Divorce
One Rule for Politicians, another rule for Separated Fathers
Extract: Unless you have been living under a rock, you would be well acquainted with the saga of Australian Labor MP Craig Thomson, whom Fair Work Australia has recently found to have misused his Union credit cards to pay for the services of prostitutes, amongst other misuses of union funds.
In the Australian legal system, people are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, however the evidence against Mr Thomson is by most standards overwhelming. Fair Work Australia has found a striking coincidence between the use of the credit cards in Mr Thomsonâs possession, at least one signature on the brothel credit card dockets, phone calls between Mr Thomson and the brothel, and a number of other highly suspect pieces of evidence that in my opinion would be highly unlikely to lead to any other conclusion, other than that Mr Thomson himself actively sought and paid for these services, with union funds.
According to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, politicians SHOULD HAVE a presumption of innocence, even if the facts of their guilt are overwhelming. As such she has steadfastly defended Mr Thomson, claiming that she thought he was innocent and that she would not expel him from the party. In response to media pressure and the prevailing community belief that the evidence stands on its own, she finally relented and expelled him from the Labor party, while still claiming he was innocent, and still accepting his vote in Parliament. The thinking behind this is obvious, as Gillard is acting in her own self interest, damn the ethics at play. But any way you play it, Mr Thomson has received remarkable leniency in this sorry saga, even having his legal fees in defence of these allegations paid for by the Labor party.
However, as many Australian fathers would be well aware by now, Julia Gillard is quite selective as to how she applies the principle of a presumption of innocence.
As in abundantly clear from Gillardâs recent Family Violence amendments to the Family Law act, she believes that even though Craig Thomson should be presumed innocent, should keep his job and should receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in free legal funds to fight his case in Court , separated fathers however do not get such privileges, and in fact should be considered the âHAVE NOTSâ in application of the principle of a presumption of innocence.
Not only do separated fathers lose their house, the majority of their life insurance and all other assets, but in most cases, as presumably intended by these amendments, they lose meaningful contact with their children, even if they are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. They are also in many cases prevented from accessing Legal Aid, and certainly never get their legal fees paid for by an organisation for apparently no reason.
Read the full article on Ezine4males.com
Tony Abbott, a Conviction Politician with a Blind Spot for Fathers
EXTRACT
Not since the Constitutional crisis of 1975, when an elected Australian Prime Minister was spectacularly sacked by the very same Governor General that Labor itself appointed, has a Labor-led government limped from one self-inflicted crisis to another, in such monotonous repetition, as it does today.
For many reading the papers of the last few days, one would be forgiven for the misconception that Laborâs woes began with Julia Gillardâs broken promise on the Carbon tax, or her lack of political judgment on the asylum seeker situation, or even her political assassination of a first term Labor Prime Minister.
In fact the seeds of Laborâs demise were sown well before Julia Gillard even became Prime Minister……….back to when Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister blinked on the carbon Tax mark I, while Opposition leader Tony Abbott, who many thought was on a hiding to nothing given public opinion at the time, kept his eyes wide open.
……..For a politician openly reviled by the ugly underbelly of many of Australiaâs liberal/feminist organisations, one cannot deny that Tony Abbott has shown tremendous courage in staring down an at-the-time popular policy put forward by an at-the-time popular Prime Minister, and the outcome has left almost everyone surprised, except perhaps for Tony Abbott.
However, as a man and as a father, I must add that my opinion on Tony Abbott as a politician of conviction does not find favour in one select community within Australia, that being the ever growing list of separated fathers who have little or no contact with their children post-divorce.
Jake Roberts  exclusively for Ezine4Males
Read Full Article at:Â Ezine4Males
Woman Sacked for Dirty Divorce Tactics
A WOMAN who used Australian Federal Police databases to dig up dirt on her former husband during a bitter divorce has lost a claim for unfair dismissal.
Fair Work Australia heard the woman, who worked as a financial analyst for the AFP, also tried to rope colleagues into her battle against her former husband but was sacked in April last year after he hired a private investigator and complained to police.
She was found to have breached the AFP code of conduct after getting a co-worker to send her records on her former husband’s businesses, which she described as ”gold” and forwarded on to her mother.
Police also found two sexually inappropriate photos on her work computer, including an image of ”two men’s buttocks” which she described as ”jovial”.
Why women marry the wrong men
“Did you know you were making a mistake as you were walking down the aisle?” This was the question Jennifer Gauvain and Anne Milford asked 1000 women as research for their book How Not to Marry the Wrong Man.
A staggering 30 per cent of respondents said ‘yes’ they did know. But, they did it anyway.
Gauvain, a licensed clinical social worker, wrote about it in this blog for the Huffington Post. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given divorce rates in the US are around 40 per cent – versus about one third in Australia – it caused an uproar.
Of the thousand-odd comments on the article, some that captured the general mood included this:
“Marriage is for idots and poor people. Divorce is too easy for women. It’s not hard for a woman to navigate a divorce. The only thing she’s navigating is how much of this man’s hard earned money she’s going to take from him for the rest of his life.”
And this:
You can have a friendly divorce
DIVORCE does not have to be nasty and perceptions that amicable separations are impossible are off the mark, experts say.
While disputes are almost always inevitable when a marriage comes to an end, Queensland University of Technology family law expert Donna Cooper says an abundance of research showing the negative effect family conflict can have on children is finally sinking in with separating parents.
“There’s always been a lot of research saying that arguing, conflict, isn’t good for the children – in the last few years it has exploded,” Ms Cooper said.
“The main thing we’ve noticed in family law is that people are listening.”
Adolescent psychologist Dr Darryl Cross said reassuring children that they did not cause a break-up might seem a straightforward recommendation, but was often forgotten.
“You’d be surprised at the number of kids who don’t actually ask if they caused the split, but in their head they’re upset and put a lot of pressure on themselves because they think they’re behind the break-up,” he said.
Divorce lawyer busted breaking into home of client’s estranged husband
A divorce lawyer has been caught on surveillance video kicking down the door at the home of his client’s estranged husband and ransacking the place.
Raymond Van Arnam, 60, was filmed breaking into the house in Alamogordo, in the US state of New Mexico, before he and his client Melissa Stonecipher go about collecting her belongings.
They are joined by several of Van Arnam’s law office employees.
They carry out furniture, legal papers, a truck full of furniture and the family dog.
Van Arnam is even seen ripping down ‘no trespass’ signs.
This week a judge sentenced the lawyer to 30 days in jail and issued him a $7500 fine, according to a local news station.
Divorcees Beware: Negligent Lawyers Cannot Be Sued in Australia
In what can only be described as a remarkable Supreme Court judgment, a Judge has found that a family law lawyer, a Mr Andrew Goddard from Goddard Elliott lawyers , who negligently advised his mentally incapacitated client resulting in a breathtakingly unjust property settlement,  cannot be sued due to Australia’s archaic advocates’ immunity laws.
This decision was made despite finding that Mr Andrew Goddard was extremely negligent in his representation of his client, resulting in a $900,000 shortfall. In a remarkable twist that defies logic, the client was ordered to pay a further $68,000 in legal costs to Goddard Elliott lawyersï»ż.
–A JUDGE said today he found it “deeply troubling” that a law firm can avoid paying $675,000 to a mentally incapacitated client that it negligently advised because of an ancient law that protects lawyers from being sued.
Justice Kevin Bell found that Goddard Elliott lawyers were negligent in preparing the case of client Paul Fritsch and as a result he only received less than a third of his share of a marital pool of $4.3 million.
In his Supreme Court judgment, Justice Bell said Mr Fritsch was entitled to substantial compensation from the Glen Waverley law firm but the Common Law “advocates’ immunity” shielded the firm for paying for their negligent handling of his case.
“Goddard Elliott is not liable to pay damages for the loss its negligence caused to Mr Fritsch, a conclusion to which I am driven and find deeply troubling,” Justice Bell said.
Where Good Men Don’t Count: The Dire Repercussions of Ignoring Men’s Welfare – Story Bridge Murder/Suicide
In another case reflecting the lack of support experienced by separated fathers in this country, many Australians are now questioning the wisdom of Australia’s family support services which have focussed almost exclusively on the welfare and support of women, while ignoring  the needs men, resulting in a culture of vilification that has driven some men over the edge, with dire consequences for the innocent children of separated families.
IT WAS dark outside when Danielle Lees woke and reached for her mobile phone. It had only been hours since she last saw him, but something made her dial her husband to see if everything was OK.
By the time the call connected with Jason Lees’ mobile, both he and their son, Brad, were already dead.
Danielle, a psychologist, had been staying with her parents on the Gold Coast.
Neighbours say the couple appeared to have separated, but Jason, a teacher at Brisbane’s “Churchie” and a former rugby union referee, drove to meet her for lunch on Sunday.
He left again for home in the afternoon, taking Brad with him – the two-year-old attended his school’s kindergarten.
It was about 2am when Jason strapped Brad into the car, loaded his bike and drove from their Seven Hills home in suburban Brisbane to Kangaroo Point.
Rudd v Gillard Divorce as Ugly as Labor’s 2011 Family Law Amendments
In true Labor style, the bitter and ugly dispute between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard is tearing away at the very fabric of the Labor government family in Australia.
In true poetic fashion, this ruckus is playing out exactly as the Family Law (Family Violence) amendment act 2011 has destined for the majority of separating fathers and mothers in this country, with one parent losing everything, while the other enjoying the complete spoils of the gains that were earned together. Although perhaps in this case not for very long.
For the uninitiated, I am referring to Labor’s dead-of-night repealing of Australia’s 2006 Shared Parenting laws in November 2011, a law that was implemented in 2006 to ensure a child’s right of meaningful contact with both parents in the event of divorce, except in circumstances where child abuse was a reasonable fear.
–Poll – have your say, who would you prefer as Australia’s Prime Minister?–Vote Below
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.
