Male Suicide
F4E Yellow Pages – the free directory listing for Fathers Rights Resources
F4E are happy to announce the release of a new FREE service on our website, the F4E Fathers-Rights Yellow Pages Website Directory Listings.
F4E YP is an online website directory listing all relevant fatherhood and fathers’ rights websites and other resources that are categorised for easy navigation or search.
Find available resources for fathers on topics ranging from Fathers Rights, Me’ns Support Services, Legal Resources, Research, Mediation & Counselling, Parenting Support, Shared Parenting, Child Activities Support, Child Support, Political, Men’s Health, Men’s Charities and much much more.
Read the rest of this entry »
Where Good Men Don’t Count: The Dire Repercussions of Ignoring Men’s Welfare – Story Bridge Murder/Suicide
In another case reflecting the lack of support experienced by separated fathers in this country, many Australians are now questioning the wisdom of Australia’s family support services which have focussed almost exclusively on the welfare and support of women, while ignoring the needs men, resulting in a culture of vilification that has driven some men over the edge, with dire consequences for the innocent children of separated families.
IT WAS dark outside when Danielle Lees woke and reached for her mobile phone. It had only been hours since she last saw him, but something made her dial her husband to see if everything was OK.
By the time the call connected with Jason Lees’ mobile, both he and their son, Brad, were already dead.
Danielle, a psychologist, had been staying with her parents on the Gold Coast.
Neighbours say the couple appeared to have separated, but Jason, a teacher at Brisbane’s “Churchie” and a former rugby union referee, drove to meet her for lunch on Sunday.
He left again for home in the afternoon, taking Brad with him – the two-year-old attended his school’s kindergarten.
It was about 2am when Jason strapped Brad into the car, loaded his bike and drove from their Seven Hills home in suburban Brisbane to Kangaroo Point.
Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child
“He raised his voice at me, and I was frightened he was going to hurt me and the kids.”
That’s it. That’s all it takes for a man to lose his children in today’s hyper-sensitive landscape of domestic violence prevention.
This sea change can be traced to the days and months following the tragic death of Nicole Brown Simpson, when the public outcry by the domestic violence lobby moved beyond confronting actual physical altercations and began focusing on the perceived threat of violence. By casting such a wide net, centered almost entirely on male against female domestic violence, there have been unintended consequences that play themselves out in Family Court every day.
With nothing more than a woman stating, “I was frightened he might hurt us,” a court can remove a man from his home and prevent him from seeing his children for a minimum of three weeks. Often the court will also order either an anger management or a batterer’s intervention class and generally grant the demand by his ex-spouse that he have supervised visitation.
The intrusion by the courts into family dynamics has become so extreme that the domestic violence laws are no longer being used to protect potential victims, but rather to victimize potential abusers.
Let me be clear about this: in the eyes of the court, all men are considered to be potential abusers. No matter his history, if there was any provocation, or if he was in fact the abused victim. This last point is made even more interesting when considering that female-on-male domestic violence make up 50-percent of all cases, yet it is the man who is singled out as being potentially dangerous. And while as an attorney, my professional life is predicated on “innocent until proven guilty,” and “all” is a word to be carefully considered before using, I will say that due to O.J. Simpson’s horrific, inexcusable, and deadly behavior, a shadow has been cast on all men in all cases.
The courts no longer believe there is any appropriate expression of anger and, in essence, have outlawed the emotion. We have made it strategically impossible for a person to display anger in any form, whether a mental health professional would label it a “healthy expression” or not, without the line being automatically drawn to an actual act of physical violence.
But the fact is that humans have a full range of emotions. We get happy, we get sad, and yes, we get angry. And while it is absurd to think that our judicial system could legislate our happiness or sadness, it appears to gladly accept the notion that expressing anger in any fashion should have legal consequences.
In states across the country, if one parent is determined to be an “abuser”—and in California that means a raised voice—that person is no longer presumed to be a fit parent. The “victim parent” is now presumed to be a better parent and has an advantage when the court makes final determinations of child custody, visitation, and move-away plans to new cities, states, or countries.
This has created the unintended consequence of the strategic domestic violence restraining order. When one parent wants to take unfair advantage in a divorce or paternity case, all that is needed is the granting of domestic violence restraining order and the court will automatically suspend the other parent’s parental rights—usually for a short period. But to the cut-off parent, that brief time can seem like an eternity.
If the court determines that there are grounds for a permanent order, the cut-off parent may be forced to endure a 52-week batterer’s intervention course. The problem with this is that in the flimsy guidelines of what defines domestic violence these days, almost any fact pattern can be twisted to create “violence.”
For fathers who are required to have a monitor to see their children, which is becoming a more common occurrence as a requirement due to the domestic violence allegations, they may be unable to see their children. The costs of a paid monitor can quickly become prohibitive since the man will also be ordered to pay child support, often spousal support, the cost of the batterer’s intervention or anger management classes, and he has to find his own apartment since he’s been evicted from his home.
Domestic Violence Restraining Orders originally were meant to be a protective measure by the courts. But they have become a fast track process by which unscrupulous parties gain sole legal and sole physical custody of the children.
And, as is typical in “win at all cost” child custody cases, it is often the child that suffers the most. The “victim parent” strategy may yield short-term results for the accusing spouse, but the bad lessons learned by the child may last a lifetime.
Fathers who are truly guilty of domestic violence or child abuse should be viewed as criminals and treated as such. But in our rush to avoid these types of tragedies through a “zero tolerance policy,” we have gone against the most important tenet of the law: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. And the result is that we are creating and perpetuating a new type of abuse—the marginalization of fathers.
JULY 20, 2011 BY DAVID PISARRA
Fathers4Equality would like to encourage you to forward this excellent article to the following paternal-Abuse deniers.
Email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Email: senator.bob.brown@aph.gov.au
Email: R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au
Email: Kate.Ellis.MP@aph.gov.au
—
Discover ways of managing family discipline through authority books and management books
Submissions to Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 Exposure Draft released under FOI
Subject: Submissions by organisations to Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 Exposure Draft released under FOI
Dear colleagues,
Under a Freedom of Information Act request, the Federal Attorney General’s Department has finally released the following information to the public:
1. Copies of all public submissions lodged by organisations in response to the public consultation process into the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 – Exposure Draft . 122 submissions by organisations supported the proposed amendments; 15 submissions did not support the proposed amendments; and 6 submissions did not indicate whether they supported or did not support the proposed amendments.
2. A tally of the number of submissions by personal individuals that supported the proposed amendments (178); the number of submissions that did not support the proposed amendments (52); and the number of submissions that did not indicate whether they supported or did not support the amendments (36); for all submissions lodged in response to the public consultation process into the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010 – Exposure Draft.
It is sad that in a democracy such as Australia, we have to rely on Freedom of Information legislation to obtain access to public submissions to a public federal government inquiry, especially when the inquiry’s website clearly states, “unless submissions are marked confidential they may be published.” There is no doubt that the Labor Government is pushing through their Family Law reforms with as little transparency as possible.
When the Attorney General’s Department was originally contacted in February 2011 we were told they “didn’t know if or when the submissions would be published.” When pressed further, we were told they “might be published when the legislation goes through parliament.” This clearly hasn’t happened. The FOI request was made on 18th February 2011, and the documents were finally received on 3rd June 2011 (FOI legislation requires that information be provided within one month, or two months when sensitive information is involved). It has taken a further month to scan them and put them online.
You can read the submissions using the links below. They were sent to us by the Attorney General’s Department in the exact format that you see online. They have been scanned and OCR’d “as-is” into one large PDF document that can be easily searched using Acrobat Reader software. For those of you who might have trouble downloading large documents, the large PDF has also been split into 5 smaller sections.
I have also discovered that a submission lodged on 14th January via email from the One in Three Campaign was not provided under the FOI request. This raises some very serious questions indeed:
1. How many other submissions were sent in to this Inquiry but were not received, and therefore were unable to be considered by the government?
2. How many other submissions were indeed received by this inquiry but were not provided under the FOI request?
Either way, there appear to be serious administrative errors taking place in the Attorney General’s Department. If your organisation’s submission is also not included in the PDFs linked below, could you please let me know as a matter of urgency?
Download links: Full document (142MB) or Part 1 (33.8MB) | Part 2 (16.5MB) | Part 3 (22.9MB) | Part 4 (35.2MB) | Part 5 (34MB)
Kind regards,
Greg Andresen
Research & Media Liaison Men’s Health Australia
Website http://www.menshealthaustralia.net
Post P.O. Box 1292, Bondi Junction NSW 1355, Australia
‘Suicide’ takes another Separated Father
A SUDDEN fall from stardom and a messy break-up have been blamed for the suicide death of former Australian Idol judge Jay Dee Springbett.
The Sony starmaker – who helped shape the careers of pop stars from Human Nature to Jessica Mauboy – was found in his Sydney apartment.
Police say there were no suspicious circumstances and looked to be a suicide.
Two years after hitting the big time on Australian Idol, Springbett was dealing with the flipside to fame: a career switch and the breakdown of his once happy family.
Police were called to his Woolloomooloo flat after he was reported missing by workmates. He was found slumped on a sofa, with stubbies of beer and prescription drugs nearby, the obvious hallmarks of a suicide attempt.
As tributes poured in yesterday, a Jekyll-and-Hyde picture of Springbett emerged. A doting father to daughters Jasmin and Marley, he was pained by the split from their mother, publicist Louisa McCole.
Renowned for his party-boy ways and linked to many of the female performers he signed for Sony, Springbett had fought to shut down the rumours blamed for ending his relationship.
Despite his marital woes, he thrived in the role of dad, telling friends: “My babies are the best thing I’ve ever done.”
When his union with McCole finally broke down earlier this year, he maintained contact with his daughters but “missed them desperately”.
McCole used her Facebook page to acknowledge condolences yesterday. “Thank you to everyone for their love and support. Simply heartbroken,” she wrote.
It is believed she was alarmed at Springbett’s moods and behaviour in recent weeks.
When he joined a recreational gun club, friends also became worried.
His Sony “family” also had its challenges, with Springbett in the process of moving from full-time employment to an external label and artist management deal.
Boss Denis Handlin said Springbett was “in great form” at an executive meeting on Monday.
Celebrating his birthday, Springbett was excited about a new single he had secured from acclaimed songwriter Diane Warren for Mauboy to record.
“He also found a great song for Nat Bass to do during the X Factor season coming up,” Mr Handlin said. “He was in really great form.”
Kyle Sandilands, who was replaced by Springbett on Idol, said he saw his industry mate at a restaurant on Wednesday.
Mr Handlin hopes to organise a benefit to raise funds for Springbett’s two young daughters.
“He adored them,” he said.
Related: The Gillard government will soon make it much more difficult for separated fathers to see their children, implementing a presumption of guilt in child abuse against all separated fathers, regardless of whether child abuse ever occurred or not. Read more on Gillard’s attack on children from separated families here.
Anyone with personal problems or considering suicide can call Lifeline on 131 114 on Dads in Distress on 1300 853 437.
