?
The Bill doesn’t help victims much because it doesn’t tackle the root causes of anger, substance abuse, mental illness, and family history of abuse that drive domestic violence.
As written, FVB also invites much misuse. There are 150 thousand restraining orders issued each year based on false or vague accusations, in part because whoever gets to the courthouse first gets custody of the kids and can force their mate out of the home, all in a 15-minute hearing.
Throwing the baby’s father out with the alleged “family violence bathwater” is neither protection nor prevention – it is dangerous persecution. The vast preponderance of child abuse and child deaths occurs in single-parent homes. London’s Family Education Trust long ago demonstrated that children are up to 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a mother with a live-in boyfriend or stepfather than in an intact family. There is not one case of child abuse in a court ordered shared parenting arrangement.
Legislators should review:
http://www.saveservices.org/search/%3C?s=domestic+violence+definition
The Partner Violence Reduction Act reduces false allegations in 5 ways:
1. Limits the definition of domestic violence
2. Distinguishes between “alleged” victims and “adjudicated” victims
3. Removes harmful mandatory arrest, predominant aggressor, and no-drop prosecution policies
4. Allows legal assistance to be provided both to the alleged victim and alleged offender
5. Requires grantees to certify that prosecutors enforce laws that ban perjury and false swearing.
[Reply]
Lib/Nats support Campaign against Domestic Violence and the inherent and direct abuse of Children.
http://www.ruddockmp.com.au/Blog/tabid/64/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/182/VIOLENCE-AGAINST-WOMEN-AUSTRALIA-SAYS-NO.aspx
[Reply]
I pray that this government collapses over its pay for prostitutes scandal before this disgraceful law is passed.
Its amazing that on the one hand, this government is claiming to be dedicated to fixing the gender wage gap, while on the other hand, it is forcing mothers to be sole carers, and forcing fathers to work more, and spend little time with their kids.
They are either hypocrites or just dishonest, or both.
[Reply]
civil war of the new generation between stupidity of the human lack of understanding because they are not educated enough.
OPEN THE CAN OF WORMS AND SHANVE IT DOWN THEIR THROATS.
FEDERAL,HEAD OF THE FAMILY.IF U CANT FIX THIS,U CANNOT FIX GENERATION GAP,BRIDGING THE GAP INCLUDING EDUCATION INCLUDING MORALS.
[Reply]
Keep pushing those boundries bolshie swill. The downward spiral of Australia continues.
[Reply]