Sexual Abuse
Shock as Prosecutors Drop Rape Charge Against Rebecca Helen Elder
PROSECUTORS have surprisingly dropped all charges against a woman accused of orally raping a man.
Rebecca Helen Elder, 39, of Parkside, appeared in the District Court today.
She had previously pleaded not guilty to one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and one count of rape.
Prosecution documents, filed with the court, alleged both offences took place at a suburban house between September 20 and September 23 last year.
They claimed Ms Elder broke into a house while its male occupant was lawfully on the premises.
They further alleged she broke in with the intention of committing a further offence of rape.
Ms Elder was last month ordered to stand trial, during which prosecutors would allege she raped the man by performing an act of oral sex on him without his consent.
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.
Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women
The 2009 Australian project a ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′, was approved for implementation by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Plan, which is split into several parts, puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.
The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement:“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know.”[27-pg1] But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.
Exposing False Allegations – Register-Her.com
Hmm, a US website that publishes the identities of false accusers, for all to see.
This idea may end up being a great, albeit only deterrent to the epidemic of false allegations in the Family Courts.
Given that the Gillard government will soon be encouraging even more false allegations in the Australian Family Court by removing any penalty for perjury, then maybe using the internet to expose the truth may become the only option available to bring some common sense to this rampant crime against innocent parents and children.
I would go one further and ensure that both male and female false accusers to be published, as long as the weight of evidence concludes that they have knowingly made a false allegation.
I see the publication of these moral criminals and child abusers by any other name, as no different to the publication of deadbeat dads that have proliferated across the web, although one would have to consider the necessary safeguards in order to protect minors when child abuse is alleged. This part would have to be thought out carefully.
In any case, if it is good enough to out one form of abuse, then surely it is good enough to out another form.
Perhaps this is an idea that should be explored further for Australia.
SlutWalks, Slammed for Portraying Women as Sexual Objects
LAST year, more than 9,500 reports of alleged sexual and indecent assaults were made to NSW police by both males and females, but hardly any attention was paid by the media when the figures were released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Last month’s SlutWalk in Sydney however had everyone talking about sexual violence against women, says the executive officer of the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, Karen Willis.
”All of a sudden we have sexual assault being discussed,” she said. ”And the more we talk and understand the myths and realities; the more we can develop a better response.”
The SlutWalk phenomenon, held across North America and Europe, is now infamous for the theatricality and hyper-sexualised dress code of the participants. These protests began after a Toronto policeman told students that if they wanted to protect themselves against the likelihood of rape, they should ”avoid dressing like sluts”.
Ms Willis said Reclaim the Night marches held in Australia for 30 years were losing their power to focus attention on sexual assault.
These SlutWalks had reminded people that women should be able to dress any way they like, without concern about how it may affect others.
Many critics however, such as Maiy Azize, a Canberra health and social policy analyst, have decried the walks as another example of women ”defining their sexuality on male terms”.
And Gail Dines, the author of Pornland, said recently during a visit to Australia: ”Men want women to be sluts and now they are buying into it.”
Sonja Hastings, writer and columnist on social policy and gender issues, claimed that these Slutwalks were promoting the idea that women’s rights had become a movement obsessed with Rights, but unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come hand-in-hand with these rights.
Hastings claimed that no one in society had the right to dress as they wanted, without responsible reference to social convention and standards. By way of example, Hastings asked how a mother would feel if Kindergarden teachers exerted their right to dress in sexually provocative clothing while at school?
Hastings refers to this as an example because she laments the recent experience of her 7 year old son who was exposed to a young woman in a shopping center with a skirt so high that her g-string and bottom were fully exposed for all to see, including little children.
Hastings said that although it was a most inappropriate sight for a 7 year old child to witness, who she said was visibly traumatised by the experience, as a mother she felt helpless in this situation because the message from women’s groups has made it clear that women’s rights trumps the rights of other more vulnerable members in our community.
“The message of these SlutWalks seems to prioritise the rights of women to dress in sexually provocative clothing, without any concern as to how such exposure affects all those around them”, she said.
Dr PG Stuart, a GP who has treated numerous victims of sexual abuse, including teens and children, has stated that “in a society that is fighting against the sexualisation of children at a younger and younger age, these SlutWalk movements are perceived by most on-lookers as the acceptance of the sexualisation of all females, rather than a genuine protest against sexual abuse.”
Dr Stuart claims that women have been fighting for a generation not to be seen as sexual objects, and now it seems that these SlutWalks have taken the movement back 50 years by re-inforcing a woman’s identity through the prism of sexualisation.
“Women are much more than this,” she claims, “and we do not need to resort to cheap media stunts while dressed as prostitutes in order to make a potent and responsible protest for the protection of the vulnerable in our society against sexual abuse.”
—
Wear uniquely fabricated women’s skirts and cutting edge women dresses for stylish women clothing.
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 violence”.
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 harm”, 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 Castle”. 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 violence”.
• 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 violence”.
b) The presumption of guilt unless an allegation of “family violence” can be disproved which will be frustrated by the subjective test for “family violence”.
c) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)
False Allegations of Abuse – Submission by Patrick Parkinson on the Family Violence Bill 2011
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. People have bcome very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well.
The view that some family violence order applications are unjustified appears to be shared by state magistrates in New South Wales and Queensland. Hickey and Cumines in a survey of 68 NSW magistrates concerning apprehended violence orders (AVOs) found that 90% agreed that some AVOs were sought as a tactic to aid their case in order to deprive a former partner of contact with the children. About a third of those who thought AVOs were used tactically indicated that it did not occur ‘often’, but one in six believed it occurred ‘all the time’. A similar survey of 38 Queensland magistrates found that 74% agreed with the proposition that protection orders are used in Family Court proceedings as a tactic to aid a parent’s case and to deprive their partner of contact with their children.
In research that our research team recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, almost all solicitors thought that tactical applications for AVOs occurred, with the majority considering it happened often. In another study based upon interviews with 181 parents who have been involved in family law disputes, we found a strong perception from respondents to family violence orders (both women and men) that their former partners sought a family violence order in order to help win their family law case. This is a quote from one of the women in our study. Her former husband, who we also interviewed, sought an apprehended violence order (AVO) to keep her away from the house after she had left it.
She said this:
“I thought this is ridiculous. What’s he giving me an AVO for? I haven’t done anything to him. I haven’t hit him, kicked him. We never had any violence in our marriage. Why have I got an AVO? … you can put an AVO on someone and say that they’re violent, and the only way you can get a child off their mother is because they’re violent. And that’s why I think he gave me the AVO.”
The belief that family violence orders are a weapon in the war between parents is fuelled by the fact that judges are required under the Family Law Act to consider such family violence orders in determining the best interests of the child. The proposed clause in this Bill takes the law back to what it was before 2006, without any explanation for why Parliament should reverse its previous decision at least to limit the provision. It really doesn’t matter whether this belief that family violence orders are used tactically is true or not. The fact is that the perception is out there and it is held by state magistrates and family lawyers, as well as the wider community.
The retention of this provision in the Family Law Act simply fuels the suspicion that family violence orders are being misused.
This is damaging to the credibility of the family violence order system and the courts.The second reason why the requirement to consider family violence orders ought to be removed is that this serves absolutely no purpose. Yes, the court needs to know about the existence of a current family violence order in order to consider how to frame its own orders (s.60CG), but that is dealt with by requiring people to inform the court of such orders (s.60CF). Why consider them again in deciding what is in the best interests of a child (s.60CC(3))? The court is already required to consider the history of violence. What does it add to require the court also to consider a family violence order? The impression given by the legislation is that these orders are somehow evidence that there has been violence. However, that is a misunderstanding.
Family violence orders have absolutely no evidential value in the vast majority of cases. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, they are consented to without admissions. The hearings in these uncontested cases are very brief indeed. Prof. Rosemary Hunter, in observations in Victoria in 1996–97, found that the median hearing time for each application was only about three minutes. Applications were typically dealt with in a bureaucratic manner, with magistrates being distant and emotionally disengaged. To the extent that applicants were asked to give oral evidence, they were typically asked to confirm the content of their written application, and very little exploration of the grounds for the application took place.
Dr Jane Wangmann, in a recent analysis of court files in NSW, reached finding very similar to Hunter’s. In her observations of AVO matters in 2006–7, she found, like Hunter, that cases were dealt with in three minutes or less. She also noted that the information provided in written complaints was brief and sometimes vague. It is hardly surprising, then, that judges in family law cases draw no inferences from the mere existence of a family violence order. This has been the clear view of family lawyers for the last 15 years.
Indeed, in the research we recently published on the views of 40 family lawyers in NSW, none of the lawyers who responded to the question believed that judicial officers gave AVOs much consideration in determining parenting disputes. Judges, they indicate, want to evaluate the evidence of violence itself, not the fact that another court has made an order about it by consent and without admissions.
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2011
Submission to Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
by Prof. Patrick Parkinson, University of Sydney
11% of all Americans Falsely Accused of Abuse, Survey Shows
A national survey of 10,000 Americans reveals 11% report they have been falsely accused of abuse. The first-ever survey of its type probed persons’ first-hand experiences with false allegations of child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual abuse. The study was commissioned by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim advocacy organization.
The survey results headlined a False Allegations Summit, which was held today at the Fairfax Hotel in Washington, DC.
Conducted May 2-4, 2011, the survey also found 15% of respondents personally knew someone who has been falsely accused of abuse. In 81% of the cases the falsely accused person was a male, and in 70% of cases the false alleger was a female. Twenty-six percent of the wrongful accusations were made in the context of a child custody dispute.
“This survey shows tens of millions of Americans have been falsely accused of abuse,” explains SAVE spokesperson Natasha Spivack. “These persons were stamped with the scarlet Abuser label, leaving them to wonder whatever happened to the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’”
The Summit featured statements by leading stakeholder organizations, including the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Home School Legal Defense Association, American Coalition for Fathers and Children, National Coalition for Men, and Encounters International.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers statement spotlighted the “immense, often irreparable harm caused to our clients by false allegations, not only to reputation and personal relationships, but often to the accused individual’s livelihood and even heath.”
The Summit also included the emotion-wrought testimonies by four victims of false allegations of abuse.
The False Allegations Summit is being held in the wake of a recent Washington Post front-page article about Sean Lanigan, a local school teacher who was falsely accused of sexual molestation by a 12-year-old student. The article triggered editorial commentaries and citizens’ expressions of disbelief and outrage.
The full survey results can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/false-allegations-awareness-month/survey-results/. The False Allegations Summit is the kick-off to False Allegations Awareness Month in June. More information on the observance can be found here: http://www.saveservices.org/false-allegations-awareness-month/.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner abuse: www.saveservices.org.
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
Female teacher arrested for having sex with five students
A 27 year old married teacher with three children, has been jailed after being accused of having sex with five of her students during an orgy at her home.
Police said Brittni Nicole Colleps also exchanged sexually-explicit text and picture messages with the students prior to her arrest.
Brittni Colleps, invited the boys to her home for the sex romp and the encounter was filmed on their cell phones.
The 27-year-old’s husband was away overseas on duty serving with the US military.
Colleps, an English teacher and girl’s basketball coach, faces up to ten years in jail after being charged with five felony counts of inappropriate relationships between a student and a teacher.
Although all five of the teens involved with Colleps were 18 years of age or older, Texas law prohibits sex between a teacher and a student, regardless of the student’s age.
According to a police arrest warrant affidavit, the investigation into Colleps began after a 19-year-old student told investigators about his sexual relationship with his English teacher.
The student told police the relationship began with sexually explicit text messages and photos that they sent to each other for about a week in late April.
Later that month the student drove to Colleps home in Arlington, Texas where they had sex.
He later received a text message from the teacher saying they ‘had fun’ and an invite back to the house.
When he arrived there were four other students from Kennedale High School present and they told police they all had sex with Colleps.
When police analyzed the teen’s phone they found video footage of him and Colleps having sex. They also found sexually explicit photos and text messages the pair had sent each other.
Police later interviewed a second student who said he was present when the sex romp took place.
School officials learned about the teacher’s alleged relationships and put her on leave with pay.
Schools Superintendent Gary Dugger posted a letter on the school’s website saying that the district was cooperating with investigators.
‘As the alleged acts occurred off campus, once Kennedale ISD personnel were put on notice, immediate action was taken,’ the letters says.
Colleps is being held in the Arlington jail on $125,000 bail after turning herself into police on Monday.
Ms Colleps could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 if convicted.
