Paternity Fraud
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”.
Judicial Fraud and Entrenched Discrimination: Labor Govt stays silent on Serious Allegations
Serious Allegations of Judicial Fraud unanswered
It has now been over 5 years since Australia’s High Court delivered a stunning judgment in the Magill v Magill paternity fraud case in Australia, effectively creating two remarkable precedents in terms of the perpetuation of fraud in this country.
According to Anti Paternity Fraud Advocate Cheryl King, “Paternity fraud was effectively endorsed by Australia’s highest court, the High Court, denying the plaintiff Mr Liam Magill any legal recourse against the woman who fraudulently deceived both Mr Magill and two of his three children into believing that he was their father.”
King further stated that “this deception continued even after separation, involving financial fraud which the Court deemed as not required to be re-paid”.
King alleges that in the second, another type of fraud was exercised by one of the presiding judges, Justice Susan Crennan.
