Judiciary
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.
European Court of Human Rights does a backflip: Biological fathers’ lawsuits dismissed
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights: Biological fathers have no right to recognition of paternity if the mother lives with another man.
In 2010 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that German legislation prohibiting biological fathers from having any contact with their child without the biological mother’s consent was discriminating against fathers and a violation of the men’s human rights.
Refer to article: European Court Bolsters Fathers’ Rights
However, the European Court of Human Rights has just announced a backflip on its previous position, now claiming a ludicrous exception to this ruling by removing the parental rights of the biological father merely because the mother has moved in with another man.
Its a bizarre case of one step forward, ten steps backward for fathers all around the world, and this particular decision exemplifies the entrenched discrimination against biological fathers at every level of the legal system.
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.
Courts Sending Mixed Messages to Fathers About Child Discipline
A MAN was recently found guilty of hitting his teenage son with a wooden spoon during an argument over homework.
The Canberra man was found guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court, but avoided a conviction after the magistrate accepted he was genuinely remorseful for his actions.
The court heard the man hit his son with a wooden spoon after he refused to do his homework and called his mother a ”bitch”.
The 50-year-old originally pleaded not guilty to a charge of common assault after hitting his son around the legs and hands.
His defence argued it was ”lawful chastisement” but Magistrate David Mossop yesterday found the man had taken things too far and had left the boy bruised and scratched.
However Mr Mossop accepted the boy had a history of poor behaviour and that the insult to the mother went too far. He accepted that the father displayed ”a significant degree of remorse” while still maintaining he was only trying to discipline his son.
However not long after, another judicial officer found that SMACKING your kids can be OK.
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.
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.
Family Court lets wealthy wife keep the lot
IT is taken as given that when a man gets divorced after 21 years he’s going to lose a chunk of whatever fortune he has made to his ex-wife.
What, though, if it’s the wife who has made all the money? Does she lose half too?
Not in every case, according to a recent judgment of the Family Court, which has allowed a wife to keep the bulk of the $4 million in assets she holds in her name, while leaving the husband with pretty much nothing.
The judgment, known as Stiller and Power, was made in September but has only now come to light. It concerns a Brisbane couple, described as “intelligent and creative” who got married in 1991, when both were 53. Each had “a reasonable level of unencumbered assets” including properties held in their own names before they tied the knot.
Court makes remarkable Apology to Malicious Mother who poisoned children against their Father
Editor: The below article is about a disgraceful act by Australia’s Family Law Courts, Â to completely destroy any shred of child protection provisions left in Australia’s Family Law act, by making an unprecedented apology to a malicious mother who has alienation her children against their father.
This is the Court, at its highest levels, Â over-turning a sitting Magistrates decision and rewarding a Mother who has engaged in Parental Alienation to an extreme degree, for no apparent legally justified reason.
You have to seriously ask why the Family Law act was amended by the Gillard Labor government recently when the Judiciary has already interpreted out any provisions designed to promote a child’s meaningful relationship with both parents.
Shared care dead as mother stands firm on no access
A QUEENSLAND father has been banned from having any contact with his five-year-old daughter until she reaches 18 after the Family Court accepted that the child’s mother would “destroy” the relationship rather than agree to shared care.
In a decision that suggests the “shared care” law introduced by the Howard government was effectively dead, a full bench of the Family Court said “the mother would ignore any order for contact” and, as a result, it was pointless to order her to co-operate.
Shared care of children after divorce was a policy goal of the previous government, but the law is now being rolled back, with key changes to the Family Law Act (1975) passing through the Senate this week.
Under the old law, mothers were sent to prison or lost custody of children when they refused to allow them to have contact with their father. While this is still possible, the full bench of the court has now said that in some cases there is nothing it can do.
The full bench ruled on the matter after a father, known as Mr Summerby, appealed against a 90-page judgment by a Brisbane federal magistrate, Keith Wilson, which effectively ended his relationship with his daughter.
Mr Wilson agreed that the loss of the girl’s relationship with her father “would be distressful in the short term and may also be emotionally damaging to her in the long term”.
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.
