Sexist School Policies
Father Placed on Child Protection Register for Marrying Young
Lyn and Neville Cox were childhood sweethearts who had grown up in the same street. They were very much in love. When she became pregnant at 15, Lyn’s father was furious and reported 16-year-old Neville to police, who charged the boy with carnal knowledge.
The half-hour court hearing that followed seemed inconsequential, but more than 40 years later it revealed its lasting legacy, branding Mr Cox a child sex offender who should not be around children.
The couple married soon after his conviction, with nothing but a cup of tea and Vegemite sandwich with Mr Cox’s family to celebrate.
They moved away and had two more children, both of whom became police officers, and are respected members of the community in Wagga Wagga.
Mr Cox’s only brush with the law since has been two speeding fines.
Over the years he didn’t give his juvenile record any thought.
”I just presumed that when I turned 18 it was all over red rover,” he said.
It was not until a few years ago he learnt it wasn’t.
What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence
What about the men? White Ribbon, men and violence: A response to Dr Michael Flood by Men’s Health Australia
The White Ribbon Foundation is an organisation that works to prevent male violence towards women – a goal that is extremely worthy and worth supporting. The White Ribbon website states that “all forms of violence are unacceptable,” however in 2009 the organisation issued a document to it’s male Ambassadors which used erroneous ‘facts and statistics’ to downplay, diminish and report incorrectly about male victims of violence. These Ambassadors use federal government funding to take the White Ribbon message into regional, rural and remote communities. These significant errors could have led the Ambassadors, and through them the general public via federal funding, to be misled about the nature and dynamics of interpersonal violence in Australia.
Mum loses custody to her child’s alleged abuser
Editor: Anyone who understands the Family Law act would realise that we are likely not being given the full story here – see below. This sounds like a typical Caroline Overington beat-up, except for the fact that we have a new journalist in this instance who is likely to be selectively reporting the facts.
One has to wonder why a Judge would give sole custody to a father, if the only facts of the case are as reported in this story. There must be much more to this story than this journalist is letting on, especially with regard to the mother’s parenting abilities, her own possible child abuse behaviours, and perhaps some serious instances of parental alienation or false allegations. Who knows, but what is certain is that there is much more to this than what this news article claims. In any case, if anyone can point me to the actual judgment or provide F4E any further information on this case it would be appreciated.
=====
Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women
The 2009 Australian project a ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′, was approved for implementation by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Plan, which is split into several parts, puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.
The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement:“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know.”[27-pg1] But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.
Jen McIntosh: Child Abuse by stealth – flawed research and ideology contaminating family law
Mis-represented, poorly structured, open to observer bias, inaccurate, agenda driven, pseudo-science. These are some of the apt descriptions of the recently released guidelines on shared parenting recommendations for toddlers, which attempt to contradict volumes of research, dating back decades, from hundreds of independent researchers, all who have found quite the opposite.
I would encourage all to treat these guidelines as policy statements from an ultra-left leaning political party, rather than well-researched recommendations, given that it has all the hallmarks of a well-meaning, but recklessly determined, and ultimately unsubstantiated piece of political folly.
Jen McIntosh, a self-confessed anti-shared care Zealot
The main protagonist behind these guidelines, Dr. Jennifer McIntosh, is adourned with an esteemed salutation, but don’t be fooled into concluding that this woman is an impartial researcher, or a researcher who is promoting the welfare of children, for she is doing none of the above.
Jen McIntosh is a lobbyist first, and a social researcher last, given the pseudo-science she frequently promotes as the foundation of her anti-shared parenting campaigning.
Male Teachers Abandoning Public Schools over Discrimination
FEAR of being accused of child sex crimes and higher pay in non-government schools are being blamed for a 4 per cent fall in the number of men teaching in NSW public schools.
While the number of male teachers in private schools has risen 20 per cent, government schools are suffering a lack of men.The “alarming” figures contained in a Social Trends report released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics were damned by the NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations.
The report found that since 2000, the number of men teaching in government schools had fallen from about 50,000 to less than 48,000. Non-government schools, including independent and Catholic schools, enjoyed a rise from less than 24,000 to more than 29,000.
Family Court to consider Emotional Abuse
Editor Note: The below article appeared recently in the Daily Telegraph, but is oddly naive to the new family violence bill, which is probably only days away from being passed by the federal Senate. This bill, when it becomes law, will re-define family violence to include anything that can be subjectively alleged to have caused harm, without the need of objective proof.
This categorically includes emotional violence, but given that the standard of proof has been significantly lowered, it will also include raising of voices, slamming of phones, using profanity and swearing, delusional allegations, confused feelings, dreams, unreasonable anxiety and apprehension, the misunderstanding of language (and body language), and malicious and knowingly false allegations.
All of the above will be considered a form of family abuse, as per the family violence bill, and the family court, will no doubt, as per its robust tradition and as instructed by the federal Attorney General, Robert McClelland, ensure that the decision of who did what will follow strict gender lines, in other words, when in doubt, always blame the Male.
Ironically, the unjustified witholding of a child from the father (as in most cases), or the alienation of the child against the father, will no longer be considered a form of abuse, as per the instructions of the Gillard government who have removed penalties against Parental Alienation from the family law act, as well as removing penalties against the making of knowingly false allegations.
=====
The Family Court probably has no choice but to include a greater appreciation and understanding of emotional violence in its rulings, but that plainly doesn’t mean such a course will be easy.
For obvious reasons, Family Court disputes are among the most complicated dealt with by the Australian judicial system.
These cases are invariably rife with emotional complexities even before they arrive in the court, which adds yet more difficulties.
The tasks of judges in these instances are not to be envied.
And matters may be set for yet more difficulties, with moves to consider at greater length the roles of emotional abuse, intimidation and using earnings as a weapon in settling child custody disputes.
Nobody disputes that emotional abuse is an important issue and can be extraordinarily destructive in a relationship.
It is indeed possible to agree that in many cases emotional abuse may even be more harmful than physical abuse. The problem comes when such matters are brought before a court and subject to claims of proof. While physical evidence of abuse is relatively obvious and may be easily traced to a cause, emotional abuse is, by its very nature, concealed.
This makes it at once extremely damaging but also far more difficult to prove.
There are also issues of precedent that could well emerge. If it is established in one case that a certain pattern of behaviour amounted to abuse, then it is likely that subsequent trials will follow that precedent – even if a claimant’s level of trauma in response to similar behaviour is completely different.
The Family Court probably has no choice but to include a greater appreciation and understanding of emotional violence in its rulings, but that plainly doesn’t mean such a course will be easy. The court and its judges will be working even harder under these new structures than ever before.
Sydney Harbour Bridge protester keeping up his fight
Sydney Harbour Bridge protester Michael Fox says he is meeting his local member Bronwyn Bishop today to continue his campaign to get more support for children from broken families.
Mr Fox, who stopped traffic by staging a sit-in at the top of the bridge on May 17, said he had not seen his children since he was granted bail on charges of climbing the bridge.
“[Politicians] have seen how resilient Australian soldiers are in battle, well, unfortunately for them, this is my battle and I’m not going anywhere,” he said.
“Until they give children a voice, I’m going to be the voice for the children.”
The former soldier from Narrabeen, who said he was a paratrooper who served in East Timor, was also scheduled to meet Rob Stokes, the state MP for Pittwater, next week.
Mr Fox believed government authorities and institutions have failed to protect children from disputes involving their parents when they separate, and hopes an inquiry would help to explore how such processes could be improved.
“The way I look at it, I’m a veteran. And there’s a Veterans Affairs Minister. And us veterans, compared to the number of kids in Australia, are very low in numbers, plus we are adults, we can think for ourselves and vote with our feet. But the kids can’t, they don’t have a voice. And yet there’s no minister for children’s affairs.
“Jenny Macklin – her portfolio is way too big with family services. And the only other one that comes close is Peter Garrett with his education portfolio – early childhood learning and youth. And he isn’t even touching on the problems of health affecting youth.”
He questioned why Prime Minister Julia Gillard weighed into the planking debate last week but missed “the big white elephant in the room”, which he felt were the after-effects of dysfunctional families on suicides and mental health.
Mr Fox, who is a father of three, declined to speak about his own case, calling on the public and the media to “forget my name, but remember my message”.
“I don’t think I will be able to implement any sort of change that will affect my situation. I’m happy to be patient and to go through all the proper procedures.
“It’s the fact that through going through that process, it has made me aware how many people are going through this. I’m not talking about adults, I’m talking about children.”
He said that since his Harbour Bridge protest, he has received hundreds of emails from parents and children telling him about their personal struggles with the law and government institutions.
Mr Fox is due back at the Downing Centre Local Court on June 10.
Glenda Kwek
Harbour Bridge Dad: One Man’s cry for Help will be ignored by the Gillard Government
Dear Gus, MG & Matty (Austero Radio Triple M morning hosts),
I am writing today to thank you guys for your interview of Mick Fox, who climbed the Sydney Harbour Bridge and caused massive traffic delays, in protest at how he has been prevented from seeing his children by an uncaring and discriminatory Family Law system in this country.
Although I was appreciative of your fair and even handed interview of Mick Fox, one area not discussed during your interview was the Gillard government’s proposed changes to the Family Law act, that will place fathers like Mick Fox and his children in an even more precarious situation.
Currently the Australian Federal Senate is reviewing legislation put forward by the Australian Labor Party to dramatically change Family Law in this country, by removing the few remaining safeguards against child abuse in this country.
These draconian measures will effectively legalise ‘parential alienation‘, by removing the ‘friendly parent’ provision currently in the Family Law act. In short, this means that parents would be free to undermine the relationship the children have with the other parent, by any measure they choose, without any legal implications, penalty or recourse for the children or victim parent.
However of even more concern is the removal of any and all penalties against the making of false allegation in the Family Court. Currently, if a parent is found to have ‘knowingly’ made a false allegation in the Family Court about child abuse or domestic violence, a Judge may choose, at their discretion, to make this parent pay some of the legal costs of the victim parent.
However Julia Gillard and her Attorney General, Robert McLelland, want this provision removed, so that people can lie in Court, without any penalty at all against them.
Given human nature as it is, if you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain, many parents under the enormous stress of a divorce will choose to lie in the Family Court, and this is simply not good for our society, and not good for our children.
And it beggers belief that this government is proposing such changes without any thought at all at safeguards for he innocent victims of parental alienation and false allegations.
These changes will simply make a bad situation much much worse for kids and innocent parents, and we fear that will pass through the Senate, given the sexist policies of the Greens who will soon hold he balance of power, unless more parents are aware of these changes and what they really mean.
Please pass on this email to your listerners, and if they would like to know more, please direct them to:
Thanks guys
Ash Patil
Some Australian schools get an “F” for recognition of Shared Parenting
In 2009 I was awarded not only 50/50 care of my sons, but also “Equal Shared Parental responsibilityâ€. But what does this really mean? Legally we are told that as fathers we have to contribute 50% of the costs, minimum, but it also affords us equal rights to make decisions about our children’s development, upbringing and education.
But for most separated fathers this is a fantasy. Many mothers imprudently refuse to let fathers contribute to decisions, and most will blackmail and extort the fathers. Most fathers end up paying for almost everything. What’s really sad is that some schools support a father-pays paradigm, as is the case in a secondary college in the Maroondah area, East of Melbourne.
My ex-wife refuses to pay almost everything, threatening disadvantage to the children if I don’t comply. When the school can’t get money from her, they come after me and won’t let go, even going so far as to state that I should cover 100% of the costs, and that they should not have to chase the mother.
The Australian education system is governed by the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). Don’t expect any sympathy from them. They are completely sided with the schools. Indeed, no matter how persistent and prevalent any problems you have with a school they are unlikely to find in your favour. They certainly had no interest in helping to resolve the issues I have been dealing with since 2004 with this secondary college. And reports I’ve had from other fathers who complained to the DEECD got the same results. Interestingly, some of the fathers I spoke with had the same review officer as I did.
The issue: Schools work off an antiquated system called CASES. It is their student enrolment and contacts system. Whilst it does partially cater for separated fathers – who are called “alternative parentsâ€, it only functions in an almost effective manner for primary carers. This system believes that mothers are primary carers, and is implemented is such a way as to ensure only mothers get to make decisions – contrary to the court orders.
This particular school takes the position that since the mother completed the enrolment forms only she can make decisions about much of the content of the CASES records for our children. In order to get paperwork as a separated father, with any care level, you are going to have to invest enormous amounts of time and money. I have spent well over $1,000 in phone calls over six years trying to get forms, reports, paperwork etc from the school. Because “Alternative parenting† is largely a manual process mistakes occur – regularly and repeatedly.
“Equal shared parental responsibility†gives both parents equal rights. Except from the schools perspective. Despite requests to the school not to divulge my address, as I was trying to stay safe from a violent ex-wife, the school disclosed my contact details. The school on several occasions challenged changes I requested to the CASES database. Changes requested by my ex-wife were never challenged and from the evidence I have seen, her changes overrode changes I had made on more than one area (Eg Emergency contacts lists). In most cases they completely ignored my update requests. Indeed, when my court orders were issued they negligently missed applying them to the system until I found out in April 2010.
The kids live with me full time now. I have always paid almost all costs – yes extortion and blackmail works because as fathers we hate to see our children neglected and suffer. Statistics suggest that 93% of negligent parents are mothers.
So as the primary payer, and the sole carer, and with the courts authority by virtue of the very first clause in the court orders “Equal shared parental responsibility†I requested to be listed as the primary carer on CASES. This would have solved all of the contact and notification problems. Would have reduced financial problems, ensure more timely payment of accounts, and reduced conflict considerably.
The school refused. DEECD upheld the schools position. Even though they already have a direction from the court to give me equal authority, they are requesting that they be ordered by the court to update the records. Otherwise they refuse, and ignore any and all requests.
And what can I do? There are options, not the least of which is legal action against the school, which I am actively pursuing, but right now I still don’t get all the paperwork and things will get missed. Does the school care? Not particularly, as long as they are seen to be supporting the mother that’s all they are really concerned about. It’s not personal. This school, and others I’m sure, as supported by other fathers I have talked to, all treat fathers as second rate human beings.
The Australian education system is as corrupt as the Australian family law system. And these are the people we leave in charge of our children’s education. Very scary indeed!
Written by fathersdomatter – published exclusively on F4E on 4th December, 2010
