Malicious Mothers
Mother Kills 22 Month Old Toddler After Arguing With Father
Gemma Gaye Killeen
A YOUNG woman who pleaded guilty to murdering her son never intended to kill him but abandoned him in a bid to grab the attention of her on-and-off again partner, WA’s Supreme Court has been told.
Gemma Gaye Killeen, 23, is facing the possibility of life imprisonment after admitting to killing her 22-month-old son Te Reringa Kayden Wetere at Hillarys Boat Harbour in November 2010.
She was due to be sentenced today however Justice Stephen Hall reserved his decision until Friday.
During the sentencing hearing, the court was told the toddler’s body was found floating in the water by passersby just over an hour after his mother had falsely claimed he had been abducted.
Mum ‘organised murder of daughter’s boyfriend’
Editor: Another article highlighting the capacity for women, just like men, to murder.
A UK mother arranged for her 13-year-old daughter’s boyfriend to be murdered and then convinced the teenager to take the blame, a London court has heard.
Gedu Bibi, 47, is on trial for her part in the murder of Sumon Miah, 21, at her home in Walthamstow in October 2006.
Mrs Bibi allegedly recruited former lover Lilu Miah, 48, to kill the young man after he uploaded naked pictures of her daughter to the internet, according to the Daily Mail.
Sumon Miah was hit over the head with a chair leg, fracturing his skull and dying nine days later in hospital.
After the murder, Mrs Bibi allegedly convinced her daughter to tell police she had killed her boyfriend in self-defence, also allegedly persuading her then 12-year-old son to lie.
Mum’s hate campaign against stepmother in custody battle at Family Court
A MOTHER has lost custody of her two young daughters after she conducted an “obsessive” campaign against their new stepmother.
Family Court judge Justice Peter Young said he suspected it was the mother, 30, who painted “bitch” on the woman’s house and wrote “die dad haters” on her own car in felt-tipped pen and then sought to blame the stepmother, 28.
The judge said the sisters, aged 10 and seven, would be better off living with their father, 29, and his new wife, because their mother “would not likely change”.
He ordered an end to the shared custody which had been going on for more than five years and said the two girls should live full-time with their father.
“I find that he is capable of a greater level of responsive behaviour and conduct than is the mother and that is one of the considerations I have evaluated,” Justice Young said.Caught between warring parents, the sisters had to “tiptoe” around both households for fear of upsetting anyone.
Mother Murders Children – Sole Custody Takes Three More Children’s Lives
THE heartbroken Hobart father of two children killed by their mother in murder-suicide in Melbourne will always be haunted by the knowledge he missed out on their final years.
Dominic Maher yesterday said he felt let down by a system that had prevented him from seeing son Matthew, 11 and daughter Melanie, 13, for three years before they died.
Police believe mother Kylie Fowler, 36, argued with the children’s older half sister Sammantha Fowler, 18, before killing all three children, setting fire to the house and committing suicide.
Mr Maher, of Chigwell, said he had spent years locked in court battles with Ms Maher, but when it consistently decided in her favour, he eventually moved to Tasmania.
He been preparing a video for his children explaining why he had lost contact with them which he planned to hand to them on their 18th birthday.
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.
Mum loses custody to her child’s alleged abuser
Editor: Anyone who understands the Family Law act would realise that we are likely not being given the full story here – see below. This sounds like a typical Caroline Overington beat-up, except for the fact that we have a new journalist in this instance who is likely to be selectively reporting the facts.
One has to wonder why a Judge would give sole custody to a father, if the only facts of the case are as reported in this story. There must be much more to this story than this journalist is letting on, especially with regard to the mother’s parenting abilities, her own possible child abuse behaviours, and perhaps some serious instances of parental alienation or false allegations. Who knows, but what is certain is that there is much more to this than what this news article claims. In any case, if anyone can point me to the actual judgment or provide F4E any further information on this case it would be appreciated.
=====
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”.
Pregnant women continue to smoke & drink, study shows
Editor: The relevance of the below article to the topic of this blog, for those who may not see the connection, is to emphasise the unfortunate circumstances in this country where an enormous amount of resources are being targeted against an entire gender (men), in the name of preventing child abuse, while the most prevalent abusers of children (being single mothers, as represented by all Crime Reporting bodies in Australia), are being effectively ignored and in many cases encouraged.
If one was to take a results-based appraisal of all the forms of child abuse in this country, including abortion, paternity fraud, substance abuse during pregnancy, child abductions, child neglect, parental alienation, denial of contact with father, relocation away from father, and all other forms of abuse, then one can only conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong with Australia’s action against child abuse, which is selective at best, but at worst is simply an illusion of protection that in truth protects the vast majority of child abuse culprits by ignorance, complicity, and government support.
Take our Poll:
Should it be illegal for pregnant women to drink or smoke?
- Yes, a child's health should be the only consideration (58%, 42 Votes)
- No, a woman has the right to choose herself (32%, 23 Votes)
- I am not certain. Both children and women have equal rights (10%, 8 Votes)
Total Voters: 73
Loading ...Article Start: WEALTHY, older women are most likely to drink during pregnancy while poorer, young mums-to-be have the highest rates of smoking.
Despite repeated health warnings, nearly 40 per cent of pregnant women drink alcohol and 18 per cent light up, an Australian Institute of Family Studies report says.
Family Court to consider Emotional Abuse
Editor Note: The below article appeared recently in the Daily Telegraph, but is oddly naive to the new family violence bill, which is probably only days away from being passed by the federal Senate. This bill, when it becomes law, will re-define family violence to include anything that can be subjectively alleged to have caused harm, without the need of objective proof.
This categorically includes emotional violence, but given that the standard of proof has been significantly lowered, it will also include raising of voices, slamming of phones, using profanity and swearing, delusional allegations, confused feelings, dreams, unreasonable anxiety and apprehension, the misunderstanding of language (and body language), and malicious and knowingly false allegations.
All of the above will be considered a form of family abuse, as per the family violence bill, and the family court, will no doubt, as per its robust tradition and as instructed by the federal Attorney General, Robert McClelland, ensure that the decision of who did what will follow strict gender lines, in other words, when in doubt, always blame the Male.
Ironically, the unjustified witholding of a child from the father (as in most cases), or the alienation of the child against the father, will no longer be considered a form of abuse, as per the instructions of the Gillard government who have removed penalties against Parental Alienation from the family law act, as well as removing penalties against the making of knowingly false allegations.
=====
The Family Court probably has no choice but to include a greater appreciation and understanding of emotional violence in its rulings, but that plainly doesn’t mean such a course will be easy.
For obvious reasons, Family Court disputes are among the most complicated dealt with by the Australian judicial system.
These cases are invariably rife with emotional complexities even before they arrive in the court, which adds yet more difficulties.
The tasks of judges in these instances are not to be envied.
And matters may be set for yet more difficulties, with moves to consider at greater length the roles of emotional abuse, intimidation and using earnings as a weapon in settling child custody disputes.
Nobody disputes that emotional abuse is an important issue and can be extraordinarily destructive in a relationship.
It is indeed possible to agree that in many cases emotional abuse may even be more harmful than physical abuse. The problem comes when such matters are brought before a court and subject to claims of proof. While physical evidence of abuse is relatively obvious and may be easily traced to a cause, emotional abuse is, by its very nature, concealed.
This makes it at once extremely damaging but also far more difficult to prove.
There are also issues of precedent that could well emerge. If it is established in one case that a certain pattern of behaviour amounted to abuse, then it is likely that subsequent trials will follow that precedent – even if a claimant’s level of trauma in response to similar behaviour is completely different.
The Family Court probably has no choice but to include a greater appreciation and understanding of emotional violence in its rulings, but that plainly doesn’t mean such a course will be easy. The court and its judges will be working even harder under these new structures than ever before.
