The Gillard Labor Government Encouraging Extortion in Family Law
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: The Gillard Labor Government supports extortion and single parent families.
A Bill called the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 is currently before Parliament.
The Bill has recently received the support of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Senate Committee’s Report on the Bill was tabled in theSenate on Monday 22 August 2011 ( Hansard page 74 ).
There are two (2) parts to the Bill.
Firstly, there is a broadening of the definition of what is deemed to be “family violence”. The refusal to hand over your credit card to your wife, husband or partner will constitute “family violence”. At the same time, penalties for providing false information are to be removed from the Family Law Act 1975 (it is noted this later item is specifically not supported by the Coalition Senators in the Senate Report ).
This will lead to extortion.
Secondly, the wording of the Bill will legislatively lift “family violence” above the need of children to see both parents after either divorce or separation.
The proportion of one-person households increased from 15.7 per cent of households in the 1976 Census to 24.4 per cent in the 2006 Census.
The proportion of two-person households also increased from 28.1 per cent of households in 1976 to 34.1 per cent in 2006 ( ABS 2010 Year Book ).
The Bill, if passed, will result in false allegations of family violence. This will then further contribute to the increase in one-person and two-person households in Australia.
We only have to look at the recent British riots to see what problems this will cause.
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.
In my view there is a crucial error of fact in the Senate report which undermines all of its recommendations, namely, at page 67 of 98
3.169 … The committee does not agree with these assertions [of an 'explosion' of malicious and vexatious claims]. According to the Family Court of Australia, existing section 117AB is seldom used. Further, THE COMMITTEE ACCEPTS THE RESEARCH FINDINGS OF DR MICHAEL FLOOD AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE FINDING THAT FALSE ALLEGATIONS ARE RARELY MADE … will be required to meet the thresholds set out in proposed new subsection 4AB(1), as well as the usual evidentiary standards.
At page 44: In response to the question will the bill result in “An increase in vexatious and malicious claims?”
Professor Chisholm told the committee that it would be hard, if not impossible, to predict whether the proposed new definition of ‘family violence’ will precipitate the making of vexatious and malicious claims.
“Women’s Legal Services Australia referred to ‘the clear and succinct synopsis of the research in this area’ prepared and ‘appropriately referenced’ by Dr Michael Flood, a sociologist at the University of Wollongong:
He concludes that child abuse allegations in the context of family law proceedings have been researched in four Australian studies and have found that:
- The allegations rarely are made for tactical advantage;
- False allegations are rare;
- The child abuse often takes place in families where there is domestic violence;
- Any such allegation rarely results in the denial of parental contact.
In relation to [the] myth about false accusations of domestic violence and misuse of protection orders he again analyses the research succinctly and concludes:
- The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation;
- Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence of their claims;
- Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort;
- Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.[79]”
footnote 79 Women’s Legal Services Australia, answer to question on notice, received 22 July 2011, pp 3-4. Also see Dr Michael Flood, ‘Fact Sheet #2: The myth of women and false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders’, available at: http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-2-myth-women%E2%80%99s-false-accusations domestic-violence-and-misuse-protection-orders (accessed 26 July 2011); Dr Michael Flood, ‘Fact Sheet #1: The myth of false accusations of child abuse’, available at: http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-1-myth-false-accusations-child-abuse (accessed 26 July 2011).
The references to Flood are, to my knowledge, not peer-reviewed nor are they published/endorsed in a reputable or scientific journal (personal blogs on the internet don’t count). Therefore the amendments are substantiated by no more than junk science and agenda propaganda.
Importantly, the Flood “research” was written before the shared parental responsibility amendments were enacted in 2006 and therefore cannot possibly be construed as evidence that the existent law has caused women not to disclose allegations.
This Flood character advocating precious profeminist pseudo-male activism gobbledegook has caused trouble well beyond his use by date. It is now up to us to properly research the legitimacy of his claims and rebut his creditability for what it is malicious gossip. Then present it to the LNP & independents as reasons to oppose the amendments.
Moreover it is dishonest of the Family Court judges to testify that they don’t know the prevalence of false allegations and gloss over it with trite assertions that most witnesses try to tell the truth. Really this should in itself be sufficient evidence of inherent deception and self-interest.
It is just another kick in the guts to fathers for the Senate to turn around and find that because the Family Court Judges have been dishonest, derelict and irresponsible in their duty to administer mandatory cost penalties for false allegations and false denials that women therefore don’t make false allegations. And s117AB costs orders should be repealed because they are unnecessary
The fact is the Family Court claims to lack jurisdiction & resources to deal with perjury. On questioning of how many cases have been referred to the AG for prosecution they admitted there have been a few. Subsequent questioning the AG found that only 2 of these referrals had been sent to the AFP which had investigated none. There it is on the record in Hansard that perjury is allowed in the Family Court.
Further, the reality is that fathers are advised not to ask for costs as this is interpreted by judges as conflict contraindicating shared care – how can you accuse the Mother of perjury and get along – and then there is the catch-22 of putting financial interests before the best interests of the child – or literally stealing from the child.
[Reply]
zac Reply:
August 29th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
“One in five notifications of child sexual abuse in Victoria are deemed to be spurious claims made in Family Law custody disputes.” Claim of fact by a female Superintendant of Victoria Police to my neighbour (and friend), a former Detective Sergeant (male) of a Melbourne metro SOCAU (Sexual Offenses and Child Abuse) Unit. Names on request.
“There has never been a conviction for perjury in the Family court in Victoria’s history.” Bill O’Shea, fmr President of the Victorian Law Institute speaking on 774 ABC Melbourne drive program.
In regard to domestic violence (actual or contrived) allegations, Victoria police are compelled to be pro-active and dilligent from the outset for the express purpose of curtailing a ‘potential’ family/ community tragedy IF circumstances escalate. (which would then ‘cost’ thousands of budgeted dollars and countless hours of police time in a ‘clean-up’ mode)
There will never be the same dilligence in bringing perjurers and justice perverters to account because those crimes, although shattering victims- destroying reputations-businesses and alienating children from their fathers (typically) , are deemed to be small sacrifice (not as much blood) within the big picture.
This is very hard for me to swallow after hearing, 5 years ago, that my daughter threatened to cut her wrists (at aged 10) and after she witnessed her mother (the Health professional/ Bioethicist )typing a, “made up report” that I, the loving father, had touched my daughter’s breasts (and other trash testimony) My daughter refused to talk with child protectors…she was protecting her mother from punishment and the child protectors (including me, the allternate parent) were completely hamstrung.
Howard, If my ‘true’ Family Law history would help dispel the myth of false allegations in custody wars then I would happily forward the facts.
[Reply]
There’s another new political party starting up called the G.R.O.G. party….Get Rid Of Gillard…I’ll join that party and it won’t have anything to do with her gender, or that I was a labor voter for 32 years.
[Reply]
Yes, I agree, a real hypocrite.
When I heard the claim that the Labor party apparently believes in the presumption of innocence, the first thought that popped into my mind was why then is the family violence bill a bill that presumes guilt against separated fathers?
Where is the presumption of innocence there, or does it not apply if you are a separated dad.
[Reply]
Gizzard is as hypocritical as they come. She comes out and states that Craig Thomson should recieve the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE at least until he is proven guilty, yet the new family law amendments she has just introduced DENY that same presumption of innocence to every father who is accused in the family court no matter how false those allegations are or whether proven or not. She is as hypocritical as they come.
DITCH THE WITCH NOW.
[Reply]