Shared Parenting
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 Thomson’s 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 Gillard’s 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 ‘HAVE NOTS’ 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
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”.
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:
Sole Custody and Another Toddler Murder – Mother’s Boyfriend Faces Court
THE grave of toddler Brendan-Junior Nathan Williams is marked with a small white cross, colouring textas, toy cars, a glass butterfly and a picture of a bubbly little boy with an infectious smile.
A love heart and two hand prints are pressed into the fresh soil that marks his final resting place. Brendan, 2, was buried last Tuesday, almost two months after he died on January 15 from injuries.
Today, a 23-year-old man – the de facto husband of Brendan’s mother – who was not the child’s biological father, faces court charged with murdering Brendan at the family’s Melrose Park home.
Police arrested him on Saturday but have released few details about their allegations.
They have sealed off a converted-garage room at the home, where Brendan lived with his mother, her boyfriend and two caged pythons.
Brendan was rushed to Flinders Medical Centre in a car by his mother and her partner about 5am on January 14, three hours after the couple returned home from a southern suburbs hotel.
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.
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.
Australia’s Shared Parenting laws finding favour in Britain
FIERCE debate over the success and safety of Australia’s shared parenting laws has been exported to Britain.
Australian-based fathers groups, which are advising British counterparts, yesterday welcomed public comments from Britain’s Minister for Children and Families Tim Loughton that his government was considering “legislative and non-legislative” means to promote shared parenting as part of a broad family law shake-up.
Mr Loughton also distanced himself from the recommendations of a government-commissioned review of family law that cited problems with the Howard government’s 2006 reforms to argue against shared parenting legislation. Lone Fathers Association of Australia president Barry Williams backed the British government stance, which goes against the key recommendation of the Family Justice Review chaired by businessman David Norgrove.
In his final report published late last year, Mr Norgrove said “thorough and detailed evidence from Australia showed the damaging consequences for many children” when courts compelled them to spend equal time with both parents.
Read the rest of this entry »
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.
Shared custody a mistake for the under-2s, says Lobbyist Researcher
Controversial: 'sleeping is stressful, but not daycare'.
SEPARATED PARENTS should not share custody of babies or toddlers under two, according to controversial guidelines released this week by a national infant welfare group, which seem to contradict decades of research and conclude the exact opposite.
”Prior to the age of two years, overnight time away from the primary care-giver should be avoided, unless necessary” according to the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health’s ”guidelines for protecting the very young child’s sense of comfort and security”.
The guidelines recommend that non-custodial parents, nine out of 10 of whom are fathers, should instead see children under two during the day, up to three times a week, gradually phasing in overnight visits after the second birthday. Families fighting custody battles in the Family Court should not share custody until the child is three, according to the guidelines.
