Mothers Alienating Children against Fathers
Hidden Girls’ Great-Grandmother Ready For Jail
The great-grandmother of four sisters at the centre of a bitter international custody dispute says she would rather end up in jail than reveal their whereabouts.
A Brisbane judge on Wednesday ordered the girls’ grandmother, great-grandmother and aunt to attend court on Friday to answer questions under oath about where the girls are hiding.
The girls disappeared earlier this week to avoid being returned to Italy to live with their father.
Their great-grandmother, who is hiding them, says no-one knows where she and the children are and she would not front court on Friday.
“If the judge throws me in jail, I’ll live with it,” she told the Seven Network.
“I have no respect whatsoever for the justice system.
Abusive Father or Parental Alienation?
Editor: Please treat the below article with a grain of salt. In my opinion this is a clear case of parental alienation, vilifying the father in the children’s eyes just so the mother can secure full custody. I find it extraordinary that the Family Court and the Department of Communities and Child Safety would force children into the custody of a genuinely abusive father. It would have been great for the Courier Mail to have exercised balanced reporting rather than falling for the same old tired stigma of the bad father wanted contact with his children just so he can abuse them. This is another example of the entrenched anti-father bias in the mainstream media in this country. This story below is so unbalanced and in my opinion, deceitful, that it would leave the likes of Caroline Overington and Adele Horin utterly green with envy.
FOUR Sunshine Coast sisters in hiding with their 70-year-old great-grandmother to avoid flying to Italy with an abusive and mentally unstable father have written emotional letters begging their dad to leave them alone.
But the father, his lawyers, the Family Court, and the state Department of Communities and Child Safety show no signs of backing down and are using police to hunt the girls.
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.
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 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”.
Mum pleads guilty in boy-behind-wall case
A US woman who authorities say hid her young son, often in a crawl space, for nearly two years as part of a custody dispute has been ordered to spend two years on probation without more jail time.
Shannon Wilfong, 32, pleaded guilty yesterday to five misdemeanours, including obstructing a police officer.
Wilfong was sentenced to $US1500 ($1470) in fines and 30 days in jail – a judge credited her with time served – on that count and fines of $US100 on each of four counts of unlawful interference with child visitation.
Wilfong’s mother, Diane Dobbs, also pleaded guilty to obstruction and escaped additional jail time when the judge credited her with the 12 days she’d already been behind bars. Dobbs, 53, was fined $US1000.
A prosecutor said the case-closing plea deals came with the blessing of the boy’s father, Michael Chekevdia, Wilfong’s one-time boyfriend.
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.
Non-Custodial Parents Party response to the Family Violence bill 2011
NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS PARTY (EQUAL PARENTING)
John Flanagan,
Deputy Registered Officer,
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting),
Email: noncustod@yahoo.com.au
http://www.equalparenting.org.au
28 March 2011.
Committee Secretary,
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committees,
PO Box 6100,
Parliament House,
CANBERRA. ACT. 2600.
Dear Sir/Madam
Re. Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
We thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committees for providing us with the opportunity to make a submission with regard to the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Our submission is identical to the combined media release issued by the Family Law Reform Association and other similar organizations such as our political party.
The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 was introduced by the Attorney-General Robert McClelland into the House of Representatives on 24 March 2011. If passed by Parliament, the resulting legislation will significantly adversely amend the Family Law Act 1975.
The proposed amendments to the Family Law Act are a source of deep concern and dismay to our members and to the many thousands who have sought greater equity and justice in parenting orders made by The Family Court.
Since the introduction of the 2006 reforms giving greater emphasis on shared parental responsibility, doctrinaire feminists, academic ideologues and others with entrenched positions associated with the Family Law system, have been working to overturn them. Now, under the guise of dealing with family violence, the current government’s proposed amendments will effectively sabotage the success of shared parenting responsibility under Family Law.
The proposed amendments will make it much easier to postpone, minimise or terminate parental contact by an allegation of some form of “family violenceâ€.
It is worth noting that a major architect of the proposed reforms preferred a legal presumption that family violence existed in all cases before The Court. Whilst this extremist view has rightly been rejected, the combination of proposed provisions outlined below will come close to achieving the same effect.
In essence, the proposed amendments contain the following provisions:-
Schedule 1. Item 9, subsection 12E(3) and item 32 “Before paragraph 69ZQ(1)(a)”.
The Court, in every case before it, will be required to “proactively inquire†i.e. invite the parties to make allegations of family violence against each other. This is additional to similar obligations on the party’s legal representatives .
Schedule 1. Item 3, subsection 4(1)).
The definition of “family violence†will not be restricted to physical or mental abuse but will be completely open ended. It will include any behaviour a party claims makes them feel threatened “irrespective of whether that behaviour causes harmâ€, or to feel unsafe. Such fears need not be reasonable but instead are to be totally subjective, based only on the complainants claimed state of mind. The normal legal standard of the reasonable person test will not apply. Thus, it will be almost impossible for an accused to refute such claims.
Schedule 1. Item 43, Section 117AB).
The Family Court does not have criminal penalties for perjury despite false testimony having the potential to create enormous wrongs, injustice and damage. Partly because of this, the Family Court is notorious as “The Liar’s Castleâ€. The Court’s reputation will be further damaged by the proposed provision to dispense with the existing meager sanctions for those knowingly making false allegations or statements in proceedings. This can only give encouragement to make such allegations or statements. When added to the other proposed provisions it creates a toxic legal cocktail.
Schedule 1 Items 18,19 and 20 “Section 60CC†and Items 26 and 27 (Note 1)).
The dangers outlined above are further exacerbated by the removal of the “friendly parent provisions”. This will prohibit the Court from giving consideration to the extent the parents have fulfilled their obligation to encourage a healthy relationship between the children and the other parent. The Court should not be placed in this legislative “straightjacket”. It is vital that The Court is able to examine all the issues central to the welfare of the child rather than having to operate wearing legislative “blinkers”. Given that the parties before The Court are in dispute, standard legal principles require the Court be able to investigate all issues directly relevant to the merit or otherwise of the parties. Any attempt to fetter a Court of Law in its relevant enquiries is generally condemned by the legal fraternity. Again, this provision reveals a diminished view of the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship between both parents and the child and exposes the true intent of the amendments.
Effects of the amendments
Inevitably and predictably, the amendments will encourage a sharp increase in totally false or grossly exaggerated allegations by one parent against the other in cases before The Family Court. Far from diminishing actual family violence, the following likely outcomes will only increase the risk.
• Greatly increase the workload of The Court and other organisations as a plethora of claims are investigated and assessed.
• Greatly increase the time and cost in settling cases creating a lawyers bonanza whilst increasing stress and frustration to the parties.
• Greatly increase the cost to the taxpayer of operating the Family Court and its associated agencies and the cost to the community as a whole of increased friction and more protracted Family Court cases.
• Increase the demand on limited government funded legal aid.
• Greatly increase the demand for supervised contact centres, already overburdened, costly and unavailable to most parents desperately needing such a service.
• Greatly increase the number of children whose relationship and contact with their non resident parent is terminated, postponed, reduced or otherwise curtailed due to false or grossly exaggerated claims of “family violenceâ€.
• Greatly increase the amount of friction between the parties as one or both take advantage of system’s multiple invitations to make allegations of “family violence†against the other.
• Hamper the Courts ability to identify real and acutely dangerous situations as it is diverted with vexatious, false or grossly exaggerated allegations.
• Greatly increase the potential for actual violence between parties where previously there would have been little or none. This will occur as non resident parents find the system has stacked all the cards against them, dramatically affecting their contact and relationship with the children and all the associated consequences.
• Greatly increase the level of suicide and deterioration of mental health for non resident parents (typically the male). Respected studies have shown that separated males are six (6) times more likely to suicide than attached males. Further, this rate was even higher amongst younger males (thus more likely to have younger children ). Moreover, the highest rates occurred during the divorce phase.
• Without the normal legal protections, the chances of success for the vexatious, manipulative, inflexible, vindictive, dishonest, or mentally unbalanced parent will be greatly increased. Parents with these and similar attributes will readily take advantage of the “free kick†being offered by the proposed amendments. This parent will then become the primary or sole parental role model for the children.
• Faced with the prohibitive cost of pursuing a right of contact, and the associated psychological stress, many non resident parents will simply withdraw, leading to a great increase in the numbers of the
“family law stolen generation†children wrongfully alienated from a non resident parent (typically the father). This will amplify the well documented higher rates of negative outcomes for children brought up in fatherless environments
Impact on legal principles
The proposed amendments have provisions which are unmatched in any other area of law. We believe they offend several basic legal principles:
a) The ambiguity and lack of certainty in the new, unlimited and subjective definition of “family violenceâ€.
b) The presumption of guilt unless an allegation of “family violence†can be disproved which will be frustrated by the subjective test for “family violenceâ€.
c)Â The proposed amendments will force the judge to ignore the standard legal test of the reasonable person.
d) The restrictions on the court’s ability to investigate the merit of the parties.
e)Â The lack of any real sanction from knowingly making false allegations and statements in the proceedings.
f) The court making “proactive inquiry†into the single issue of “family violence†tantamount to inviting the parties to make an allegation and additional to similar obligations on the parties legal representatives.
Lack of objective research
Although the amendments are claimed to be supported and underpinned by various academic studies etc, such studies are only valid if they are objectively conducted with an open mind and from a non ideological platform. We have seen no reliable statistics or studies which show:
a)Â Â Any significant upsurge in actual family violence, supported by police and medical records since the introduction of the 2006 Family Law reforms and which can be reasonably attributed to the 2006 reforms.
b)Â Â Any explanation of how an inevitable increase in tensions, legal costs, case time and demands on limited resources will reduce family violence.
c)  Any explanation of how an inevitable increase in the number of cases where parent – child contact is unjustly affected, will reduce family violence.
d)Â Â Any studies on the affect on children of curtailing contact with a parent who has had a caring, loving relationship with the child but has been subjected to allegations by the other parent.
e)Â Â Any studies on the impact on suicide rates and other mental issues in non contact parents, unjustly denied contact with their children.
Summary
Based on our research and experience, we maintain that the 2006 reforms have worked well and sensibly in encouraging shared parental responsibility while at the same time providing appropriate protective measures for adults and children against family violence. The evil in the amendments is to encourage a presumption that family violence and abuse of children customarily exist in contested matters before the Court.
We also believe the amendments are an underhand means of sabotaging the 2006 reforms under the guise of preventing family violence. We vigorously oppose the amendments.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
John Flanagan,
Deputy Registered Officer,
Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting),
http://www.equalparenting.org.au
APPENDIX
– A better solution
Family Law Amendment (Joint Residency) Bill 2002.
(This Bill was proposed by the then Senator Len Harris in 2002, but not adopted)
Nationals MP George Christensen SLAMS malicious Family Violence bill
CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (George Christensen speaks in federal Parliament against this malicious piece of legislation): In addressing the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I have come to understand how the citizens of Troy must have felt when they were greeted with the gift of a giant wooden horse, because this bill is not what it appears. It is a Trojan horse. Just like the giant wooden horse, full of Greek warriors, in Greek legend and like an insidious computer virus, full of malicious code, this Trojan bill is loaded with consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights for both parents and children, and particularly fathers.
Send a message of support and appreciation to Nationals MP, Mr George Christensen
Family law is a very difficult area to legislate. There is no escaping the fact that every family is different. To create legislation that caters to all circumstances is an unlikely quest. In most circumstances, there are no winners in family law. Family breakdowns are messy. They are hurtful. They are spiteful. They are emotional, irrational and painful. The holy grail of relationship breakdowns, the amicable divorce, is rarer than a kept Labor promise.
It is in this emotionally charged atmosphere that mothers and fathers interact and children are bystanders, often witnessing behaviour by their parents at their very worst. Make no mistake: I do not object to the face-value intentions of some of the amendments in this bill. We cannot question the need to hold a child’s safety in the highest regard when it comes to custody arrangements. But we can question why these amendments are being made.
The current act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, created the ‘twin pillars’ of parenting provisions. These measures recognised two primary considerations for determining the best interests of the child. The twin pillars were: (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents and (b) the need to protect the child from harm or from being exposed to abuse, neglect and/or violence—I repeat: the need to protect the child from harm.
Safety concerns for the child are already in the existing legislation. It is one of two primary considerations—considerations that, yes, are given equal weight. But, in addition, the current act specifically states in section 60CG that a court must ensure that a parenting order:
(a) Is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) Does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
Protection is already provided for in the act.
What this amendment proposes to do is to take a George Orwell approach to ranking considerations. When Orwell’s animals in his classic novel Animal Farm draft their legislation on the barn wall, they affirm that ‘All animals are equal’. The pigs then make an amendment: ‘But some animals are more equal than others’. The pigs, of course, had an ulterior motive and I fear that there is one at play here as well. What these amendments are saying is, ‘Yes, the two considerations are primary, but one is more primary than the other.’ What the bill does in reality is to retain child safety as a primary concern while relegating the child’s parental relationships to a minor concern. It sounds innocent enough, I suppose, but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act.
What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland is concerned about giving greater weight to the second of the primary considerations. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, they said: ‘Such a provision removes the court’s licence to assess in each individual case the degree of risk, its probability or, in the case of family violence, its context in terms of frequency, intensity and recency in the determination of the weight to be given to such risk or harm.’ This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be. The potential danger of this change is apparent when viewed in conjunction with other changes proposed in this bill.
The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence. The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.’ Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence.
What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, ‘No, you can’t go to Julia’s party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision’? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of ‘depriving a family member of his or her liberty.’
The sheer magnitude of this definition presents two problems. The most immediate problem is that living an ordinary life can too easily be construed as family violence. Adding fuel to the fire will be the actions of hurt, emotional, and spiteful former partners in stretching the truth. Tripping over the family dog will suddenly become ‘intentionally injuring an animal’. Using a few poorly-chosen words a few times in an argument—which most families have experienced—will constitute family violence as ‘repeated derogatory taunts’. This definition would allow everyday actions to be seized, twisted, exaggerated and used as family violence weapons in the court. What this change does is broaden the definition of family violence so much that the word ‘violence’ loses all real meaning. That would be a tragedy, because it would also water down the perception of family violence.
I believe that violence is violence. Violence is cruel and harmful. It is a serious problem in some families and a serious problem in the wider society. But violence is not ‘grounding’ a child. It is not protecting your child. Being a good parent is not being a violent parent. There is a simple solution to stop such things being interpreted as family violence. That is the ‘reasonable person’ test. Such a test demands that for an action to be deemed as violence it must be an action that requires a person ‘reasonably to fear’ for their personal safety and wellbeing. This is precisely the meaning and interpretation that this legislation strips out of the act.
Is this bill more than it appears at face value? Is it another Trojan horse? I say it is most certainly a Trojan horse.
On face value, the broadened definition of ‘family violence’ creates the illusion of providing greater protection against family violence. Yes, that is a lovely wooden horse but let’s take a look inside. Maybe not, because inside this Trojan is malicious code that gives one parent an arsenal of weapons to be misused in court to deprive the other parent of their right to be a parent.
Earlier in this debate we heard the Minister for the Status of Women tell this parliament that no-one uses claims of family violence in such a way. I have some very bad news for the minister: it actually does happen. It happens every day; and if she is not aware of it happening then she is gravely out of touch with reality. If the minister does not have any contact with her own constituents, perhaps she could spend a few minutes at her laptop doing some research.
Here is the sort of thing that you can find in two minutes: the newspaper headline ‘Ugly feud fought on Facebook’. The article tells about a Family Court hearing late last year. At the end it says:
She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them. ‘The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,’ Justice Barry said.
That is just one case that can be found with two minutes of Google research, and yet the minister came into this House and said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth. Do some homework, Minister.
The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): The member will withdraw.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I will withdraw, but I will say that the minister has told an untruth to this parliament. It is clearly not true to say that it is a myth. It is clearly not true to say—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will return to the bill before him.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I am, because the minister has told this House that it is a myth that family violence is misused by people in the Family Court. The fact is that it is not a myth and you can see that from a bit of research. Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers , Dads on the Air , Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men’s Rights and so on.
If we look closely at these groups, there is a common theme. It is a theme that helps explain why this malicious code is being pushed into the act. These are groups set up by fathers. We can talk all we want about custodial parents and non-custodial parents, but
the truth is that most custodial parents are mothers and most non-custodial parents are fathers.
There are no winners in family law. All parents in family law become losers one way or the other, but some who are bigger losers than others. The current act helped to bring some equality to family law. It created the two pillars, one of which recognised the benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These amendments are a backward step. They will strip fathers of their right to be fathers. These amendments will allow abuse of the system that will create another generation of stolen children.
I do not know where the government obtains feedback on the practicalities of family law and family law disputes, but I get my feedback from constituents. I talk to real people who are affected by real situations. I have conversations with fathers who are getting the roughest end of the pineapple. They are grieving fathers who have lost children through the courts. They are devastated and frustrated. They are good men who love their children and want to maintain a relationship with their own flesh and blood—something that should be a basic right.
Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family and, with no support from our legal system, these fathers are driven to despair, driven to the brink of insanity. And if the minister wants to continue her research, she might discover what happens when fathers are placed in a hopeless situation where justice is lost through abuse of the system—which she claims is a myth.
When fathers are driven to insanity, they do insane things. I can, in no way, condone the actions of men who, in the face of losing everything, choose to take everything. They do take their own lives and, very sadly, sometimes in the insanity that they are engulfed in, they take the lives of their children. I note that this is not purely a male response, given that there are numerous examples, including some recent cases, of non-custodial mothers doing the same thing.
Family violence is a terrible thing, but so are the actions of fathers driven to the brink. These amendments will do nothing to stop family violence—we already have good measures in place—but they will drive more fathers to the brink. If these amendments drive fathers to the brink, we should be asking who is at the wheel. Is the Minister for the Status of Women at the wheel? Is the Labor-Greens government at the wheel?
I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.
I note that included with these changes is one that repeals the ‘friendly parent’ provisions from the additional considerations for determining a parenting order. The friendly parent provision encourages amicable behaviour among parents. It fosters friendly relationships with all parties. Most importantly, the friendly parent provision assists a court to meet the first pillar of parenting provisions—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. This provision has helped more fathers maintain meaningful relationships with their children and, at the same time, it has discouraged parents from abusing the system.
But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current act. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter—that being family violence. The broadened definition of ‘family violence’ waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable—precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments.
These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is. (Time expired)
Please show your support to the Nationals MP for Dawson, Mr George Christensen for his brave comments in Parliament against this malicious and hateful piece of legislation that has NOTHING to do with protecting children, and everything to do with gender ideologies.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=485
Family law changes ‘flawed and place children at risk’
More Idiotic Gillard Govt Polcies
THE Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has warned the Gillard government that the changes to family law before parliament would reopen many cases and put children at extra risk by log-jamming the courts and adding stress to families.
The danger in the government’s bill is that the laws can be applied to cases that had largely been heard, Chief Justice Bryant states in a submission to the Senate committee examining the legislation.
The retrospectivity meant any cases that may have been largely heard but not finally decided could be reopened with new evidence, and this could cause delay in the delivery of reasons for judgment.
“Cases involving actual violence or abuse or the risk of harm to children are precisely those cases that need to be brought on quickly, heard in a timely manner and finalised so that appropriate protective arrangements can be put in place,” Chief Justice Bryant said. “It would be most unfortunate indeed if a consequence of the amendments, which are designed to improve responsiveness to family violence, was to place vulnerable children at risk of harm through delay . . ..”
A spokesman for federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said family violence measures would operate prospectively, but might affect matters before the courts that were not finally determined. “The government considers the need to protect children from harm should be the most important consideration,” the spokesman said.
The bill came before parliament after the Gillard government watered down its original proposal, which deleted the shared parenting provision at the centre of the Howard government’s 2006 family law reforms. But the Senate inquiry has exposed more potential flaws.
Under proposed new arrangements, the Family Court will still have to consider whether divorced parents have encouraged a close and continuing relationship between the child and their former partner when awarding custody.
In changes since the first draft of the bill were circulated last November, the definition now contains a general characterisation of harmful behaviour instead of an exhaustive listing.
Family law professor Patrick Parkinson, the architect of the Howard government’s original family law changes, argues the new broad definition of violence is still flawed and could be abused.
In his submission he argues the opening words of the definition require that the behaviour complained of “coerces or controls” a family member. He says this is flawed because it does not say that the person accused of such behaviour needs to have the intention of coercing or controlling.
“It would certainly be problematic if someone could be held to have engaged in ‘violent’ behaviour without intending to do so, because his or her former partner felt coerced or controlled,” Professor Parkinson argues.
He also objects to the requirement in the bill to consider family violence orders, arguing family violence is seen by many as a “weapon in the war between parents”.
“There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes,” he says.
Patricia Karvelas
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/family-law-change-puts-kids-at-extra-risk/story-fn59niix-1226048738629
