Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Family Law and Family Violence: Band-aid For A Gaping Wound

According to the Herald-Sun, the chief Justice of Australian Family Court has proposed changing laws on mediation privacy. The current reasonable grounds for a practitioner to even suspect child abuse reflects the ongoing negligence towards victims of family violence. In fact the law is more tailored towards protecting perpetrators.

67ZA Where member of the Court personnel, family counsellor, family dispute resolution practitioner or arbitrator suspects child abuse etc.

(3) If the person has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a child:

(a) has been ill treated, or is at risk of being ill treated; or

(b) has been exposed or subjected, or is at risk of being exposed or subjected, to behaviour which psychologically harms the child;

"Ill treated" is not defined in the current family law act. This opens the floodgates for pseudo-abuse allegations where a protective parent is deemed abusive for discontinuing visits with the perpetrator.
"Psychological harm" refers often to parent alienation syndrome - A diagnosis that has never been scientifically recognized and largely rejected by the scientific community. The DSM committee has just recently rejected another call for its inclusion. It is no wonder when the creator of this syndrome promoted pedophilia and other abuses whilst deemed the protective parent as unstable.

So Australian Family courts are directed to pursue and punish the abused, than to protect them. The transfer of information is rather more of a compilation of pseudo evidence against the parent who wishes to protect the child. This is in reality about the avoidance of accountability so that the victim will be so traumatized and and entrenched in the pro-abuse culture, that there is little chance the victim will take legal action against the court. Protective parents also bring in far more revenue than the abuser as they are more likely to continue litigation providing court staff with a guaranteed financial future at the expense of a few deaths.
If you want help stop abuse in the family courts, click here.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Born Again Father

Photo by flickrolf
An ex - mens group member speaks out.
When "John" loss contact he was devastated. He tried every avenue that was available to him with no success. "Joining mens groups seemed like the only thing I could do and feel as though I was doing something worthy". "John" attended meetings and reached out to others that felt the same pain. Some were still in mourning, while others channeled their anger into retribution.
After joining, his friends noticed that he started to change. " I knew him for years and I never saw him speak down to women, but after joining this mens group - he became irritable and domineering to our female friends". One day after a meeting, John bumped into a close female friend who was going through family violence and divorce. Despite being covered in bruises, he told her that she should return. "This was so unlike John, I had to do something", recalled his best friend.

His best friend who also wishes to be unnamed, took him to meet a member of cult survivors. Whilst the mens group that John had joined was not religious, it resembled somepolitical cults that alienated their members from the rest of the world. Divided between two perceptions of how he was influenced by this group, he decided to question the leader about some of the information he was giving to the members. That was when the trouble started. He began to receive threatening phone calls and was accused of being a "feminazi". "I had to pack up and leave". Gathering his possessions, he moved far away from where the group was based and started yet again.

With the support of his friends and professional counselling, John was able to start again. John felt that he didn't have enough room in his life for another relationship, but still felt a sense of emptiness. "Have you ever thought about fostering? There are lots of kids out there that would love to have a caring guy like you around?" suggested his counselor in their closing session. After screening and foster care training, John began taking kids in for respite care. He joined a carer network to swap strategies and connect with others who understood. He would care for young people who had no safe place to go and began to see them heal. After two years of being a respite foster carer, he has never looked back. "Its challenging, I have had holes in the walls and things go missing - but nothing compared to celebrating their achievements that we never even dreamed of when they started, worth more than gold".
If you would like to find out more about fostering children in Australia, click here.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Tony Abbott: The Marriage Mafia

The polls have gone up in support of Tony Abbott, a sign of a troubled country. If the Australian Labour Party was not so diluted on the shared parenting laws, Labour would be taking the lead far away from Abbott. So what are Tony Abbotts plans?
Tony Abbott wants to:
  1. Make Divorce hard
  2. Choose who gets married
  3. Chastise Women
  4. Stop Abortions
In general, Tony Abbott is referred to as a conservative. In reality, what he intends on imposing is authoritarian. Australian human rights will be at an all time low.
Some of the other atrocities Mr Abbott plans are:
  1. Death Penalty
  2. Runaway Greenhouse effect
  3. Create more Slush Funds
Steven Fielding
Stephen fielding doesn't believe that everyone has the right to be married as basic human rights are set out. He believes that only heterosexual couples should be married. He has even compared gay marriage to incest. In case there are complaints, he is also one of the key ministers that has actively supported internet censorship. Senator Fielding was also a supporter of the shared parenting bill which resulted in thousands of children being exposed to family violence which was ordered by the Australian Family courts giving victims little escape. As for children of todays families having a future at all, Stephen fielding is also a climate change denier.
One shared parenting recipient used it to throw his daughter off the west gate bridge. Attempts to censor this case was foiled as worldwide coverage exposed tot he public that children were being forced by the courts into violent and dangerous situations.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The Shared Parenting Council is bias

Although news coverage on family law is relatively low, but mostly in the favour of fathers. The Shared Parenting Council of Australia claims to represent fathers and mothers. Pay attention to some details and this organisation represents fathers:

    Michael Green QC

    Vice President (1)
    Barry Williams
    [Lone Fathers Association Australia]

    Vice President(2)
    Coral Slattery
    [Family Law Reform Association NSW]

    Vice President (3)
    Greg cairns (Retired)

    Vice President (4)
    Terry Bowker
    [Reliable Parent's Inc]

    Executive Secretary
    Wayne Butler
    Mobile: 0411 850 677

    Federal Director
    Edward Dabrowski
    Mobile: 0409 917 345

    State Director (QLD)
    Peter Marsh

    State Director (NSW)
    Tevor Bock

    State Director (VIC)
    Lindsay Jackel

    State Director (SA)

    State Director (WA)
    Joan Hopkins
    Telephone: 08 9474 9552

    State Director (TAS)

    Territory Director (ACT)
    Jim Carter
    [Lone Fathers Association Australia]

    Territory Director (NT)

Friday, February 12, 2010

Should the Shared Parenting Law be Changed?

A recent report released by professor Chisholm revealing that a number of children are at risk and consequently recommended changes in the shared parenting law. Mens groups are angered by the recommendation, whilst children's groups champion the notion.
But should the law revolve around mens rights? Are mens rights violated and if so how are they more violated than children's rights or say victims of domestic violence which make up a majority of women?
Professor Chisholm proposed in the report to consider the merit of involvement that the parent had before separation but omitted any reference to mothers and fathers. So why are mens groups claiming that they would lose contact? Where a parent would lose contact in Chisolms recommendations is where there are substantiated findings of family violence. So what do mens groups really want?
According to Kathryn Joyce, in America, mens groups have become frighteningly effective where they have managed to block domestic violence laws. The question remains, how effective will they be in Australia?