Children
Media Release: GIllard Govt to Establish National Children’s Commissioner
Nicola Roxon AG
The Gillard Government today announced the creation of a National Children’s Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said that the new Commissioner will focus on promoting the rights, wellbeing and development of children and young people in Australia.
“For the first time, Australia will have a dedicated advocate focussed on the human rights of children and young people at the national level,” Ms Roxon said.
“The Children’s Commissioner will ensure the voices of children and young people are heard in the development of Commonwealth policies and programs.”
The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin said establishing a Federal Children’s Commissioner was key action under the Government’s National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020.
“We want every child to grow up safe, happy and well. The new Commissioner will represent the views of children and young people, particularly those most vulnerable, at the national level,” Ms Macklin said.
DIVORCE LAWS: Family Court loathed for the vast harm it does
The Americans have a well-known saying for politicians, “It’s the economy, stupid!” — meaning that what matters most for people are economic issues. It’s false.
What matters most to people, and most affects their well-being, are close relationships, and above all family relationships. These are areas where politicians and bureaucrats can do only limited good but almost limitless harm, and huge harm is being done.
Here are some facts regarding Australia today. If there’s a marriage or relationship break-up involving children, and custody or access is in dispute, the parties must submit to an inquisition by Family Court social-workers or the latters’ pet psychologists regarding their past behaviour towards and in the presence of the children.
A major purpose of the exercise is to identify “family violence” by the male, with this being defined as any behaviour “actual or threatened” which causes any member of the family “to fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safety”.
The term “well-being” is infinitely elastic, and meant to be, as are the other catch-all Family Court categories of “family violence”, such as “psychological violence/abuse”, “emotional violence/abuse”, and “controlling behaviours”.
Couple lose court battle to contact grandchildren
GRANDPARENTS who resorted to litigation to see their beloved grandchildren after their son and his wife cut off all relations have lost a court fight to regain contact.
In what a federal magistrate said was an ”unusual” and ”tragic” case, the grandparents sought court orders to re-establish contact with the two boys, aged 10 and six.
Failing agreement with the parents about seeing the children, the grandparents wanted court orders that included the grandchildren being able to contact them, as well as times set for meeting at Christmas and birthdays.
The relationship between the adults began to slide when the grandmother made a catty comment at the hairdresser’s about her daughter-in-law.
The comment got back, sparking tensions that drew in other members of the extended family.
IVF – Where governments provide funding for fatherless families
Fathers’ rights and shared parenting campaigners have for decades been fighting for the rights of children from separated families to be in the loving presence of both their biological parents.
It has been a hard fought battle which has seen only minor inroads being made, given the ferocious resistance from government funded women’s’ groups, who ironically had been set up in the first place to promote policies of equality amongst the sexes.
As many would know, Australia’s record on human rights had a significant setback last November 2011, when Australia’s world renowned Shared Parenting laws were watered down by the Australian Labor government, being replaced by a set of laws heavily laced with anti-fatherhood dogma, designed primarily to entrench a sole-mother, fatherless family unit post-divorce, regardless of the needs of the children or the qualities of the father.
Having said that, Shared Parenting is not out of the question, and a growing number of divorced mothers are ignoring the sexist overtures of the Gillard Labor government and opting for Shared Parenting arrangements post-divorce.
However, while Shared Parenting advocates continue to knock on the doors of open minded politicians lobbying for genuinely gender-neutral family laws in this country, an insidious, almost silent development has been occurring behind the scenes, a development that no-one ever voted for, and a development that has never been assessed in terms of whether it is in the best interests of the child.
European Court of Human Rights does a backflip: Biological fathers’ lawsuits dismissed
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights: Biological fathers have no right to recognition of paternity if the mother lives with another man.
In 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that German legislation prohibiting biological fathers from having any contact with their child without the biological mother’s consent was discriminating against fathers and a violation of the men’s human rights.
Refer to article: European Court Bolsters Fathers’ Rights
However, the European Court of Human Rights has just announced a backflip on its previous position, now claiming a ludicrous exception to this ruling by removing the parental rights of the biological father merely because the mother has moved in with another man.
Its a bizarre case of one step forward, ten steps backward for fathers all around the world, and this particular decision exemplifies the entrenched discrimination against biological fathers at every level of the legal system.
Toddlers should not be allowed to sleep in Prams, Dr Jennifer McIntosh finds
This claim is based on research by clinical psychologist Dr Jennifer McIntosh, who has released guidelines via the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health based on the premise that children under-2 years of age are stressed (and presumably permanently harmed) if allowed to sleep in an unfamiliar environment.
This research has been used to promote the seemingly entrenched ideology of Dr Jenn McIntosh, the very unscientific obsession against fatherhood parenting, especially separated fathers, and she has again cleverly created a legally plausible argument (and as a result a status quo arrangement) for separating mothers to deny meaningful contact of a child with their father.
However, in my humble opinion her research findings are so compelling that we are obliged to consider all of the circumstances that could create such harm to an under-2 year old child, and not just the highly selective case of a separating father being denied any meaningful contact.
We as a society and as a system of laws should equally prohibit the following activities, lest it leave a under-2 year old stressed and permanently scarred:
Courts Sending Mixed Messages to Fathers About Child Discipline
A MAN was recently found guilty of hitting his teenage son with a wooden spoon during an argument over homework.
The Canberra man was found guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court, but avoided a conviction after the magistrate accepted he was genuinely remorseful for his actions.
The court heard the man hit his son with a wooden spoon after he refused to do his homework and called his mother a ”bitch”.
The 50-year-old originally pleaded not guilty to a charge of common assault after hitting his son around the legs and hands.
His defence argued it was ”lawful chastisement” but Magistrate David Mossop yesterday found the man had taken things too far and had left the boy bruised and scratched.
However Mr Mossop accepted the boy had a history of poor behaviour and that the insult to the mother went too far. He accepted that the father displayed ”a significant degree of remorse” while still maintaining he was only trying to discipline his son.
However not long after, another judicial officer found that SMACKING your kids can be OK.
When Abortion is not Enough: Women’s Rights Reaches New Low
Editor: KILLING newborn babies should be allowed if the mother wishes, Australian philosophers have argued in a prestigious journal, however their whole argument is premised on the notion that mothers ‘own’ children, and this property is theirs solely to decide on matters as important as life or death.
The role, rights and responsibilities of the fathers and other family members is ignored, perhaps denoting that these supposed philosophers are engaging in something other than open-minded scientific debate. Perhaps this discussions has something to do with the growing number of women being persecuted for filicide, the murder of the children, especially at the point of birth. We in Australia are quite familiar we a particularly high profile case of a sports personality who killed her new born child because it was expected to interfere with her sports career.
Perhaps in the well tried fashion of the likes of Jen McIntosh, this publication’s true purpose is to provide legal leverage to such mothers, in order to avoid prison terms for killing new born babies.
Its quite interesting that such leniency does not seem to be extended to the father in this philosophical discussion.
There’s no such thing as a good divorce: but biased SMH Journalist beats the same drum
Editor: The following study is quite interesting, but in some of its finding is quite out-of-step with almost all previous studies.
The author of this article, Adele Horin, also puts an odd twist to this particular study, and I suspect creates a misleading impression, especially in the closing, that sole parenting is the optimal arrangement for children of divorce, even when the divorce is amicable, which is in fact quite contrary to what the Amato study found.
This is not surprising given the well-worn path of previous articles by Horin, who seems to obsess along the same lines, repeatedly, which I suspect says a lot more about Horin’s personal ideology than it actually says about the research itself.
In any case, one should more accurately interpret this study as suggesting, contrary to the foundation of the current family law act (2011), and in direct opposition to the shrill of many women’s rights advocates, that “conflict” during divorce does not impact children anywhere near the extent that the actual divorce does, nor the resulting loss of one parent. As such, conflictual divorces should play a lesser role in determining whether Shared Parenting should be provided for in the event of divorce, as divorce and sole custody are the two most significant stressors that children face, even in the face of benign and often temporary conflict.
New Bill to add Non-Discrimination Provision to Child Custody Law
SALT LAKE CITY-USA — Julie Anderson gulped back tears to explain to state lawmakers why they need to amend Utah’s child custody statute.
The Andersons believe had their son, Jared, had been awarded custody of his 3-year-old daughter Aubree Jo, the child would not have died in a car accident with her impaired mother behind the wheel. Toxicology tests found Oxycontin and marijuana in Brandi Stilke’s system when the single-car accident occurred on Feb. 23, 2011, in Harrisville.
“If we had been a bit more diligent, perhaps, it wouldn’t have happened,” Anderson told members of House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee Tuesday afternoon.
Anderson testified on behalf of HB88, which would add to Utah’s divorce statute a statement that the court may not discriminate against a parent based on age, race, color, national origin, religious preference or gender.
