Exploitation of Family Law
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
Aussie PM in denial as her support amongst Males drops to all time low
Australiaâs Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has responded to news of the collapse of her support amongst Australiaâs voting public with an air of denial that has even stunned her harshest critics.
With news today that Laborâs support has fallen to 28 per cent, just one percent shy of the figure that has decimated the Queensland Labor party only a few days ago, with a loss of over 40 seats, Â fears are now growing that Gillard is simply too detached from reality to meet the herculian challenge that is facing Labor at a federal level.
Many critics have identified two key policies that have wedged hard-core Labor supporters away from Labor and into the fold of the Coalition.
A policy that has received little news media coverage but has caused significant grass roots upheaval has been the recent 2011 Family Law amendments, which have effectively dismantled Australiaâs popular and broadly successful shared parenting laws, and replaced them with what is largely perceived to be anti-male, anti-fatherhood policies, many seeing this as Gillard cowering to feminist ideologues.
Read full article on Ezine4Males.com
DIVORCE LAWS: Family Court loathed for the vast harm it does
The Americans have a well-known saying for politicians, âItâs the economy, stupid!â â meaning that what matters most for people are economic issues. Itâs 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 thereâs 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 lattersâ pet psychologists regarding their past behaviour towards and in the presence of the children.
A major purpose of the exercise is to identify âfamily violenceâ by the male, with this being defined as any behaviour âactual or threatenedâ which causes any member of the family âto fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal well-being or safetyâ.
The term âwell-beingâ is infinitely elastic, and meant to be, as are the other catch-all Family Court categories of âfamily violenceâ, such as âpsychological violence/abuseâ, âemotional violence/abuseâ, and âcontrolling behavioursâ.
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:
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 lawyers.
–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.
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
Parental Alienation Epidemic in Australian Family Law Courts, Expert finds
Editor Note: The premise that the Julia Gillard-lead Labor Government relied upon to substantially alter the 2006 Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) act, and in the process remove penalties against Perjury and Knowingly False Allegations, as well as removing the Friendly Parent provision (otherwise known as the Anti-Parental Alienation provision), was the insistence, as claimed by various womens’ rights zealouts like Michael Flood and Jen McIntosh,  that False Allegations and Parental Alienation were effectively a Myth, and did not occur at all (or only seldomly occurred) in any Australian Family Law proceedings.
This naive, incorrect and in many regards disingenuous claim has been slammed by many family law professionals, including Judges and Magistrates, who claim that the bulk of the work of all jurisdictions dealing with family law proceedings today are spent on just that, dealing with False Allegations, relating to Domestic Abuse and Child Sexual Abuse, and attempting to serve the best interests of children who have been significantly alienated from their parent, due to the ulterior motives of the other parent.
Israel Takes Steps To Reduce Discrimination Against Divorced Fathers
Jerusalem — January 20, 2012 …. For many divorced fathers in Israel, the declaration yesterday by Israel Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman that divorced parents must now share custody of children, may have come too late. Neeman has accepted recommendations by the Schnit Committee that joint parental custody be ordered in divorce cases involving young children, which the law defines as those up to age 6. Until now, most divorced fathers became visitors, being limited to seeing their children only a few hours a week.
As the new law comes into affect, thousands of dads in Israel would have lost any opportunity of fatherhood due to the fact that their children have already grown up or that their children suffer from PAS – Parental Alienation Syndrome. With PAS the children become alienated against the father as the mother has pushed him away and brainwashed the children that he is of no worth, or perhaps even bad for whatever reason she creates.
