Anti-Family Child Custody reforms – Megaphone Update
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
Over the past three days, the Fathers4Equality Megaphone has sent over 8,500 personalised emails to members and Senators of Federal Parliament.
If you have not sent an email yourself, please do so now. It is simple and very quick way of letting Canberra know your thoughts on this very important issue.
These emails were sent by mothers, fathers and grandparents from across Australia, all in protest against the malicious anti-family Child Custody reforms proposed by the Labor party and the Greens, designed to force all children of separated families into single-mother homes, depriving them of contact with their fathers.
Part of the procedure we followed before releasing each email for distribution has been the screening process. This screening was unfortunate but necessary given that a few years ago our email facilities were hijacked by Dr Michael Flood, a high-profile academic who has entrenched anti-male views, and is a primary advocate for the extinction of any shared parenting laws in Australia.
Dr Michael Flood had deceptively and unethically mis-used our email resources to send ‘faked’ submissions to Parliament urging Parliamentarians to vote against Australia’s 2006 Shared Parenting reforms. Although he had subsequently apologised to us for his unethical actions, we have since adopted more stringent screening processes.
The screening of so many emails was however a blessing in disguise, because it gave us a raw depiction of just how broken this country’s family law system really is, and how it is so commonly used against the best welfare of children, rather than in their best interests.
A few of the very pronounced trends we identified in these emails are listed below.
1. A large number of email submitters claimed to be victims of false allegations of child sexual abuse.
Although we expected a large number of false allegations of child abuse given existing anecdotal evidence, the degree we encountered even surpised us.
According to the majority of these emails, many of these allegations were abandoned at various stages through-out the dispute process, we suspect once the claims had achieved their strategic purpose. This was a positive in some regards, however as one submitter put it:
“although I see my child on a regular basis now, it cost me over $80,000 in legal fees just to defend what were ultimately baseless allegations, and…I have been left scarred for life by a legal process that is designed to pander to the claims made by mothers, Â often in complete denial of all the available facts.”
2. We also witnessed a remarkably high tally of non-compliance of Court Orders.
I personally became quite distraught after having read so many emails from so many fathers who have claimed that they had Court Orders for visitation, but have not seen their children in years because of the mother’s continued obstruction or alienation of the children.
You have to ask what point is there in a Family Court if it refuses to enforce its own Orders.
3. Thirdly, we were surprised at the number of grandparents who also complained about loss of contact with their grandchildren.
If you have not already sent and email of protest using the Megaphone, please Speak Up now, because the Family Violence bill, a most malicious anti-family Child Custody amendment, is to be voted into law by Parliament within days.
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 relation to point one of this blog (large number of false allegations of child sexual abuse) this fact is not strange to child protection workers.
I have trumpeted this before, but my friend and neighbour is a former Snr. Sgt. in a Victoria Police SOCAU squad. He, and his former Supt. acknowledge that 20% (or 1 in 5) of child sexual abuse notifications in Victoria are DEEMED to be spurious claims made in Family Law custody disputes.
The next question is (and yet to be answered) what are Governments, Legislators and Child Protection Agencies doing about trying to reduce that WASTED 20% of their valuable worktime and budget by penalizing the false notifiers?
[Reply]
These work for me
ALP
senator.arbib@aph.gov.au
senator.bishop@aph.gov.au
senator.cameron@aph.gov.au
senator.carr@aph.gov.au
senator.collins@aph.gov.au
senator.conroy@aph.gov.au
senator.crossin@aph.gov.au
senator.evans@aph.gov.au
senator.farrell@aph.gov.au
senator.faulkner@aph.gov.au
senator.feeney@aph.gov.au
senator.furner@aph.gov.au
senator.gallacher@aph.gov.au
senator.ludwig@aph.gov.au
senator.lundy@aph.gov.au
senator.mcewen@aph.gov.au
senator.mclucas@aph.gov.au
senator.marshall@aph.gov.au
senator.moore@aph.gov.au
senator.polley@aph.gov.au
senator.sherry@aph.gov.au
senator.singh@aph.gov.au
senator.stephens@aph.gov.au
senator.sterle@aph.gov.au
senator.thistlethwaite@aph.gov.au
senator.urquhart@aph.gov.au
senator.wong@aph.gov.au
add the .readnotify.com to confirm the email is received and read
Senators represent a State, so have an address ready
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
[Reply]
I have been sending emails (even before this tool was made available) but just wonder about the choice of polititians on the list of 36 named addressees , they include Tony Abbott and other liberals whom I assume are against the bill , I certainly know this to be the case of my local member George Christensen who made a significant speech on our behalf in the lower house http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVcCZyhWcLY.
Should we not be targeting the labour and greens politicians, why are Kate Ellis and Julia Guillard not on the list?
[Reply]
Ash Patil Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Good question Greg.
In short, we are happy to add any politician that is suggested to us.
Please make a suggestion by posting to this blog, but note that many federal politicians do not publish their email address, so it may take a little investigation to uncover it.
We can’t add every federal politician however as this will overwhelm our system, but we can certainly add more.
If you would like to suggest someone, please post their name, email address, phone number, fax number and electorate postal address, and we will add the details to the Megaphone.
[Reply]
Greg Canning Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Online forms for those senators without a direct email address
Senator the Hon Mark Arbib Online Contact Form
Senator Catryna Bilyk Online Contact Form
Senator Doug Cameron Online Contact Form
Senator the Hon Jacinta Collins Online Contact Form
Senator Trish Crossin Online Contact Form
Senator the Hon Christopher Evans Online Contact Form
Senator the Hon Don Farrell Online Contact Form
Senator the Hon David Feeney Online Contact Form
Senator Mark Furner Online Contact Form
Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig Online Contact Form
Senator Claire Moore Online Contact Form
Senator Louise Pratt Online Contact Form
Senator the Hon Penny Wong Online Contact Form
[Reply]
More good information about the systematic rape of fathers and their children.
The real point is that this was engineered by the law societies to provide the state with bureaucratic camouflage so it could get away with transferring its responsibility for welfare to private individuals. No matter that no one in Parliament sought a real examination of the relationship between no fault divorce and sudden spikes in the number of single mothers on welfare. No matter that such a transfer is technically illegal under the Constitution as it stands, never mind Common Law. No matter that taking our children is theft, extortion, threat and illegal at the same time. Thus far our best strategy for protection of our children seems to have been to bow out gracefully by accepting the minimum allotment of time with our children.
The real fight here will be emasculating the law society by revoking its monopoly on the practise of law, reinvigorating and re-establishing the primacy of Common Law in our courts and ensuring that in the future judges will not come from law schools, but specialized judge schools and will never be allowed to join a law society.
I know that is kind of big picture fantasizing and somewhat off the current topic, but the 2006 bill wasn’t big enough. We should come up with a program that aims high or we are going to get just enough to satisfy us that something was done and let the criminals off scot free, patting themselves on the back for having recognized society’s changing character and responding appropriately.
I want what has been done declared illegal assault by government. I want compensation for myself and my children. It bloody well can come from the law societies.
Profit remains the motive and continues to be very lucrative for the law societies and members of Parliament and legislatures. This includes Conservative members, who do not and did not do enough back in 2006.
Our best protection may well lie in Common Law approach and strategy to our mutual problem. Any movement now needs to remember King John and the reasons, enumerated in Magna Carta and especially relevant today, for the Barons’ rebellion. The government was stealing them blind, with impunity. They didn’t just say no. They put a stop to it and made new rules for government behaviour. Such is our time.
[Reply]